Friday, June 24, 2005

It's on, bitch

Hey Karl Rove:

Are you sure you want to talk about the conservative response to 9/11, compared to the liberal response? You sure? OK. Let's go, baby.

It was a conservative President who sat in a classroom reading to children about a pet goat while the country was suffering its worst attack ever.

It was a conservative administration whose first response to the savagery of 9/11 was to hustle the family members of the attack's ringleader out of the country by any means necessary.

It was a conservative administration whose advice to the shell-shocked and grieving populace was simply: go shopping.

It was a conservative administration that thought the best way to find perpetrators was to announce, weeks before it happened, that they were going to bomb the country where they thought the terrorists might be.

It was a conservative Secretary 0f Defense who told the administration's top terror analyst, "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. Let's bomb Iraq."

It was a conservative administration that tried everything possible to block an investigation into what happened on 9/11.

It was a conservative administration that assembled a firestorm of ginned-up "intelligence" to justify a pre-emptive war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

It was a conservative administration that both praised and promoted those most closely responsible for the greatest intelligence failures in the history of the United States. Go team!

It was a conservative government that decided they could wage war on the cheap, denying soldiers the equipment they need in the field, and denying veterans the health care they deserve when they come home.

It was a conservative administration who blacked out passages from the (eventual) 9/11 report dealing with the country where most of the 9/11 attackers came from: Saudi Arabia.

It is a conservative President who can't catch the perpetrator of 9/11 after nearly four years, and in fact "doesn't spend that much time on him" at this point.

It's a conservative Congress that wants to renege on $125 million in aid to injured and sick Ground Zero workers.

It is conservatives who use the dead bodies of those who perished on 9/11 as a cudgel with which to beat their political enemies.

So Karl, in the immortal words of Vice President Dick Cheney: Go fuck yourself.


Anonymous said...

What's interesting to me is, Karl Rove is a very calculated individual. His comments were hardly off-the-cuff. What do you think he was trying to achieve? Did he get the desired reaction?


Thomas More said...

Rove meant his comments to inflame both his base and his political enemies. Which they did. Good job, Karl.

The thing is, when even Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum disavows what you said, you've got to realize that a lot of people see your comments for what they are: a ploy to distract from the fact that you're losing control.

Anonymous said...

You may be right. My thoughts were slightly different. There was a huge outcry by dems over Rove's remarks insulting them, but barely a whisper over Durbin's comments equating our troops in Cuba to Nazis, etc. Even Hillary, who's been doing the political side-step to the center, stopped long enough to be outraged by Rove's remarks. I read a quote today, "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one who yelps the loudest is the one you hit." In my mind, that's what he was shooting for. I don't think most Americans feel calling liberals soft on terror is in any way equivalent to calling our military personnel nazis, and Rove knows that.

Thomas More said...

Except Rove didn't just call liberals "soft on terror," whatever the hell that means. He said liberals side with the enemy, and want American troops to die.

I'm not going to wade into Durbin here, except to say "But he did it too!" is an exceptionally weak defense.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not going to wade into Durbin here, except to say "But he did it too!" is an exceptionally weak defense."

That would be true if I were actually defending Rove's comments.

Thomas More said...

Sorry. I guess "trying to diminish impact by comparing it to something else" isn't exactly the same as "defending." My mistake.

And BTW, loved the Hillary Clinton slam, especially the "pack of dogs" quote.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for letting me know what I actually think. I must have been confused. It's not possible to discuss what was behind Rove's remarks without it being a defense of them. I'll try to remember that. There wasn't a dearth of response from dems regarding Durbin's remarks. By suggesting that Rove was using that for his own purposes just proves I'm siding with him. Got it. Even if there was a lack of response, that's only because Durbin didn't say anything wrong. Right? Why would Hillary or anyone else be outraged. And Hillary is not trying to position herself toward the center. I'm not sure where I even came up with that silly notion.

Bush, the goat book boy, and his administration is evil. I hear they may have even planned the 9/11 attacks. Black is black and white is white. There is no gray. Liberal = good and Conservative = crap weasel, and never the twain shall meet. Thanks for the lesson. I forgot where I was for a while. I'll go drag my knuckles on back to the revival meetin' where I belong.

And that Rude Pundit is brilliant. "President Fluffy Fucker," it's genius. Fucking Dean Esmay and his hyperbole.

Thomas More said...

I'm going to step back from Mutual Assured Destruction here, and just say...

1. I stand by absolutely everything I wrote in this post. Every word.

2. I don't stand by anything in your second paragraph, since I've never said any such thing and never will.

3. RudePundit uses hyperbole for effect. Dean Esmay uses it because he actually believes, for example, that Michael Moore is a fascist. How do I know what Esmay believes? Because he says so, over and over and over.

4. I've been really angry lately, and it's come out in my writing. (See #1)