Dean to seek chairmanship of Democrats

I'm saying Karl Rove is a c*ck-sucking sack of sh*t.

Pumpkin.

"Of course not."

"What Karl Rove said is true."

Truthfully, you've hit on the difference in the two parties. Sort of.

Quote:

"Of course not."

-- Scott McClellan, asked if Bush will ask Rove to apologize

Quote:

"What Karl Rove said is true."

-- GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman, 'no need for Rove to apologize'

When Democrats say something that's true, Republicans demand an apology and then sure enough, a Democrat will cry, apologize, and beg forgiveness.

The big difference is that the Dems NEVER say anything that is true therefore they always must apologize.

Are you saying that the liberals weren't thumping the rest of us for "our part in why they attacked" and are you saying that liberals didn't say widely, "we should understand WHY they did what they did?"

I CAN find the quotes.

Rove spoke the truth.


Sweetie.

Jeez, can't you dunces on the right realize that we have to go after our attackers AND figure out their reasoning?

Quote:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals wanted to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

JUN. 26, 2005: SAME SIDE?

An editorial in Saturday's NYT denounces as "cynical" Karl Rove's observation that (in the NYT's paraphrase): "conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11." It continues: "Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists."

Oh if only that were true. But the NYT itself is daily crammed with evidence that Rove is right and that the NYT editorialists are wrong. Take for example this story, which appeared on the front page, upper left hand corner of Friday's paper. Here's the lede:

"Military doctors at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have aided interrogators in conducting and refining coercive interrogations of detainees, including providing advice on how to increase stress levels and exploit fears, according to new, detailed accounts given by former interrogators."

And it continues:

"The accounts shed light on how interrogations were conducted and raise new questions about the boundaries of medical ethics in the nation's fight against terrorism."

You might well wonder: what questions could this story possibly raise? What on earth could be wrong with the military using psychologists to help it figure out how to interrogate more effectively? Or - to be more specific - how on earth could even the NYT possibly find this use of psychologists objectionable? The interrogations in this case after all involve terrorists captured in Afghanistan, the war that the NYT tells us it unequivocally supports. The psychologists were not involved in any alleged abuse or maltreatment of prisoners.

Yet the paper gives prolonged and highly visible credence to complaints that "there was no way that psychiatrists at Guantánamo could ethically counsel interrogators on ways to increase distress on detainees." How, how, how?

Hold your jaw in your mouth with both hands and listen:

"Several ethics experts outside the military said there were serious questions involving the conduct of the doctors, especially those in units known as Behavioral Science Consultation Teams, BSCT, colloquially referred to as 'biscuit' teams, which advise interrogators.

"'Their purpose was to help us break them,' one former interrogator told The Times earlier this year."

In other words: in the view of the NYT's favored experts, and of those editors who adjudged this story worth of the most prominent spot on A-1, it was the very act of extracting information from terrorist detainees that was morally problematic.

And that's why conservatives like Karl Rove express doubts about the liberal commitment to the war on terror.

Now - just to complicate things - let me add one more point. It is also true that the war on terror is likely to last a long time. It's true too that success in this war will require the United States government to take actions that it has never taken before. In the book I cowrote with Richard Perle, An End to Evil, we recommended for this reason that the administration should work with Congress to write a formal legal code governing its anti-terror operations. Instead, the administration has tried to run the legal aspects of the war on pure executive fiat. That's bad policy - and over the long haul it has proven to be if possible even worse politics. Rather than split moderate, war-fighting Democrats away from legalistic, pacifistic liberals, this high-handed approach has tended to push potential war supporters into a dangerous alliance with weak-willed or actively anti-American war opponents on the far left.

That I think is the real meaning of Sen. Durbin's outburst on the Senate floor. Yes it was an appalling, outrageous, and utterly false thing to say. But if Durbin's words were a moral disaster, the fact that the United States has lost a senator to such madness is bad news for everyone.

So while many liberals are behaving just as badly as Karl Rove, it's worth a moment's thought to consider whether there might not be things that the administration responsible for waging and winning this war could be doing better to hold together its war-fighting coalition. It's not enough to shrug and say, "Well that's just the way liberals are." The governing conservative majority should be acting in such a way as to deprive liberals of any excuse for being that way. That unfortunately has not been done. So there's failure and blame enough for all: moral failure on their side; political failure on ours.

You might well wonder: what questions could this story possibly raise? What on earth could be wrong with the military using psychologists to help it figure out how to interrogate more effectively?
"More effectively"...yes, as medical doctors and psychologists were used in Russia and China and, of course, there's everyone's favorite military doctor, Mengele. Very effective interrogations followed. What questions could this story possibly raise, indeed. Heck, Hippocrates himself figured the proper use of medical knowledge was to assist in state sponsored torture and so doctors take an oath to this effect.
Or - to be more specific - how on earth could even the NYT possibly find this use of psychologists objectionable? The interrogations in this case after all involve terrorists captured in Afghanistan
typical false claim, they are suspects
the war that the NYT tells us it unequivocally supports. The psychologists were not involved in any alleged abuse or maltreatment of prisoners.
"Clearly, the medical personnel who helped to develop and execute aggressive counter-resistance plans thereby breached the laws of war," (from the New England Journal of Medicine

June 27, 2005, 7:47 a.m.
Making Karl Rove a Prophet
While its apologists demand an apology, the Left attacks material-witness detentions.

What could that crazy Karl Rove have been thinking?

First, we're not going to go into any war without first listening to the generals who know about these things. Bush sent America into war, but he didnt listen. We'll consult with [etc]
Second, we're not going to let our troops fight without the necessary armour, we would give them what they need - I mean, I opposed the war, but now that we're there, we need to make sure our troops are equipped, and [etc - more points on Iraq]
Third, we're going to challenge the deficit, so that your viewers will be able to have the money to pay their rent and their health insurance and to pay their [Stewart breaks in, appearing to already have lost all hope on the point: "and cable, dont forget cable"]
Fourth, we're going to challenge corruption, there's a culture of corruption in Washington, with ...

I read an article in a PA (I think) newspaper recently that said Dean raised $15,000 at some dinner.

That same night, though, the Republikkkans had a "Dean Scream" contest and raised $20,000...same city LOL!

Their reason for living is to say No to everything the Republicans try to do.