Yep, there's certainly some loony stuff in there, and it's interesting to see a lot of it compiled in one place. I'd identify myself with the left in many ways but not usually when it comes to combatting terrorism.

Actually, though, the comments that Soros and Kerry made about the problem being one of law enforcement started me thinking. In a very real sense, the problem is one of law enforcement and it would be far more helpful, I think, for us to see it in that context, rather than in the context of a war (on terror). However, the part of the analogy that many on the left seem to be missing is that police action doesn't just require detective work and courts of law - it sometimes requires the use of physical force. You simply can't arrest most people with a sweet smile. By trying to say that we should combat terror using only two of the three strands of law-enforcement, they are effectively trying to do the job with one hand tied behind their backs.

Oh, by the wyay... what's with all the capital letters? They aren't in the original sources, and I'm pretty certain that Dennis Kucinich doesn't speak every word capitalised.

Great compendium of quotes from the appeasement left. I had forgotten the details but remember the bottom line: they were against fighting the war started by our Islamist enemies.

I remember the demonstrations before the Afghanistan campaign. I remember the articles in the Nation. But it’s great to be able to link here and show the quotes. Thanks.

Some people forget that the public had little tolerance for appeasement in the aftermath of 9/11. But as soon as Dean proved there was an audience, many Dems (but not all) reversed themselves. They would have done so sooner if public opinion would not have been so passionate.

One of my favorites: Bill Moyers in Brainerd, MN, on October 16th, 2001:

Do we want to send the terrorists a message? Go for conservation. Go for clean, home-grown energy. And go for public health. If we reduce emissions from fossil fuel, we will cut the rate of asthma among children. Healthier children and a healthier economy-how about that as a response to terrorism? ...

My own personal response to Osama bin Laden is not grand, or rousing, or dramatic. All I know to do is to keep doing as best I can the craft that has been my calling now for most of my adult life. My colleagues and I have rededicated ourselves to the production of several environmental reports that were in progress before September 11. As a result of our two specials this year-Trade Secrets and Earth on Edge-PBS is asking all of public television's production teams to focus on the environment for two weeks around Earth Day next April.

What about the anti-police "Free Mumia" people fronted by Ed Asner and Mike Farrell who instantaneously re-invented themselves as the new anti-military "Not In Our Name" group?

See this link

From the NION site:

"WE TOO WATCHED with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousandso f innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -– even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam .

We too joined the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen.

BUT THE MOURNING had barely begun, when the highest leaders of the land unleashed a spirit of revenge."

It looks to me exactly the sort of division that Karl Rove is making. Liberals anquished about the Pentagon and World Trade Center deaths in the same way they agonized about Saigon. And others fought back: The passengers of Flight 93 -- fighting back, refusing to acquiesce or attempt to appease, even if it meant their own deaths. NYC Firefighters fought back, wresting life from the midst of death. Rudi Guiliani fought back, directing traffic if that was all he could do -- urging attacks in political fora later. Don Rumsfeld fought back, digging with his own hands his fallen comrades out of the rubble of the Pentagon, later directing the attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hilary Clinton went to the White House and sought, and got, assurances that the US would not "fire some missile into an empty tent and bump some camel in the butt -- we're gonna be decisive!"

Think about that. Senator Hilary Clinton certainly numbers herself among the highest leaders of the land -- and she sought, too, to "unleash a spirit of revenge".

Senator Clinton may number herself among moderates rather than liberals, too.

So it seems to be that NION signatories are the ones Karl Rove is "targeting".

The 2006 mid-term election campaign has begun. Thank you Dick Durbin.

I find it hard to believe there aren't any choice quotes from Rep. Jim McDermott on there. Then there's Patty Murray repeating (ad nauseum in what seemed like every high school in WA) that bin Laden was loved for constructing day care facilities in Afghanistan.

Dopey Dems – especially Hillary! They (and she) failed to conspicuously repudiate Dickie Durbin's calumny; they (and she) jumped into Rove's baited briar patch in a blind rage thereby allowing those of us who want to win the war to remind everyone else whose side the Democrats (and her) have taken.

