Karl Rove said Democrats offer therapy to 9/11 terroists

[Icarusintel]

Along with that he said, through Rove, that we haven't done anything to stop terrorists.

Is there something I misinterpreted here? It pretty clearly states to me that it was Bush behind the statement and not Rove, which is not the case. While I will admit there have been many Republicans, mostly conservatives, who have said similar things about Liberals, you are twisting words yourself here. I don;t care if you see it as symantics, the fact is, this is how it comes across.

Nobody should ever use 9/11 for political gain

this is one of the few statements you've said in this thread that i agree with and it does sadden me to see it used that way, but this country was founded on freedom of speech

 

[blahblahblah]

you've lost me ....not addressed where? I'm referring to the right-wingers in our community

This was as close as No Limit got to posting a thesis

"Although I could be extremely pissed at these comments I actually want to thank Mr. Rove for sayin this, it will allow us to debate the differences between Republicans and Democrats on terrorists. So here is a list of what Democrats have done to stop terrorism I got from another post on another board:"

I can't really form a counter argument unless I know what I'm supposed to be debating.

 

[CptStern]

This was as close as No Limit got to posting a thesis

"Although I could be extremely pissed at these comments I actually want to thank Mr. Rove for sayin this, it will allow us to debate the differences between Republicans and Democrats on terrorists. So here is a list of what Democrats have done to stop terrorism I got from another post on another board:"

I can't really form a counter argument unless I know what I'm supposed to be debating.

I thought that abundantly clear from the title:


"Karl Rove said Democrats offer therapy to 9/11 terrorists"

...in other words Rove is accusing democrats of aiding the enemy ...inflammatory unsubstantiated charges of treason are what right-wingers do best ...No Limit's post was disproving Roves idiotic statement ..by proving that the republicans are the ones who fumbled the ball when it comes to keeping america safe

 

[No Limit]

You asked "to refute one ponit (in the context of propaganda)". I merely pointed out that you failed to mention the 1993 WTC bombings happened when a democrat was in office. That is propaganda - you mention a democrat capturing the criminals, but you fail to mention the criminals committed the acts during a democratic presidency.

blahblahblah, that name is appropriate. Look, you are spinning this to lunacy, okay, the terrorist attack happened during a democrats rule. However, 9/11 happened during Bush's rule but he hasn't caught anyone responsible for it yet. Which is why the point that democrats caught the 1993 bombers still stands. It is a mute point and actually I would tend to agree with you that Clinton, who just happened to be in power at the time, had little to do with capturing them. The problem is that the right wing has been using this tactic for years many times loading it with just outright lies.

I'd also like to point out, that I don't believe any administration is guilty for the WTC 1993 or 9/11. As an accountant with a focus on auditing, it is very very difficult to pick up such facts that we now know and attribute them to some horrible incoming disaster. However, that does not mean there were problems with our current system. I just say that predicting and stopping terrorism is a terribly iffy thing to do.

Agreed. But you are still missing what I am saying. Republicans have attacked us every day for not doing anything (I am using their words) to stop terrorists. I posted example after example of where we did. Bush is yet to stop a single terrorist that operated in this country.

I'm side tracking, but this is a quick (and possibly uniformed) example. In Arizona some muslims took flight training lessons, the trainers felt suspicious and contacted the FBI. Now look at the previous sentance and tell me (not knowing anything else), what would you do? Especially when you can get in fairly deep trouble if you say the sky is gonna fall and it doesn't happen.

What would I do? I would do nothing if that is all the evidance I had. What are you saying, Muslims are not allowed to be pilots?

ok, good constructive. Point me out the sentance that Bush said "we offer therapy to terrorists" and provide me the context of the situation. Also, realize politics dictates that people take all the credit that they can. Even if that means stepping on their faces. Both parties are guilty on stepping on people when they can advance their own interests.

Yes, it is constructive. And I don't mean to sound like I am attacking you but I have a real problem with people saying I hate republicans and leaving it at that without refuting what I said, which you are guilty of doing in this thread.

Here is a article about what I am talking about, I will admit I should have posted this earlier:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400214.html

White House official said Friday the administration finds it "somewhat puzzling" that Democrats are demanding presidential adviser Karl Rove's apology or resignation for implying that liberals are soft on terrorism.

