But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and 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. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”
First of all, Rove was deliberately trying to characterize all liberals, not just MoveOn.org as the administration is now spinning, as being weak on the terrorists. Secondly, MoveOn.org is not the voice of all liberals, it’s just one group, like all the conservative groups.
Here is what the actual petition said. Alittle different that Rove portrayed it:
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
A MoveOn.org Petition Called On World Leaders To “Use Moderation And Restraint In Responding To” Terrorist Attacks. “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.”
I’m not sure why this is particularly noteworthy. The whole thing about liberals being weak on defense was a big part of the strategy in the presidential election. It was why Jo.Ke. started trumpeting his Vietnam experience, to overcome that label. And why are we to be upset about Rove using one example to characterize all liberals?? That same type of labeling is used on both sides of the political spectrum. It’s just political business as usual. Gee, if I had a dime for everytime I saw one of you guys throw around that “fundamentalist” label …
And why are we to be upset about Rove using one example to characterize all liberals??
Because he’s using 9/11 to divide us and he’s trying to mis-protray liberals as wanting to allow the terrorists to go free, which as we know was completely untrue.
There are legitimate areas to draw the distinctions between conservatives & liberals, but using 9/11 is wrong. He did this in his speech.
Democrat’s have always be protrayed as being weak on defense, even though it’s not totally true. Kerry was just trying to make sure that wasn’t an issue.
Because he’s using 9/11 to divide us and he’s trying to mis-protray liberals as wanting to allow the terrorists to go free, which as we know was completely untrue.
Rove was speaking to a conservative group, so how could it be aimed at dividing “us?” The people that publicize these remarks and make a big deal out of this seem to be making a much stronger effort at dividing people. If would be much different if we were talking about somebody making inflammatory statements in front of Congress.
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 24 2005,18:01)
There are legitimate areas to draw the distinctions between conservatives & liberals, but using 9/11 is wrong. He did this in his speech.
I’m seeing a lot of people still trying to suggest a Republican conspiracy in regard to 9/11 (does Michael Moore’s name ring a bell?). Surely these people are wrong too? I don’t remember seeing you post your objections about those people.
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 24 2005,18:01)
Democrat’s have always be protrayed as being weak on defense, even though it’s not totally true. Kerry was just trying to make sure that wasn’t an issue.
I’ll say. It was so over-the-top, I didn’t even hear it…
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Rove was speaking to a conservative group, so how could it be aimed at dividing “us?” The people that publicize these remarks and make a big deal out of this seem to be making a much stronger effort at dividing people. If would be much different if we were talking about somebody making inflammatory statements in front of Congress.
Makes sense to me… I mean he was “rallying the troops” right? What would he be expected to say?
Heh, I am paranoid myself. Here in Columbus we have what is known as COmFest which is 3 days of party put on by volunteers. it is a huge event in town. There is every type of zealot you can imagine there from vegans doing the whole meat is murder complete with fake blood to women protesting discrimination against breast feeding by going topless. I mean, it is a wild time and everyone should go once in their life. You also have everyone and their brother their trying to get names for ballot initiatives. I am a paranoid little monkey in that associating my name with that stuff, even if I beleive in it, kinda scares me. I am happy to vote where I am an anonymus party, but I dunno… who knows who will dig up what… For instance, there was one ballot initiative they were trying to get on about abortion. 10 foot pole time. I didn’t even stop to see which way they were leaning or what they were trying to do. You could sign the thing with the intention of either I want it on the ballot so I can vote for or against it, but man, I ain’t touchin that thing with my name being public because it can be twisted so many ways.
Bubba, think about what you have just said. I know many, many people feel the same way. That is, they are afraid to say what they think about things, and afraid to act on their beliefs, even by doing something as insignificant as signing to get something on a ballot.
We are afraid to exercise what is not just a democratic right, but a democratic duty.
That is significant.
Speak out and criticize what you think it wrong, and support what you think is right, otherwise the corrupt power elite on both sides will have a field day.
No, but the topless thing ain’t all it is cracked up to be. You would think something like that would be a site to see, err, not on some of these folks.
But think about it Bubba - I’m not saying you need to speak out more - but it is a wisespread attitude - many many people fear actually offering any criticism lest they get targeted by the FBI, etc. That is a stunning concession of power. It indicates a very deep flaw in the system. I mean, it’s the sort of thing that we associate with the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany.
No, but the topless thing ain’t all it is cracked up to be. You would think something like that would be a site to see, err, not on some of these folks.
Sorry Bubba, but I can’t agree with you there.
(And by the way Tom, I’m not trying to detract from your very valid point, nor am I attempting to trivialise the vital importance of what you’re saying, but at the end of the day, moral courage is moral courage, but tits is tits! ).
Anyway Bubba…
I disagree.
There’s good boobs, and there’s better boobs, but there ain’t no such thing as bad boobs.
I have to admit, it didn’t exactly make my day either. It just goes to show that whatever someone’s point there’s info on the web that irrefutably says they are dead wrong if someone searches google enough.
Let’s start some stupid false rumors and see how long it takes someone to put a website dedicated to those “facts”.
