In reality, Rove wasn't using the 9-11 tragedy to "reap political gain." Rather, he was contrasting the starkly different reactions of those on opposite ends of the political spectrum to those attacks. Are politicians not allowed to use the term "September 11" in speeches, lest they be accused of attempting to reap political gain?

You are kidding right?

No, David, I'm not kidding. I assume you take issue with my description of what Rove said. Why?

Becuase Rove has never uttered a word that was not political and meant to push an agenda. Read my latest post, "All about Blowback"

Well, David, whether or not what Rove said was political is another matter entirely. Of course it was political, as is everything he says, which can be said of most any politician or political advisor. I agree with you on that. However, I don't agree that he "politicized 9-11" as the FOS11 letter states. He did what every single politician, advisor and pundit does - he pointed out the different reactions to 9-11 from the opposing party. I don't happen to think that is a "divisive" thing to do or a tasteless thing to do, regardless of who does it. I think it's fair game and, unfortunately, it can't be addressed without using the term "September 11." Pointing out well-documented responses by politically active organizations or politicians is not, in my opinion, attempting to "reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others."

I take it you dont live in New York? I also take it you have selective memory, or perhaps amnesia, as some of you from the Right seem to convienantly forget how Our Government stood arm in Arm in the wake of 9/11 and overwhelmingly approved action against Afghanistan. I also take it that you see no problem with lumping every single Liberal in America into the pacifist camp as Rove did.
Well, you are mistaken, because I am a Liberal, and I and everyone I know was looking for some payback after 9/11.
What Rove said was ridiculous, and quoting a few far left organizations or taking the quotes of a few politicians, at times out of context, to excuse his remarks is a slap in the face to every American Liberal who believes in Justice for our victims of 9/11, and every Liberal Leaning service man and woman who is putting their life on the line. Something Rove apparently found inconvienant during Vietnam, as I recall, his comment was he had, "more important things to do." Rove is a disgrace, his comments are disgraceful, and there is a rising tide in America that says ENOUGH is ENOUGH!

No, I don't live in New York. I understand you don't like Rove. That's fine, many don't. However, you shouldn't let your dislike of the man cloud your thoughts. You're bashing a political advisor for being POLITICAL. Isn't that what politicians do....compare reactions, votes, proposals, etc. between themselves and their opponents? That is fair game in ANY political contest, regardless of how you or I feel about what is highlighted. If that isn't the case, there would be no discussion, debate or anything else between politicians, would there?

I don't have amnesia. Neither do the majority of Americans who know full well that the organizations Rove cited are the largest donators to the Democrat Party. Moveon.org and Soros - pacifists with whom liberals are always lumped - to a large extent, control that party's purse strings. You might not think what they said or did immediately after 9-11 was important, but many Americans will and rightly so. The statements Rove quoted, whether we like it or not, were posted on the internet on September 12, 2001. Those quotes weren't taken out of context. I would suggest that if someone doesn't want to be lumped into any category with that organization, they had better become more pro-active in disassociating themselves from it. Silence hasn't worked, has it?

This discussion borders on ludicrous. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I was going to say I find it odd that none of those on the Right who loudly proclaim the rightness of Rove's words are addressing the feelings of the 9/11 families or the countless thousands of service men and women who sighned up after 9/11. But as an afterthought, I dont find it odd at all. In a rush to justify odious comments and the continuing divisiveness of YOUR administration, you just dont care.

I guess so, David. Agree to disagree. I'll just state that what I find ridiculous is this idea that no politician can mention 9-11 without being accused of politicizing it or using the dead as a way to advance their agenda. The most tragic and memorable event in the past 50+ years and it isn't supposed to be mentioned by politicians? I'm sorry. That is ludicrous. I mean, think about it...what do politicians - ALL OF THEM - do if not push their agenda at all times? In essence, they're all being told that bringing up 9-11 is taboo. It shouldn't be that way. The divisiveness crown can be worn by many on both sides of the aisle. It's sad that some are past the point of accepting or seeing that reality. Have a good night, David. I'm out for the night. Nice blogsite, BTW.

