24 June 2005

Karl Rove Remarks

TCR offers these two quotes juxtaposed, without comment. I certainly concur that they speak for themselves.

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.

--Karl Rove 6/22/05

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

--Hermann Goering 4/18/46, during the Nürnberg trials


  1. every time i think they can't go any lower, they can. i cannot think of any group that's been in power in this country that is less American than these people. they have absolutely no shame--which, of course, is how they've stayed in power.

  2. For the entire UNEDITED speech: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400097.html

    For commentary on why Rove was on the money: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006878
    citing Andrew Sullivan and the petition by moveon.org immediately after 9-11.

    There must be some confusion in the liberal agenda. Don't you know that liberals are really "tough" terrorist fighters who took insult at Rove's comments? Heaven forbid Rove be correct in his characterization of liberals for what they really are. Actually I like "progressive" better. It sounds more in tune with the policy of never having to look back and admit when you were wrong which is far closer to the liberal/progressive practice. I am curious as to how long the progressive crowd can keep saying that the conservatives are fascists in the face of Supreme Court rulings that force the sale of private property, continue to consolidate power in the government and rip the Constituion to shreds. Sounds like a case of projection to me.

  3. The article cited by anonymous could hardly be more specious. It equates support for the current War in Iraq with resolve to combat the perpetrators of 9/11, when the historical record is entirely clear that there is no connection whatsoever. It also equates a call for moderation by moveon.org, which explicitly refers to the danger of confusing the terrorists with the nations from which they originated, with calls for "therapy," and other such nonsense. Plus, it equates the views of a small minority, moveon.org, as then constituted, with "liberals," notwithstanding the fact that the Senate in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, (then a more liberal body than today) voted 98-0 to support the administration in taking decisive action to combat the perpetrators of the attacks. This kind of rhetoric is inflammatory and divisive. The Bush administration has no credibility at all in the call, which this President will undoubtedly make tonight, for unity and setting aside of differences, when its attack dog makes remarks tantamount to calling half the electorate disloyal.

    The Radical Conservatives have gone too far, though, as they will find out in the next few elections. Their zenith is behind them.

  4. Greatl...amazing, i was looking for something like this and i found it..thank you car rent in pune


Gyromantic Informicon. Comments are not moderated. If you encounter a problem, please go to home page and follow directions to send me an e-mail.