ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Thursday, June 23, 2005

My Goosestepping Puppet Master, Herr Grüppenfuhrer Rove

I HAVE GOT to defend my puppet master (aka Karl Rove) here, but I can't find the full text of the speech he gave, just the snippet that has the MSM and the Dems' panties in a bind.



From what I've been instructed told, Herr Grüppenfuhrer Rove was referring to a MoveOn.Org petition that was signed by 700,000 US citizens and presented to Congress to argue AGAINST going to war in Afghanistan.

Here's a snippet of the petition verbage from Peter Beinart, that ueber righty... (NOT!):

PETER BEINART RESPONDS:

Wes Boyd and Joan Blades write that I am "simply wrong to state that MoveOn opposed the war in Afghanistan." But the petition MoveOn circulated after September 11 speaks for itself. It demands that the United States: ["support justice, not escalating violence. To combat terrorism, we must act in accordance with a high standard that does not disregard the lives of people in other countries. If we retaliate by bombing Kabul and kill people oppressed by the Taliban dictatorship who have no part in deciding whether terrorists are harbored, we become like the terrorists we oppose."]

By any reasonable standard, that is opposition to war in Afghanistan. War, by definition, does not end "the cycle of violence." And any military action that avoided "bombing Kabul" would have left the deeply interwoven Taliban-Al Qaeda regime in power. Had the United States done as MoveOn counseled, we might have avoided killing Afghan civilians. But prolonged Taliban-Al Qaeda rule would surely have killed many more while threatening American lives as well. It is this insistence on absolute American purity, and the refusal to make real world moral tradeoffs, that produces the practical hostility to U.S. power that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. termed in The Vital Center "doughface" progressivism.

Here's what Rove said (at least, the only part that's quoted ANYWHERE):
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. [...]

Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Now, let's "deconstruct" the statement (as my post-modernist friends on the left would say). Libs such as John Kerry WERE arguing that the War On Terror was primarily one of Law Enforcement and they even had a TRACK RECORD of handling terrorism in this manner (see WTC bombing in 1993, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, etc, etc).

As far as therapy was concerned, I don't think the libs wanted to give therapy to our enemies. HOWEVER, they certainly were in the sobbing, introspective, let's have a perpetual mourning of the event and maybe it'll all just go away. And they kept asking "WHY DO THEY HATE US?!?!" or out and out saying that 9/11 was "chickens coming home to roost" and that we deserved it. It was when we decided to take action and send in brave souls such as my brother-in-law that the liberals progressives got ticked... How DARE YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!! The "cycle of violence!! The Arab Street!!! UNILATERALIST!!"

So, I'm waiting for Rove HQ to send me the transcript... and will post in full. Also, apparently Herr Grüppenfuhrer Rove will be on Scarborough Country tonight, so be sure to tune in. He'll be sure to expand on what he said.

So, yeah... sure... it's like Durbin. Except that Herr Grüppenfuhrer Rove has some factual evidence to back up his claim. Durbin just has his tears and blubbering.

***UPDATE***
CQB has the text of the MoveOn.Orger's petition.
UPDATE & BUMP TO TOP: I got this from anonymous CQ readers. Why did Rove say the liberal response was to beg for moderation and restraint? Perhaps it has to do with MoveOn.org and its petition drive less than 48 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (emphases mine):
Petition 1: "We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction."

It could also have been these quotes:

- Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: "I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming."

- Al Sharpton, 12/1/02, New York Times, on the 9/11 attacks: "America is beginning to reap what it has sown."

- Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown."

Have the Democrats actually retracted any of these statements? It sounds to me like truth is an absolute defense for Rove.

More facts for alll of you reason-challenged lefties.

ARC: Brian adds:
This truly illustrates the genius of Karl Rove. Dick Durbin was out of the news cycle. His "apology" had played its course, and by Monday, it would have been over. Forgotten in the news cycle.

So Karl goes out, makes an obvious targeted statement (including the magic searchable phrase used in the original MoveOn.org petition, "beg for moderation and restraint") and practically begs the democratic leadership to throw him into the briar patch.

They of course, blinded by their partisanship, jump right in with both feet. Now the weekend news cycle (or longer?) will be dominated by calls for Karl Rove to resign, and the comparison of what he said to what Durbin said.

They have two options:
1. Defend Durbin and the 9/10 attitude they've advocated all along: "close Gitmo; indict terrorists, dont make war with them; why are we hated, etc". Basically "defend" MoveOn.org.

or

2. Tack to the right and a pro-war stance. Avoid talk about Durbin, establish national security credentials, etc. Basically disavow MoveOn's stance. This provides Bush cover for the abuse issues, Iraq insurgency, etc.

Either way, the debate is now on a 9/10 vs. post-9/11 stance.

***UPDATE***
PostWatch compares the media treatment, particularly by the WaPo, of Durbin vis-a-vis Rove. Great stuff... And concurs with ARC: Brian's assessment.

***UPDATE***
And let's not forget ueber-Lefty Richard Gere's words DURING A FRIGGIN CONCERT in Madison Square Garden to honor the firefighters and police at the World Trade Center!!!
"In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who's suffering. [But we must also think about] the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It's all of our jobs too keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see [the terrorists] as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better."


Or any quote documented on this webpage.

California Conservative on the topic

***Further Update ***
Looks like Jonah came to the same conclusion I did... just a day later... It's nice to have company like that. Course his writing is much clearer than my rantings... :-)

ARC: Brian

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler