Congratulations, Rose: Rove has succeeded in putting George W. Bush on the same level as a Congressman from New York and/or the Chairman of the Democratic Party.

Wonder how Laura feels about this?

Ara,

Isn't what Rove said true? Isn't it true that Moveon.org submitted a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States." Didn't we constantly hear liberals begging us to understand WHY THEY HATE US?

Rove isn't Bush's underage child, so Rove is responsible for Rove.

That's your first argument -- that Rove is just some loose cannon?

I can see it now -- some reporter asks Bush what he thinks of Rove's comments and Bush is like, "Rove? I believe I've met him a couple of times."

Karl Rove?

Rose, did you just fall off the turnip truck?

BWHAHAHAHAhahahahahha!

Bush is the incredible shrinking President. Pretty soon he'll be picking fights with guys running for dog-catcher in some dusty town in west Texas.

"Rove? Yes, I believe I've met the man."

Hoo ha!

You crack me up.

So Bush is responsible for remarks made by Rove, who then is responsible for remarks made by Bush?

Cheney?

You crack me up!

Mark,

You libs really eat meat and smoke? Wow, I never would've guessed.

Pam:

First off, I don't think it's accurate to say that Democrats wanted to coddle the terrorists right after 9/11. Polls at the time showed that the overwhelming percentage of Democrats, Independents and Republicans favored the President's response to 9/11 -- war on Afghanistan. You could look it up. But if you want, I can provide you with links.

But the war on Iraq? That's a different story.

As the situation there continues to get worse and worse, Rove's comments show that, increasingly, there is no room left for any kind of thoughtful, heartfelt dissent. Simply put, Rove's message is as calculated as it is clear -- this President doesn't do nuance. Liberals, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives (I'm talking to you Chuck Hagel), Independents. Doesn't matter.

You're either with this President or you're with the terrorists.

This works as long as you aren't viewed as a lame duck. But as Bush's influence wanes (gosh, how long did that take? Six months?) he and Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice sound more and more delusional about what's really happening over there.

If you think that makes me a terrorist sympathizer, fine. I happen to believe you're wrong, but if it makes you feel good, who am I to stand in your way?

Ara,

I see that you are avoiding Rove's larger point. I know your feelings are hurt and all but what isn't true about Rove's comments?

I agree with every word Karl Rove said. I couldn't find a single point on which I disagreed. Except for one thing: He called the appeasers "liberals". They are not. Dean Esmay is a liberal. Lord Pork Pork is something else. I dare call him a Communist. And if you want to call me another Tailgunner Joe for that, I'll accept the compliment proudly.

You are either 100% with the United States of America and our brave soldiers or else you are 100% with the enemy.

I won't apologise until you do!

What a petty game to play.

But ok lets play. Lazy, hate-worthy, monolithic, a liar, a hack, an embarassment, a race relations reactionary, fraudsters, holocaust perpetrators.

Like you say mean things get said all the times in politics and to demand an apology every single time would lead to a pretty shambolic situation. Mostly you just say, look at what this idiots said and he expects you vote? etc. But of the above the only ones that are on a level with Rove's charge - that liberals want our soldiers to die - is the comment about Justice Brown and Charlie Rangel's comment. Reid should have apologised for that, I'm not sure if he did or was asked to. He wasn't attacking an entire demographic (about 20% self-identify as liberal). Rangel was just being dumb and nobody's paying him much attention anyway.

You're almost as bad as Dean who said he wasn't making excuses for Rove and then proceeded to make more excuses for him than any blogger I've come across. You won't call it what it is, a dispicable characterisation of an entire political movement. Read The Corner - the Whitehouse is rubbing its hands in glee at the reaction. Look we called liberals traitors and now look at them whine! We get to talk about Moveon.org instead of what we're doing in Iraq! Lovely behaviour for our wartime leaders, don't you think, focusing on what's really important which of course is to demoize our opponents and get ready for the next elections. George Bush is the PRESIDENT at a time of war and Karl Rove, his MOST TRUSTED ADVISOR called the critics of the war traitors. And yes Rose, there is a BIG difference between 'a few liberals', 'some liberals', and 'liberals'.