I read this discourse with interest. I can certainly see both sides of the debate, however, I would add that by both sides speaking out, the right in support of the War on Terror and to a somewhat larger extent, the left in opposition to, at the very least, the war in Iraq, aren't all of the victims of 9/11 being given a voice?

I mean, if one side was speaking out and the other side was silent, David might have a point that not all victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks would agree, but the fact that both sides are discussing the issue from both points of view, insures that all 9/11 victims are, indeed, having their voices heard. What could possibly be wrong with that? It is unreasonable, in my opinion, to expect that the date of September 11, 2001 should never be invoked again in political discussions as it was a major turning point for our Nation regarding National security issues.

I see that my point is still being missed. The issue is not whether 9/11 should somehow be off limits as part of the National Discourse. The issue is whether at least HALF of America should be painted with the same BROAD brush in order to make a partisan political point.

I do not dispute the fact that there were those following 9/11 who would not have chosen War as our response to that attrocity. They were I believe in the Minority. My point has been and continues to be, that it is the hight of hypocrisy to paint every American who defines themselves as Liberal, as someone who felth that the appropriate response to 9/11 was legal prosecution rather than the prosecution of war.

It is also disengenous to use our oppossition to the War in Iraq as some sort of indication of unwillingness or lack of desire to see those punished who were responsible for 9/11.

Americans are slowly coming to terms with the fact that they have nothing to do with each other, and I would wager that eventually, People are going to start asking questions about why we spent 200 Plus Billion Dollars to put Saddam in Jail, while the person responsible for 9/11 runs a Recording and TV Studio in the Mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

And Tish, thank you for dropping in, and for your kind compliments on the Blog!

David, I read your beginning argument and I took it to mean that there should be no discussion of 9/11 by any politician. I apologize if I misunderstood what you meant by your statement "By definition the conduct is divisive and, because it is intended to be self-serving and politicizes 9/11, it is offensive. We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others."

I too grow tired of the generalizations made by many, it is a temptation to all, however, including myself. You have even engaged in a little of it in some of your postings tonight, I noticed. I think that each of us is an individual with a unique voice.

I'm not sure that I understand your statement that "Americans are slowly coming to terms with the fact that they have nothing to do with each other..." regarding 9/11 and Iraq. I have never thought that they were connected. Ah, regarding that vast right wing conspiracy, there is some truth to it that the 9/11 attacks set the stage for garnering support for the war in Iraq but it is as an action in the War against terrorism, not because of the 9/11 attacks, if Americans are only now slowly realizing that it could only be because they haven't been making an effort to inform themselves, because that information has been long known. I have had many debates with people on "the left" who claim that at some point the Bush administration tied Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, that is simply not the case and none of those debaters I have engaged on the left could ever provide any evidence of that claim.

Jake, sorry to say, but you are dead wrong on that last comment. Bush just used 9/11 last week to justify the war in Iraq. And he has repeatedly done so, subtle inferences in most cases, but nonetheless, he, Rice and Cheney have on more than one occassion implied it or outright stated that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda. I am too tired tonight to google this, but I am almost certain that some of my readers will supply links.

Being the anal retentive that I am, David, I'm going to call you on your statement, "at least HALF of America should be painted with the same BROAD brush in order to make a partisan political point" defies the facts.

The election last year shows that certainly somewhat less than HALF of America is Liberal.

Dick Durbin twisted facts (Texas translation: "lied") to make a political point at the expense of people who volunteered to fight and die for their country. While you've mentioned it Durbin's utterly vapid statements, your outrage over Rove's comments belies a much greater concern for your pacifist Liberal brethren than people who volunteer to die for their country.

THAT I find ludicrous.

But I still love you, man.

"The election last year shows that certainly somewhat less than HALF of America is Liberal."