"I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out," communications director Dan Bartlett said, contending the comments weren't aimed at all Democrats. "It's touched a chord with these Democrats. I'm not sure why."

Now before you say he clearly isn't talking about all democrats that is total bullshit. In the above quote I bolded out who he was pointing out so nobody misses it. Who Rove was pointing out was liberals and liberal groups.

Congressional Republicans earlier joined the White House in standing solidly behind Rove, saying he shouldn't apologize and that he was outlining a philosophical divide between a president who sought to win the war on terrorism by taking the fight to the enemy and some Democrats who questioned that approach.

Here is what your fellow republicans ae saying about his remarks:

http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=22490

Again, using 9/11 for political gain is sickening and I hope you will scold the white house for agreeing with what Rove said.

 

[Icarusintel]

Now before you say he clearly isn't talking about all democrats that is total bullshit. In the above quote I bolded out who he was pointing out so nobody misses it. Who Rove was pointing out was liberals and liberal groups.

wtf? you say its bullshit but don;t back up why its bullshit, please, tell me why its bullshit, because liberal does not equal democrat

 

[No Limit]

wtf? you say its bullshit but don;t back up why its bullshit, please, tell me why its bullshit, because liberal does not equal democrat

My mistake, I forgot you don't know how to read. That article has the quote from Rove:

Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Any Democrat that leans to the left is a liberal by definition and virtually all democrats lean to the left. I will not debate if liberal means democrat any more, I will not stoop to the level of stupidity. Yes, there are "moderates" but when you say liberal you imply Democrat as over 90% of democrats are what you consider liberal on the political spectrum. I am getting this from the liberal ratings they gave to congress where most senators were on 90+ range. I do not have time to reference this right now, you can find it yourself.

 

[Icarusintel]

My mistake, I forgot you don't know how to read. That article has the quote from Rove:


I will not debate if liberal means democrat any more, I will not stoop to the level of stupidity. Any Democrat that leans to the left is a liberal by definition and virtually all democrats lean to the left.

Let me help you out here

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

now, for democrat

dem·o·crat ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dm-krt)
n.
An advocate of democracy.
Democrat A member of the Democratic Party.

does this help?

 

[No Limit]

Let me help you out here

now, for democrat


does this help?

I edited my post to help you understand a little better. Other than that I am done discussing this, if you wish I will say liberal instead of democrat (again, liberal is at least 90 some percent of Democrats).

What you are saying is if I say that all conservatives are hitler loving nazis the Republicans would say, "oh, he clearly isn't talking about me".

 

[Apos]

You din't even include the worst part. Rove basically accused all liberals of wanting to destroy america. That's what his "no more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." bit was all about.

So, let me get this straight: Durbin comments that outrageous acts committed in our name don't sound like America, but rather those of a totalitarian regime. A fair point: he didn't compare anyone to Nazis, he just said: look, strip away our biases: if we had heard of this conduct, who would we have thought had done it? He was calling us to task for not living up to what we're supposed to stand for. For that, he basically got railroaded by a lot of manufactured outrage, and he tearfully apologizes. Conservative spin machines, seeing their opening, continue to lambaste him anyway just for shits and giggles, happily brushing under the rug his point.

Rove basically calls 30% of Americans traitors. And people defend him for it. Not even a hint of a possible apology.

If you don't see those two things and understand that something is VERY screwed up about the place our country is in right now, I don't what sort of a person you must be.

"Is there something I misinterpreted here? It pretty clearly states to me that it was Bush behind the statement and not Rove, which is not the case."

Hi, just a quick primer: Rove is Bush's right hand man, his job is basically to be the President's bulldog. Not to mention that Bush condoned what Rove said anyway.

 

[Icarusintel]

So, let me get this straight: Durbin comments that outrageous acts committed in our name don't sound like America, but rather those of a totalitarian regime. A fair point: he didn't compare anyone to Nazis, he just said: look, strip away our biases: if we had heard of this conduct, who would we have thought had done it? He was calling us to task for not living up to what we're supposed to stand for. For that, he basically got railroaded by a lot of manufactured outrage, and he tearfully apologizes. Conservative spin machines, seeing their opening, continue to lambaste him anyway just for shits and giggles, happily brushing under the rug his point.