And all Rose can do is call us wusses and say she'll stop being a hypocrite when the rats do, which of course in her book will be never. You're not a conservative, you're a Republican and its time you stopped pretending otherwise.

Ara-Rove didn't use the word democrat, so your gaffe highlights the reoccuring theme of the liberals..they don't much like getting called out for what they are.

What we need are actual hawks among both nationally elected Democratics and nationally elected Republicans. Right now there should be both Democratic and Republican Congressmen calling for us to bomb Syrian safe-houses and supply routes. That is, we need people calling for a more vigorous war.

This would allow us to have more actual doves in the Republican caucus.

It seems that the current electoral situation is not allowing hawkishness to be properly expressed by our elected leaders.

Hey, Ara, you are more Democratically conected than I am - where are the Democratic hawks? You have been very hawkish - where are the elected Democrats who represent you?

Where are the FDRs, Harry Trumans, John F. Kennedys and Scoop Jacksons of the Democratic party today?

Our current situation is this: the Democrats do always end up sounding like the peace party and the Republicans do always end up sounding like the war party. That's not good for this country.

Here is our difficulty: Most military strategists agree that we lost the Vietnam War because we lost American public opinion - including the North Vietnamese strategists. That means that American public opinion is a strategic asset worth protecting. Futhermore, it is an asset that Dick Durbin and Karl Rove can directly protect via their choice of what to say in public. Had Durbin given an empassioned argument for bombing raids on Syria, with a stirring call for us to fight until the battle was won, he would have both made the evening News and protected the strategic asset of American public opinion. And Karl Rove, had he chosen to make the argument I made above, with a call to both conservatives and liberals to make sure our soldier's sacrifice has not been in vain, would also have both made the evening News and protected the strategic asset of American public opinion.

In that light I think the actual comments of both were harmful.

Now you can hit me from both sides.

Yours,
Wince

It seems that the current electoral situation is not allowing hawkishness to be properly expressed by our elected leaders.

Oh. My. God. I am freaking stunned by your statement Wince.

You're being ironic, right?

Right??

Most military strategists agree that we lost the Vietnam War because we lost American public opinion - including the North Vietnamese strategists.

Wince, go google "The Powell Doctrine" and get back to me. I believe the phrase "overwhelming force" is in there in the first paragraph.

Thanks for the link Adam, I love reading the "liberal" perspective. It's always so refreshing.

I'll also admit that I've taken to heart Dean's admonition that I must no longer call myself a "liberal" (your print-air-quotes reminded me). I bow to his superior mastery of the language. But there's a little problem, see. I was going to switch over to "Commie Socialist Fascist Terrorist-Lover Traitor Pig-Fucker," but that's just too many letters.

Ara,

No intentional irony intended. Unintentional? Your call. Are there Congressmen and Senators calling for a more vigourous prosecution of the war, including advocating raids into Syria and maybe even Iran? If so, I missed it. Where are those folks? I hear regular folks and pundits calling for such action. But not our elected - or even our appointed - leaders.

I googled the Powell Doctrine. Here is exactly what I was talking about:

also on his own experience as a major in Vietnam. That protracted campaign, in Powell's view, was representative of a war in which public support was flimsy

Seems like Powell agrees with me, Ara.

But public support for Vietnam was not flimsy in the beginning, nor was it absent at the end. Nixon won a landslide on the peace with honor platform. McGovern lost on the peace at any price platform. Honor does not include abandoning the Vietnamese government without sending a single bullet to help. We can blame Watergate for that.

I'm not sure why you brought up overwhelming force in this discussion, since it is entirely beside the point. We have, and always have had, overwhelming force in Iraq. That's why major combat operations were over so quickly and why our casualties are so low. Even now we have an abundance of firepower and an abundance of troops. The Iraqi insurgency has never been able to mount anything close to the 77 day siege at Khe Sanh. Go view the multimedia perspective, and think about the kind of overwhelming force Powell might have wanted at Khe Sanh. We have that kind of overwhelming force in Iraq.

Yours,
Wince