Morons.

trying to defend Rove huh? So you gather quotes from Michael Moore, Soros, and Moveon, none of whom are Dem elected officials, and in the case of Moore is really a radical, not a liberal. Ignore all the stuff said by liberals like Hilary, Biden etc. Ignore the stuff said by Pat Robertson, etc.

And distort other stuff - the WOT IS, to a very great extent an LE operation. From the arrests of jihadis here in the US, to actions in Europe, etc it has huge LE elements - that does NOT mean it doesnt SOMETIMES involve conventional military ops, intell ops, etc. Kerry certainly never opposed the invasion of Afghanistan.

Was it idiotic for Kerry to hang with Moore, etc? Sure, and its a major reason i didnt vote for him. But its not fair to charecterize all liberals with whatever Moore has said.

So I take it that Karl Rove does NOT consider Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, et al to be liberals. Id love to have him say that on the record.

and it seems to me if the WH was serious about winning this war, theyd be reaching out to those liberals who support them - not smearing all with the same brush.

I heard McCain last weekend - I dont think hed ever say things like this. But then, he's a patriot.

Is liberal hawk questioning Karl Rove's patriotism?

Besides we al know that Hilary, Biden et.al. are progressives and reject being labeled as liberals.

liberalhawk:

Cynthia McKinney.
Barbara Lee.
Dennis Kucinich.

Are these not elected officials? Did not at least one of these vote against going to war at all in Afghanistan?

And an interesting extended quote from Senator Biden:

But now we're going to get into the tough calls. Case in point, and I'll stop with this. How much longer does the bombing continue? Because we're going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues, we're going to pay an escalating price in the Muslim world. We're going to pay an escalating price in the region. And that in fact is going to make the aftermath of our, quote, victory more difficult to reconstruct the region.

In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, two weeks into the war in Afghanistan.

http://www.cfr.org/pub4126/cfr/a_conversation_with_joseph_r_biden.php

So, with the WTC's wreckage still smouldering, Senator Biden, one of the "responsible ones" in your view, is already asking how much longer the war in Afghanistan is going to continue.

You tell me---is Joe Biden a liberal? Or a radical fit to sit in the Presidential box at the Democratic National Convention?

Al: I find it hard to believe there aren't any choice quotes from Rep. Jim McDermott

There's McDermott's interview in Fahrenheit 911, in which he explains why he's afraid, insane, and panics when he sees traffic lights:

MOORE: Fear works?

MCDERMOTT: Fear does work, yes. You could make people do anything if they're afraid.

MOORE: And how do you make them afraid?

MCDERMOTT: Well you make them afraid by creating an aura of endless threat. They played us like an organ. They raised the orange and up to red and then they dropped it back to orange. I mean, they, they give these mixed messages which were crazy making.

Got your Patty Murray (aka "The Empty Pantsuit") on tap as well:

Osama bin Laden has been very, very effective. We've got to ask, why is this man so popular around the world? ... He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He's made their lives better! We have not done that. We haven't been out in many of these countries helping them build their infrastructure.

Patty Murray two days later, after the Washington Democratic Party replaced her with a stunt double:

Osama Bin Laden is an evil terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.

"It's a disgrace and [Durbin] is a good friend of mine. But I think it's a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military acts like [Nazis] or that a report is like that."

"You go and talk to some victims of the Holocaust, and they will tell you horror stories and there are not horror stories like that in Guantanamo Bay."

Chicago Democratic Mayor Daley

      You know, whatever your political attitudes, everyone used to acknowledge that Democrats were sharp politicians.

      Now, how would an FDR respond to this?  He'd have said nothing, unless asked for comment.  If asked, he'd have laughed, and said he never wanted indictments and understanding, he wanted dead terrorists, 'Funny, I never knew I was a reactionary before.'  He wouldn't demand an apology from Karl Rove, he'd suggest that Rove's meds needed adjustment.

      If Rove had been asked to script the ideal Democratic response to his speech, he'd have written the one the Democrats are using now.  It's really quite amusing.

THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!

Let's step back and look at the all the layers in this gambit.

At one level it's rhetorical suckerbait: "I display a coat of general cut and you claim it's tailor-made for you, that's your problem, not mine." (Can anyone tell me WHERE that quote originated, please?)

At a second level it's good prediction of the likely behavior of one's opponents, combined with insight on the current dynamics of media: The Dems will froth, the MSM will carry it, but won't print the smoking gun statements that Rove refers to. Instead, those are prereleased onto the net (Joe wasn't the only one who got this list), so the tiniest bit of search will find them. They become part of the discourse, bypassing the MSM.

Perhaps at a third level, it could be a preflight for a new communications strategy. The White House hates the MSM, and the feeling is mutual. Bush & Co. know they will be spun if they use the MSM as a primary comms channel. Rove just ran a maneuver whereby traffic, attention, and perhaps credibility were driven from the MSM out to the Long Tail. Has he been reading Chris Anderson? Wanna take a bet on whether we might see other bypass strategies?

I used to roll my eyes when I read the 'Rove is an evil genius' stuff. Maybe I was wrong. Glad he's on my side.

PD Shaw -

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for Richard Daley at Daily Kos:

As for Mayor Daley, who cut off Durbin at the knees -- a pox on his house. His time is coming to an end. I hope Jesse Jackson Jr. takes him on.

Update: Gilliard tells Durbin to go f--k himself. I hate to say it, but I can't help but agree: "Next time you need help, go ask Dick Daley for it. If he and his administration aren't in jail, that is."

So is that just ol' Kos shooting off his kos-hole again? But who wears the pants around the house, Daley or the Deaniacs?

To Tim Oren, this type of speech by Karl Rove is not a new communication strategy by The White House. President Bush has used the method of distorting history to justify his policies before. Case in point, Bush's recent speech justifying U.S. policy toward Russia.

In many ways George W. Bush is following the path the democrats made for Richard Nixon and is also following Nixon's path not to compromise on his own beliefs. The democrats screwed up Vietnam, divided a nation, and caused a huge decline in public support. Bush has begun this process all by himself already with Iraq. And like Nixon, Bush continues to push the Iraq war effort to produce a decent interval so Iraq will not look like a Bush defeat before the 2006 elections. These republicans, Rove, Bush, et.al., are not the first to create myths for their own political means.

People forget that republicans were for saving South Vietnam. Like Bush is with Iraq, these were serious issues worth the effort of political tricks. And as we have seen before, this White House is in no way adverse to rewriting political history to serve their own ends as well.

Ummm, did you actually read what Joe posted? You can argue that those quoted aren't liberals, or more cogently that Rove is painting with too broad a brush. But it's kind of hard to argue convincingly that quotes still present on the net are 'historical distortions'. If you want argue that those things weren't said by those people, have at it.

Let me repeat, in other language: The left has become very predictably reactive. Rove is using this to lure it onto a political killing ground. It's my guess that the plan may yield secondary outcomes in further debilitating the MSM.

“September 11 would not have occurred if the US government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society.”

Republican former-Congressman Paul Findley

"When terrorists assaulted America on 9/11, killing nearly 3,000 innocent civilians, President Bush responded, not by focusing on bringing to justice the criminals who were responsible, but by initiating a war against impoverished, defenseless Afghanistan, a broad attack that killed at least 3,000 innocent people. Even before the dust settled in Afghanistan, the president initiated another war, this one on Iraq—a war planned long before 9/11."

Also Findley -- A Republican's Case Against George W. Bush

Tim Oren:

"(Can anyone tell me WHERE that quote originated, please?)"

Dune. One of my favorite lines from the book.

PDShaw, you are aware of the context for Findley's comments you're quoting?

This is a man who was turned out of office in the 1980s by his own constituents for what some described as a fanatical attachment to Yassar Arafat and a vehement, if not vitriolic, one-note message to the effect that Israel heavily influences US policy.

He blamed his defeat - by Dick Durbin, ironically - as due to the Jews, notwithstanding the fact that the Jewish consitutency in his district was nowhere near large enough to swing the election even if they HAD all voted against him.