He shouldn;t have done his "apology", which sickened me, sounded fake and those tears were a bit too melodramatic

Rove basically calls 30% of Americans traitors. And people defend him for it. Not even a hint of a possible apology.

If you don't see those two things and understand that something is VERY screwed up about the place our country is in right now, I don't what sort of a person you must be.

The real problem is that people want apologies or resignations at all, this is clearly a matter of free speech, which, last i checked, every single american is entitled to

Hi, just a quick primer: Rove is Bush's right hand man, his job is basically to be the President's bulldog. Not to mention that Bush condoned what Rove said anyway.

wow, thanks for telling me something i know very well, simple fact is while it was condoned, i was pointing out that we don;t know if Bush told him to say that

 

[No Limit]

The real problem is that people want apologies or resignations at all, this is clearly a matter of free speech, which, last i checked, every single american is entitled to

Sure any american can say stupid shit like this and its okay. But it is never okay for a president to say 30% of Americans are traitors.

Didn't I make a point earlier that no republican would be upset with Bush saying this? You just proved my point, thank you.

 

[blahblahblah]

So much to say, but apathy is gaining....

If you don't see those two things and understand that something is VERY screwed up about the place our country is in right now, I don't what sort of a person you must be.

Quite frankly our ENTIRE political system is retarded. That includes democrats, republicans, and any other political group you wish to name.

blahblahblah, that name is appropriate. Look, you are spinning this to lunacy, okay, the terrorist attack happened during a democrats rule. However, 9/11 happened during Bush's rule but he hasn't caught anyone responsible for it yet. Which is why the point that democrats caught the 1993 bombers still stands. It is a mute point and actually I would tend to agree with you that Clinton, who just happened to be in power at the time, had little to do with capturing them. The problem is that the right wing has been using this tactic for years many times loading it with just outright lies.

*zing*

thanks for the insult.

So your point will become moot when Osama Bin Laden is captured by a Republican president? Clarification is all I need.

I never said Republicans are holier than thou.

Democrats + Repulibcans = Dirty

Democrats = Dirty

Republicans = Dirty

Got that?

Agreed. But you are still missing what I am saying. Republicans have attacked us every day for not doing anything (I am using their words) to stop terrorists. I posted example after example of where we did. Bush is yet to stop a single terrorist that operated in this country.

Take special note of the part I bolded. You had single handedly proved your point 100%. However, you resort back to insults and inflammatory comments after that. Which is the reason why people are attacking your posts.

What would I do? I would do nothing if that is all the evidance I had. What are you saying, Muslims are not allowed to be pilots?

No, keep the frickin frame of reference. Frame of Reference = prior to 9/11 tragedy. Lone piece of evidence = suspicious muslims learning to fly planes. If all I had was that single piece of evidence, it would be impossible to have prevented 9/11. My point was that it is impossible to prevent terrorist actions unless you get extremely lucky.

Race has nothing to do with it, it was part of my example. I should've just wrote "white people". I am very very very anti-racist. Its more of an insult than you making fun of my forum name to me. When I do an example, I'm there to only prove one or two points which are obvious. You should probably disregard everything else.

Yes, it is constructive. And I don't mean to sound like I am attacking you but I have a real problem with people saying I hate republicans and leaving it at that without refuting what I said, which you are guilty of doing in this thread.

Here is a article about what I am talking about, I will admit I should have posted this earlier:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062400214.html

How can I refute what you say if I don't understand what you are talking about? All I saw was a post attacking republicans. Thanks for the link.

Karl Rove should apologize. I repeat: I'm a republican who favors Karl Rove apologizing. What does that make me?

 

[Apos]

He shouldn;t have done his "apology", which sickened me, sounded fake and those tears were a bit too melodramatic

People like you have no shame whatsoever. Durbin was sincerely cowed by the fact that Republicans worked up real people, including many soldiers, to write and call to attack him, drumming them up on the phony premise that he had somehow called them Nazis. If you don't think that this sincerely shocked and hurt him , you are a monster and know nothing of the man.

But of course, no Republican spin machine would ever give anyone a break. So they've whipped up the views that you are parroting here to kick Durbin while he's down.

The real problem is that people want apologies or resignations at all, this is clearly a matter of free speech, which, last i checked, every single american is entitled to

I don't see how this is either here nor there. All these people are political: that is, they serve either at the request of the public or for those who do. If someone crosses a line, then the people can call for them to resign. Free speech doesn't mean free from the disapproval of others or even the employment consequences of your words.

I would like to know if people really want someone who considers liberals to be traitors out to kill our troops to represent them and their party and their country. Maybe I'm finding out that, in fact, you do.

wow, thanks for telling me something i know very well, simple fact is while it was condoned, i was pointing out that we don;t know if Bush told him to say that

Nothing Rove does publically is anything BUT worked out in conference with the Bush media team (same goes for Bush consulting Rove). That's Rove's JOB. If you don't understand that, then you have never worked in politics and are clueless as to how it works.

 

[No Limit]

*zing*

thanks for the insult.

Relax, it was a simple joke. If you were honestly insulted I apologize, I didn't mean it that way.

So your point will become moot when Osama Bin Laden is captured by a Republican president? Clarification is all I need.

What I am saying is republicans have the decency to say we don't do anything about terrorists, yet they haven't caught the guy who attacked us and we did. And the point is moot which ever way, it doesn't matter if Osama or anyone else is caught. As you said you have to be extremely lucky and the leader doesn't have much to do with it. I am simply pointing out the hypocracy in all of it. Don't tell me you never heard republicans countinually bitching about Clinton not getting Osama? Democrats never used any terrorist attack to say they were better; that didn't start until the Republicans hijacked the 9/11 tragedy for political gain as in this example. That kind of thing is unacceptable and we can't just sit around and be nice while they piss all over us; we need to point out simple facts like I did in the first post that contradict what they are saying. If they didn't do this and be more civil we would have a post like this as again, Democrats never used any terrorist attacks as a political tool.

I never said Republicans are holier than thou.

Democrats + Repulibcans = Dirty

Democrats = Dirty

Republicans = Dirty

Got that?

No, I disagree. But lets not get into that here.

Take special note of the part I bolded. You had single handedly proved your point 100%. However, you resort back to insults and inflammatory comments after that. Which is the reason why people are attacking your posts.

Again, if you were insulted I apologize.

No, keep the frickin frame of reference. Frame of Reference = prior to 9/11 tragedy. Lone piece of evidence = suspicious muslims learning to fly planes. If all I had was that single piece of evidence, it would be impossible to have prevented 9/11. My point was that it is impossible to prevent terrorist actions unless you get extremely lucky.

Agreed, read my explaination in the above quote.

Race has nothing to do with it, it was part of my example. I should've just wrote "white people". I am very very very anti-racist. Its more of an insult than you making fun of my forum name to me. When I do an example, I'm there to only prove one or two points which are obvious. You should probably disregard everything else.

I was not calling you a racist nor did I even imply, you need to read a little more of what I read, you seem to glimpse over it and find parts where you can take offense. How you wrote it it seemed like you were talking about present time and made it seem like Muslims shouldn't take flight schools. I read that wrong as you didn't make it clear you were talking pre 9/11.

How can I refute what you say if I don't understand what you are talking about? All I saw was a post attacking republicans. Thanks for the link.

Karl Rove should apologize. I repeat: I'm a republican who favors Karl Rove apologizing. What does that make me?

If all you saw was me attacking republicans then please, do read my posts a little closer and I will do the same to you. I was pointing out the lies of Karl Rove and this administration which in turn means I am attacking any republican that defends those lies. If you are a republican that thinks he went over the line and think Bush should not have said he supports what Rove said I have no problem with you; but if you refuse to admit that you are no better than Karl rove.

 

[CptStern]

So your point will become moot when Osama Bin Laden is captured by a Republican president? Clarification is all I need.



it's been what? 4 years? better hurry up only 3 left ...oh btw I truely believe the bush admin doesnt want to catch osama ...how else would you explain this:


"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

"It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

 

[MjM]

Shows the maturity of the people leading a nation. Good to know he's got the president's ear.


Oh and it seems the party leaders are unrepentant. Sicko's.

I hope in ten years or so, we can look back and call all these people out for what they really are.

 

[Hapless]

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200506241146.asp

Ahem.....

Rove continued: "I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what MoveOn.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be to 'use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States.' "

We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction. Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. . .

I don't think Rove was too far off base with what he ACTUALLY said. Taking things out of context can be very dangerous. I'm looking at YOU NoLimit.