Boyd, that statement is inaccurate. Not everyone who voted for Kerry is Liberal. Just as not everyone that voted for Bush is Conservative. And, not every Democrat is Liberal. Just as not every Republican is Conservative.

Also, not all Liberals are pacifists. Just as not all Conservatives are warmongers.

No, dear David, I do not think I am wrong, you or another are welcome to try to prove it, however, your own statement that they were "subtle inferences in most cases" is what most of the debaters I have been involved with have insisted is evidence.

Further, don't misunderstand my comments, I am not making the claim that various factions of the Bush Administration have not stated that there have been ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, however, that is not the same as saying that they had those ties bound in the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. Can you see that difference? Even the 9/11 Commission Chairman was surprised at the fuss made over their conclusion that there was no evidence, at the time of its release, to tie them together regarding 9/11 because it was not meant to suggest that there were not ties between the two entities on other occasions. I can provide a quote from the Chairman at a later date if you would like, I'm going to have to clear out for the night myself. Sincerely.

Rogue, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. Suffice it to say that less than half of America felt confident in the political Left's agenda. I think the question needs to be why, not "How stupid can they be," which is what I have been reading off and on since November of '04.

To David: I know, I said I was out for the night and here I am. Okay, I guess I lied. :)

Your main problem is that Rove painted the entire political left with such a broad brush. My question is, why shouldn't he have? With the left either remaining silent or, at times, giving outright approval of the antics of Moveon.org, Soros and others, never bothering to condemn their actions and using the same rhetoric much of the time, there is an association in America's mind, right or wrong. Thus, what needs to be discussed is what is the best way to disassociate so that America doesn't view the entire Left, or all liberals, as part and parcel of those organizations, or vice versa.

What Angel said Boyd. Hehe. And I love you too man. Hehe. Have missed ya too.

And Tish, what is it with you Righties always insisting that we dissassociate ourselves from some nonsence? LOL! You guys are funny that way. I remember the big dust up over Senator Lott a couple of years ago longing for the days of Dixie. I would have thought it ludicrous for me to expect Boyd or Stephen or one of my other Right Wing friends to dissassociate themselves from something that idiot said. Likewise, I dont "expect," anyone on the Right to dissassociate themselves from Rove. I am simply stating my opinion on the subject and pointing out that for those who are always wanting us to disassociate ourselves from Dean, Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, Fill in the Blank.... I think the silence or outright support of Rove's comments are at best dissengenous, and at worst, hypocritical.

Jacke, after reading the letter from FOS11, I, too, felt as though they were demanding that no politician discuss 9-11 which is why I responded. I read Rove's speech and, in reality, he didn't speak much OF 9-11. In the most controversial sections of his speech, he compared the reactions of groups he termed "conservatives" and "liberals." If merely mentioning 9-11 by anyone in political circles compels this kind of letter from the FOS11, I don't see how anyone could understand it any differently than did you or I.

David, G'morning. :)

In reference to your comment: "The issue is whether at least HALF of America should be painted with the same BROAD brush in order to make a partisan political point."

Can you not see that this happens on both sides of the aisle, right or wrong? Look at recent events, such as Dean painting with a very broad brush all Republicans as white Christians who have mostly never done an honest day of work in their lives. I hadn't discovered your blogsite at that time, but did you exhibit outrage over those remarks? What about when he recently suggested that hotel workers were the only blacks who would have been in the room were it Republicans having a meeting instead of Democrats, implying, as always, that Republicans are racists? Did you see that broad brush, by chance?

This isn't an anti-Dean rant, merely instances which demonstrate that both sides wield broad brushes and aren't afraid to use them. LOL

Broad brushes do not offend me too often because I've come to expect them from all parties. What did offend me in this particular instance is what seemed to be an attempt to prevent politicos from uttering or referencing 9-11 at any time by the FOS11.

For a little irony....after chiding Rove for doing what all politicians/pundits do and telling of your outrage for being painted with a broad brush, you sent this: "And Tish, what is it with you Righties always insisting that we dissassociate ourselves from some nonsence? LOL! You guys are funny that way."

