|
| EVIL, MANIACAL KARL ROVE |
| Friday, June 24, 2005 |
| The evil, maniacal Karl Rove
If I didn't know better, and of course I don't, I might think that Karl Rove said what he did about liberals the other night for the sole purpose of tricking Democrats into reacting with hypocrisy and hilarity. Whether it was an intentional trap or not, and we all know that Rove is evil and maniacal, the Democrats fell into it, one after another.
Even before the dust had settled on Sen. Dick Durbin's potentially treasonous assertion that our military guards at the Guantanamo Bay terrorist prison camp were acting like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, followed by his tearful apology to himself for attracting the wrath of friend and foe alike, Rove offered Democrats the opportunity to stand out as uniquely hypocritical.
In the world of politics, where hypocrisy is an art form, to be uniquely hypocritical is indeed a remarkable accomplishment.
Democratic Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, et al, had dutifully circled the wagons around their second in command, blaming the right-wing media for any controversy that may have arisen from Durbin's remarks. But the folks back home were not quite as accommodating. It was the man who rules over Durbin's party in his home state, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley who rang Durbin's bell by calling his comments a "disgrace." Shortly thereafter, the Illinois Senator apologized to himself, saying, "In the end, I don't want anything in my public career to detract from my love for this country."
The closest he came to apologizing to those whom he not only offended, but may have endangered, was this: "I'm also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military." IF?
While most of the Republicans in Durbin's fraternity, the U.S. Senate, quickly accepted his so-called apology, and the Democrats in the fraternity breathed a sigh of relief, Rove decided to make what he knew that some would try to portray as a Durbinesque remark.
He told a political gathering that while "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."
Democratic Senators who had defended Durbin immediately attacked Rove. Senator Schumer raced to the microphones to proclaim that Rove's remarks were "not only a slap at New York and all those who suffered. It's a dagger to the heart of what America is all about."
Senator Clinton confronted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and demanded, "I would hope Mr. Secretary that you and other members of the administration would immediately repudiate such an insulting comment from a high-ranking official in the President's inner circle."
That, ladies and gentlemen, wins this year's gold star for political hypocrisy.
I will now anticipate the liberal rebuttal of my proposition. If no such liberal rebuttal exists, I will apologize in advance to my liberal friends for insulting their intelligence, and of course to myself - in the spirit of Sen. Durbin.
Liberals might argue that while Schumer, Clinton and others are in fact hypocritical for attacking Rove and defending Durbin, conservatives are similarly hypocritical for attacking Durbin, but not Rove. That argument would have merit only if the two men's statements were similarly outrageous.
Here are the differences.
First, What Durbin stated was demonstrably fallacious. Anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge and perspective would not seriously equate the alleged mistreatment of Gitmo prisoners, cited by Durbin, (uncomfortable heat and cold; loud rap music) with the inhumane murder of millions of innocent civilians at the hands of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
What Rove said is largely factual. Liberals, specifically the group Moveon.org, did in fact counsel "moderation and restraint" after 9/11. While many Democrats voted for the war on terror, it is true that some liberals reacted exactly as Rove described. He could have been more accurate if he had said "some liberals," but that's a miniscule rhetorical error compared to Durbin's slander of the guards at Gitmo.
Second, Rove served up his remarks at a setting that is accepted as a "red meat banquet," a gathering of the New York Conservative Party. Durbin's comments came on the floor of what is supposed to be "the world's most deliberative body."
Finally, and most important, Durbin's allegations can and will be repeatedly broadcast by America's enemy as a tool to reinforce the fury in the Jihad soldiers and inspire others to join the battle. His comments will be a useful and enduring propaganda tool in the hands of the enemy.
At worst, Rove's comments are an inaccurate rendering of some Democrats' support for the war, which could harm their electoral chances in the future.
Those three things make the Democratic senators' condemnation of Rove and support for Durbin uniquely hypocritical - and I believe Rove tricked them into winning the prize. Ralph Bristol
activist: a politically-concerned citizen given to the vigorous pursuit of Liberal causes. Not to be confused with extremist, a politically-concerned citizen given to the vigorous pursuit of Conservative causes. (e.g., animal-rights activist, gun-rights extremist) source: liberwocky |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 6/24/2005 10:34:00 AM   |
|
| 4 Comments: |
-
You've got a spot-on analysis of the situation, Jack. Durbin was assaulted by the proud members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy because his remarks were treasonous and false. The Democrats are whining about Rove's comments because they're absolutely accurate. To quote a scene from the 1997 Jim Carrey Film "Liar Liar"...
Carrey: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Carrey: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled!
Carrey: Good call!
-
-
"That, ladies and gentlemen, wins this year's gold star for political hypocrisy."
Why? I do not think hypocrisy means what you think it means.
Saying Republicans "prepared for war" when they really hid out in bunkers is hypocrisy.
Demanding an apology from a fat guy named Turd who you happen to love is not hypocrisy.
-
Hmm...Jami, I think that generals or politicians rarely go to war, but instead send those who volunteered and are trained to do war. That has been the way of it since the dawn of time. I'm not particularly being partisan here, but just pointing out the differences.
Thanks for your comments and visit often!
-Jack
P.S. Jami, I appreciate your candor. I like discussing things with others with different viewpoints. Hope you come back often to keep me in check!
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
You've got a spot-on analysis of the situation, Jack. Durbin was assaulted by the proud members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy because his remarks were treasonous and false. The Democrats are whining about Rove's comments because they're absolutely accurate. To quote a scene from the 1997 Jim Carrey Film "Liar Liar"...
Carrey: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Carrey: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled!
Carrey: Good call!