You might want to choose a more reputable spokesperson for the point you're trying to make.

One of my favorite quotes, from ueber-leftist Rev. Jerry Falwell:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."

Look, we can find all sorts of quotes from all sides and use them as anecdotal evidence to prove whatever point we choose. But that doesn't alter the fact that Karl Rove intentionally poured gasoline on a very inflammatory issue, further dividing and polarizing Americans. And why? To what end? Dean may have been stupid when he said the GO was a party of white Christians, but he didn't call them traitors. That pushes the envelope and is simply not acceptable behavior from a high-ranking government official. And we wonder why were are at each others' throats...

Paul Findley supported Kerry, as did his fellow Israel-hater Pete McCloskey.

The last I heard of Paul Findley, he was guest-posting on the blog of Ayatollah Adriana Huffington.

Richard, Rove did indeed speak provocatively (and, I think, probably to political advantage).

That said, as someone who is still a registered Democrat and has been for 30 years, I've been watching with growing anger and dismay as Democratic leaders have open used the language of hatred and contempt towards Republicans and this administration for 5 YEARS now.

Rove didn't start this and he was responding to far more than Dean's latest outrageous provocation.

Tim, yes, I read the quotes, but you're missing my point. The Bush White House is acting more like the Nixon White House as time goes on. Like Nixon, Bush and his supporters regard the main stream press as incurably liberal and ceaselessly anti-administration. It's so very much like Nixon's hatred for the press, it scary. If Karl Rove is trying to use the press, as you say, to "lure the so-called left" into a killing ground, might the American people come to see the truth for what it is, especially now when public sentiment is turning so sharply against Bush's policies about the war on terrorism with regard to Iraq? And to think that this somehow is going to "debilitate" the main stream press is absurd.

Robin, how was this a response to Dean? Dean made remarks about Republicans not working a day in their lives and about being White Christians. That is a very (and I mean, like very, very) far cry from what Rove did, which was truly shocking. Please think carefully about what Rove said and what Dean said. Dean was foolish; Rove was intentionally incendiary. Remember, many of those soldiers in harms way he cares so much about are Democrats and liberals. Did they deserve to be called traitors? Did they?

Let me close with the words of a New Yorker:

As a New Yorker, I find this the equivalent of blood libel. (You know, the lie that the Jews used Christian babies blood for matzoh). No one asked what party 343 firemen belonged to when they died, or the 34 policemen. No one asked what party nine members of the 69th Regiment, New York City's own infantry regiment with a lineage going back to WW I, were when they were killed in Iraq, two of whom were immigrants, one a Pakistani muslim. No one asked and no one cared.

To say that New Yorkers, who are 5-1 Democrats, are shirking from the service of their country is an insult to them and their service. No one asked for party enrollment when they took their oath and it is wrong to suggest that it matters now. Many New Yorkers, and Californians as well, have died in the service of their country in Iraq and Afghanistan. [...]

Let me explain something birdman: I smelled the dead in my windows for a week after 9/11. While you sat back and worried about some Sikh blowing up your mall, every time I took a breath, burning flesh and paper filled my nose. Every day, for a year, I opened the paper to read about yet another funeral. On nice, sunny days, I get reminded of 9/11. [...]

So don't fu*king lecture me about defending the people who protect my city. You don't drive by the firehouse memorials on every goddamn firehouse in the city. You don't see the stories about fu*ked up families left behind. You live in a fantasy world where big strong men kill the brown people and make you feel like a man. We know what they did for us far better than you ever will, no matter how much you pretend to understand. You don't. And you never will and you never want to.

I can understand why you might be angry at some Democrats for things they've said, but there are plenty of examples on all sides of saying dumb things. I went through all those quotes Joe posted up there chronicling the silly things Dems have said. Aside from Michael Moore, who is far-left and doesn't speak for liberals like myself, I found they weren't so far off the wall. Look at the Soros quotes for example; nothing in them is untrue. Controversial, certainly. But more people have died in the war on terror than died on 911, by far. Why can't he say that? It's a matter of arithmetic. I would really like to see a quote from a responsible, high-ranking democrat that parallels Rove's in terms of slandering millions and branding them as traitors who are encouraging the deaths of our troops. I don't think you will find one, because this is utterly, totally unprecedented and reprehensible.

It is bizarre that anyone could seriously come here and act like what Karl Rove was so much as one-tenth as the outrageous stuff that comes out of Democrats' mouths on a weekly basis.

Rove's comments were based on the actual and real comments that the White House has so well documented and is not in any way an exaggeration of those comments. They were well within reasonable discourse of ideological and policy differences.

Meanwhile, we've got the Dean and others making far more offensive, even slanderous comments. Accusations of conspiracy, murder, torture and more are not called for the outrageous statements that they are - for one reason, Democrats made them about Republicans.

PDShaw, you are aware of the context for Findley's comments you're quoting?

Yeah, I live in the Findley/Durbin Congressional District, and commented on the irony earlier.

You might want to choose a more reputable spokesperson for the point you're trying to make.

I never said he was reputable. In fact, let me specifically say he is not reputable. Nor IMO are some of the people cited above.

The last I heard of Paul Findley, he was guest-posting on the blog of Ayatollah Adriana Huffington.

Every few months he pens guest editorials in the local newspapers, typically stating what real Republicans believe about foreign policy in the Middle East. My favorite is where he explains how he first became outraged with Israel when confronting the tyranical incarceration of innocent American constituents jailed in Yeman. Really.

Ah ... I missed the context. Thanks.

Kathy: "Bush and his supporters regard the main stream press as incurably liberal and ceaselessly anti-administration."

Tim: " The White House hates the MSM, and the feeling is mutual. Bush & Co. know they will be spun if they use the MSM as a primary comms channel."

It would seem we agree on at least half of this. As far as I'm concerned, even a cursory comparison of (for instance) the output of the NYT with what I read from primary sources in Iraq would tend to substantiate the beliefs of GWB & Co. re bias.

So we're just arguing about whether Rove's tactics are effective. I suggest he's deliberately trying to detach both moderates from the left, and audience from the MSM. Given the current trends in MSM credibility, audience and top line, I think I'll just lean back, have some wine, and watch it play out.

(I do really regret that 'liberal' has become the gambit word. I would call myself a 'classic liberal' if that had any meaning in common discourse, and I share many civil liberties believes with liberals of a more recent vintage. )

Ack, 'believes' s/b 'beliefs'. (I wish the anti-spam thingy didn't encourage posting without preview, since I've already had one of those glasses of wine...)

Tim -

I think Rove's twisted mind reasons something like this: He wants to stave off the possibility that the Democrats might learn something from the Durbin fiasco. Might - heaven forfend - reform a little bit, or something.

That means no more fun for anybody.

The best way to prevent this is to hit back immediately. He figures (probably correctly) that the Democrats can't win a tit for tat contest on the whole WoT/National Security issue. And he figures (absolutely correctly) that they can't resist getting into such a contest anyway.

I hope you will join me right now in signing an open letter to the President urging him to thoroughly reject Karl Rove's purposeful attack on the patriotism of those who dare ask the tough questions that best protect American troops. Sign our open letter to President Bush now:

I mean, didn't Kerry try to deny he was a liberal during the campaign? So why's he so upset? Rove isn't referring to him, is he? And even if he is, Rove's calling him tender-minded, not unpatriotic. Or is Kerry so unsure of his patriotism that anything negative which reminds him of Vietnam is automatically "attacking his patriotism"?

Or maybe there's another explanation - Kerry is complaining that Rove is "attacking [his] patiotism", not that Rove is questioning it or impugning it. Kerry is a patriot, and his reactions to 9/11 were patriotic. Rove attacked those expressions, therefore Rove attacked his patriotism. But isn't that what the liberals do to conservatives all the time?

#27 - unprecedented, Richard? Have you forgotten how Bill Clinton slandered conservatives after Oklahoma City? Or for that matter, the blood-libel nature of the phrase "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"?

Yeah, you probably have. Liberals like you have no history. Nor future.

#27 richard, Um Rove was talking about liberals, right? Funny how in your mind that translates directly to Democrats...

Geez, even trying to defend the majority opinion of Dems after 9-11, Richard (#27), slams the military.
"You live in a fantasy world where big strong men kill the brown people and make you feel like a man."
That's the US military in a nutshell for most Dems and Liberals, and dare I say, all Leftists. I'm at 20 years now as a professional soldier, heading back to OIF for the third time, so these comments are nothing new to me. It is, however, new for me to see so many people making such outlandish statements, then diving for cover and feeling insulted when the very statement they made is pointed out to them. It used to be a badge of honor to the libs, and even one Democratic President, to say they "loathed the military." What's happened in the ensuing months is that the rest of America has become less tolerant of such childish whining, and the Dems now realize that they may have made a mistake signing onto the anti-military Vietnam syndrome for the last 35 years. Ask Kerry if he agrees.
New Yorkers didn't earn any special rights, via 9-11, to an automatic defense of their patriotism. If people like Richard think that their geographical closeness to ground zero somehow makes them immune to being called unpatriotic, they are dreaming. Keep toeing the line with folks who can't help themselves from insulting the US military even when they are trying hard not to (those 35-year-old habits are just so hard to break, aren't they?), and see how the average American views the Dems in 2006, and 2008.

Soros Said War On Terror Had Claimed More Innocent Victims Than 9/11 Attack Itself.

more people have died in the war on terror than died on 911, by far. Why can't he say that?

Soros can say whatever he wants, adding more proof to what we already know, he's an idiot. Soros' definition of 'terrorism' is confined to the 9/11 attacks, but if we're talking about Islamist terrorism, we'd have to include all innocent victims of Islamist terrorism, including the 1+ million killed in by the Islamist/al Qaeda-aided government of the Sudan, the hundreds of Americans killed by Islamist 'militants' in the Middle East, the hundreds of Egyptians killed by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, the thousands of Hindus killed by Pakistani Islamists...

I'm not pointing this out to defend Rove, who is the intellectual equivalent of Howard Dean. Republicans aren't going to win any friends by using the Dems' favorite tactic of alienating half of the American population.

And we're not going to win a war on terrorism by allying ourselves with terrorist regimes in Yemen, the Sudan or the KSA.

The only point is, if we didn't have superior military forces to defend us, we'd be suffering the same fate as the blacks in Darfur. Genocide and fascist/apartheid laws are what Islamists are all about. If we are fighting a war against terrorism, victory should be the only goal. 9/11 was proof that we're all Sudanese now.

"It is bizarre that anyone could seriously come here and act like what Karl Rove was so much as one-tenth as the outrageous stuff that comes out of Democrats' mouths on a weekly basis."

Hmm - anyone remember Sing Along with Mitch and following the bouncing ball?

Dick Durbin's Nazi Comment (video download)

"If I read this to you and didn't tell you that is was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets and their gulags, or some mad regime Pol Pot or others; that had no concern for human beings. Sadly that's not the case. This was the action from Americans in .. in treatment or our .. their own prisoners."

Robin has it right, but it's not bizarre; it's the only way to take the scrutiny and heat off of Mr. Durbin. Mr. Durbin's comments were far more damaging than Mr. Rove's and if he believes (which I have to assume since the words came out of his mouth) that the American populace doesn't understand the difference between our own actions versus those of others which are by far more heinous in scope then we must truly have a highly uneducated populace.

Given Mr. Durbin's description I'm surprised he didn't add that the prisoners were brutally beaten, tortured, made to work in salt mines, and finally fed to incinerators, gas chambers and firing squads. Then again the FBI agent didn't say that but I suppose we can draw that conclusion given Mr. Durbin's comparison. I have no reason to believe Mr. Durbin would not have drawn that same conclusion except for the fact that the account came from an FBI agent. Mr. Durbin knows that such atrocities would be fully punishable by our military and civilian sectors.

Just as an aside; who do the prisoners belong to? The military or the American populace? Seems to me Mr. Durbin can't make up his mind on that one. Yet again it seems to indicate he wants no part of it and lays the blame on some else.

One thing noticable about contemporary retro-libs is their complete absence of a sense of humor. Everything is so, so serious... this characteristic betokens not only lack of humility, but a skewed perspective whereby everything is so fraught with implications that any decent sense of proportion becomes impossible.

Note how every word uttered in even token opposition to liberalista tenets is monstrously inflated, made to seem as if The Republic For Which We Stand was a mere cardboard cutout, liable to capsize and decompose at any moment. For a party addicted to "nuance", does it not seem odd that every Demo utterance descends to Total War assault not only on opponents' arguments but on their characters and motivations as well? Of course, "civil discourse" is but an adjunct requirement of rational debate; but what's rational about screaming epithets at anyone unkind enough to quote back your own recorded statements?

A source who prefers anonymity asserts that Howard Dean and John Kerry suffer from late-symptom onset of STDs. This must be true, because our source says it is. Moreover, the records relating to these major-medical anomalies are known to be on file in DNC archives, available for publication by Larry Flynt should either Dean or Kerry choose to betray The Cause. We know, because to date McAuliffe et.al. have only issued scandalized denials.

You want slander? Nothing beats Kerry in 1971, Mark Felt in '74, Mapes/Rather in 2004... if Anonymous is your name, two can play that game. Welcome to the Greasy Spoon Political Buffet, where we serve up seditious libel garnished with partisan dead-meat. All you can eat, for Peanuts (get it?).

Diggs -

Take care of yourself over there.

and see how the average American views the Dems in 2006, and 2008.

Diggs,

I predict you are correct!!

Thank you for your service to me and our country in this fight against our enemy.

      My, this has gotten interesting.

      Are all Democrats liberals?  Rove criticized liberals, and people reply 'How dare you say that about Democrats?'  These are serious questions, addressed to the critics of Rove: 1) should we automatically assume all Democrats are liberals? 2) should we automatically assume all liberals are Democrats?  It will be interesting to see how many have the stones to answer 'Yes' or 'No' to the questions.

      As for the quotes released in support of Rove's position, can anyone show me quotes by Democrats disavowing MoveOn.Org, for example?  When some racist moron tries to identify himself as a Republican, GOP politicians publicly denounce him.  Any such denunciations of MoveOn or Michael Moore or the rest of the pro-terrorist crowd on record?

      I rather doubt it, seeing how these links concerning the filibuster issue demonstrate.  The Democratic Party wants the support and votes of the pro-murder-and-tyranny-scum, so it won't denounce them.  But it wants the support of sane people too.  So the Donkey Party panders to the Jew haters and the anti-Americans, while pretending to be patriots.

      Well, it won't wash.  The liberals want to impress us that they're not pro-terror, they can run the al-Qaida cheering section out of their ranks, just as Americans for Democratic Action ran the commies out in the late forties and early fifties.

      Till then, choke on it.  You're known by the company you keep, and if you hang with those who hope the U.S. loses the war, we'll assume you want that too.

THE SAUDS MUST BE DESTROYED!

Stephen St. O:

I think it comes down to the following:

When liberals say something stupid, Democrats will duck and say, "But I'm not a liberal!"

But criticize those same liberals, and Democrats will take offense, "How dare you accuse me of this?!"

Senator Joe Biden, 10/22/01, complained, griped, bellyached: "The bombing campaign reinforced existing stereotypes of the United States as a ‘high-tech bully’"

Biden, in the same remarks, went on to praise Bush as somebody who could go on to become one of the great Presidents.

Biden is a man of warped sensibilities for whom anti-American imagery has such penetrant and enveloping resonance, that his bowels quake at the thought of the USA's seeming to conform to such imagery. He's a helpless liberal underminer of the USA even in spite of himself -- he is his own unwitting accomplice. This frame of mind is something worth contemplating -- it throws light on how liberals can be so completely clueless about their own words.