Perhaps you should put down your broad brush as an example for everyone else to follow? :)

If you recall the Lott incident, then you will recall that he was held over the fire for his comments, which I didn't, and don't, characterize as "longing for the days of Dixie." Your broad Republicans-R-Racist brush is talking there. At any rate, he was removed from his leadership position. When will this ever happen on the other side of the aisle?

Your main problem is that Rove painted the entire political left with such a broad brush. My question is, why shouldn't he have?

Because it paints an inaccurate picture, just as Boyd's statement did. It is like saying all blacks wear their pants around their knees. All rednecks have sex with their sisters. Everyone in the south is racist. All Russians are communists. All Republicans are Christians. White men can't jump.

I would prefer if our politicians would at least attempt to look like they are telling the truth instead of telling blatant lies and contributing to the political divide in this country.

His comments are also extremely insulting to all the Liberals/Democrats who have fought and died for this country, who died in 9/11, and who continue to serve as we speak. Partisan politics should take a backseat when serving "we the people" and Liberals/Democrats are "we the people" just as much as Conservatives. The Constitution doesn't divide us and it never intended for our public officials to do so either.

You have no disagreement from me on that, Rogue. I would submit, however, that painting inaccurate pictures is something politicians and their advisors have ALWAYS done. It isn't going to end any time soon and it would be disengenuous to blame one side more than another or to pretend this practice only began under this administration. Is that fair to say, in your opinion?

I am not offended by broad brushes, as stated before, because they are to be expected. It would be great if they didn't exist, but history and reality don't point to that ever happening.

Lol...broad brushes, bigotry, the constant search for hypocrisy by "the other side" of what ever issue each of us is on, is intended to...what? What is the motive for such argument? "Can't we just all get along???" Heh, heh. It's a human condition and in my view, in the end can serve but one purpose...the silencing of the other side. Example: Richard Durbin compares our military at Guantanomo Bay to Nazis and Pol Pot and compares their actions as being administered in the same style as Soviet gulags. The outrage is palpable! AS IT SHOULD BE! How do the left, liberals, Democrats, et al, react? The silence is deafening...then along comes Rove to make a statement regarding the different mindsets of conservatives vs liberals, as pertains to National Security, and as an example he cites the holy name of the 9/11 terrorist attacks *gasp* how dare he utter such words in a partisan manner!? All of a sudden those who could not be more mute on the subject of Richard Durbin are tripping over their tongues to express outrage over Rove's comment!? If not to draw attention away from Richard Durbin's outrageous and erroneous comparison, in an effort to silence "the other side" by calling for an apology, what purpose would it have? Open your eyes people, it's a game, but, NO, it can't be treated as such because the stakes are too high! Durbin's comments are being utilized as a recruitment tool by our enemy! What have Rove's comments done? Hurt your widdle baby feelings? See the difference? Get a grip.

Morning gang. Tish, let me just say the Righties comment was a joke. As for Dean, go to my Politics section and you will see my opinion on him. I think I have just about said, and elaborated all I can on this point. It has been a great discussion, but I have nothing to add. As I said, we will just have to agree to dissagree.

For the record, your response didn't refute my comments in any way, and I agree with them entirely, Angel.

I'll say it again in a little different way: Clearly, somewhat less than half Americans are Liberal. By the same token, somewhat less than half of Americans are Conservative.

IMNSHO, the largest chunk of Americans are neither Liberal nor Conservative; they don't give two shits for things political, and let the political world swirl around them, leading them where it will.

Thanks for the great discussion, David. I appreciate your time. Have a good one. :)

No, Thank you Tish! This has been a great discussion. Browse around, I am sure you will find other topics to talk about, and we welcome intelligent discussion. Don't we Boyd?

Sorry, busy weekend, haven't been able to keep up.

Yes, quite a few folks 'round these parts like intelligent discussion. Then again, there are some others... :)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: