June 23, 2005

Karl Rove’s slander — The Complete Transcript

Reasonable people throughout the political world are outraged at Karl Rove’s contemptible remarks from last night, which politicized 9/11 and slandered half the country. The calls for Rove to either apologize or resign his position at the White House are clearly justified.

But what, exactly, did he say, and what was the full context? It seems the White House has decided, for some reason, not to post a copy of Rove’s speech on its site. Nevertheless, I’ve obtained a complete and unedited transcript of Rove’s speech. It’s long, but worth reading to see the pathological worldview of the man often described as “Bush’s brain.”

It’s posted below the fold.

* * * * *

June 22, 2005
Karl Rove, Deputy White House Chief of Staff
Remarks to the New York Conservative Party

Thank you very much, Michael, for your kind introduction — and for all you have done over the years to advance the conservative cause in this great state and throughout our land. You are a forceful and articulate champion of conservatism — and all of us are grateful for your energy and commitment to a great cause.

I honored to receive the Charles Edison Memorial Award, particularly in light of your previous honorees, including Representative Jack Kemp, Senator Zell Miller, and above all, President Ronald Wilson Reagan. That is better company than I deserve to be in — but I’ll take what I can get.

It’s a pleasure to be among so many friends and fellow conservatives — and it’s a privilege to speak to the Conservative Party of New York. You provide much of the energy and activism and hard work that has brought us to a moment when conservatism is the dominant political creed in America — and when we are making progress on so many important issues.

Think for a moment how much has been achieved by conservatives in the last 40 years. The conservative movement has gone from a small, principled opposition to a broad, inclusive movement that is self- assured, optimistic, forward-leaning, and dominant.

Four decades ago conservatism was relegated to the political wilderness — and today conservatism is the guiding philosophy in the White House, the Senate, the House, and in governorships and state legislatures throughout America.

More importantly, we have seen the great rise of a great cause. Conservatives have achieved a tremendous amount in the past decades — but there is more, much more, that remains to be done. This afternoon I will devote my remarks to the President’s victory in November; the ideas that will continue to work in our favor; and the state of contemporary liberalism.

The political realignment in America is moving ahead; here are some of the reasons I believe this is happening.

To you, the Presidential election probably seems like it took place a long time ago; I know that’s certainly how it seems to me. But it was a key election in the history of our country — and there are important things we can learn from it.

Recall that in 2004, we faced a united opposition which outspent our side by over $40 million in a time of controversial war and a recovering, but not recovered economy.

The 2004 election was a steep political mountain to climb, but the President scaled it — and he did so with energy, passion, decency, and an unwavering commitment to principle. What is significant about November’s victory is not simply that the President won, but how he won.

In the 2004 election, President Bush placed all his chips on the table. There was no trimming on issues, no “campaign conversion,” no backing away from Social Security and tax code reform. The President persistently made the case for an “ownership society”; championed a culture of life; defended the institution of marriage; stood with the people of Iraq in their passage to liberty; remained committed to spreading democracy in the Middle East; and continued to aggressively wage and win the war on global terrorism.

President Bush showed himself as he is. He wanted a referendum on what he has accomplished — and most importantly, on what he hopes to achieve.

The victory itself was significant. President Bush received more votes than any other candidate in American history. He’s the first President since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. He increased his popular vote total by 11.6 million votes since 2000 — more than four-and-a-half times President Clinton’s increase from 1992 to 1996. President Bush improved his percentage in all but three states. He improved his vote in 87 percent of all counties and carried more than 80 percent of the counties — and he won in 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties and George W. Bush is also the first President since FDR to be re-elected while his party gained seats in the House and Senate — and the first Republican President since 1924 to get re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities. And he won with a higher percentage than any Democratic Presidential candidate has received since 1964.

President Bush achieved what almost none of his critics thought he would.

Once again, they misunderestimated what you and he could do.

And now, moving forward, here’s why we will defy expectations again. It’s because of the ideas we hold.

A quarter-century ago, a Senator from this state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote this: “of a sudden, the GOP has become a party of ideas.” It was true then; and it remains true today. We are the party of ideas — and as Richard Weaver wrote, “ideas have consequences.” With that in mind, here are some of the ideas I believe will lead to the further realignment of American politics.

We are seizing the Mantle of Idealism. As all of you know, President Bush is making a powerful case for spreading human liberty and defending human dignity. This was once largely the preserve of liberalism — but Ronald Reagan changed all that. It was President Reagan, you’ll recall, who said the policy of the United States was not simply to contain Soviet Communism, but to transcend it. And we would, he argued, was because of the power of liberty.

President Bush has built on those beliefs — and he is committed to something no past President has ever attempted: spreading liberty to the broader Middle East. President Bush’s eventual goal is the triumph of freedom and the end of tyranny in our world. This vision, which will require the concentrated work of generations, is consistent with the deep idealism of the American people — and it is an idealism whose importance is being confirmed by history and events.

During the last four decades we have witnessed the most spectacular growth of liberty in history. More nations are free today than ever before. Consider that in a four month period — from the end of 2004 to early 2005 — we saw elections take place in Afghanistan, the Ukraine, among the Palestinians, and in Iraq. In the span of 113 days, more than 100 million people, living on two continents, have cast free votes in nations that had never known democracy. More than half of these voters are people of the Muslim faith who live in the broader Middle East. And since those elections we have seen what scholars refer to as “The Arab Spring” in Lebanon and Egypt and elsewhere. We are seeing unprecedented progress when it comes to spreading liberty in the Middle East.

This confidence in the power of liberty is anchored in the words of the Declaration of Independence; the arguments of President Lincoln; and the policies of President Reagan and President Bush. In his second Inaugural Address, President Bush stated it well:

“Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.”

Second, our movement’s growth has made us Agents of Reform. Edmund Burke, one of the most important figures in the history of conservatism, was known as an advocate of reform. He understood the essence of conservatism is applying timeless principles to changing circumstances, which is one of the keys to political success.

President Bush has pointed out that many of our most fundamental systems — the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, legal systems, public education, worker training among them — were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. He is committed to reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. As the President has said, to give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools. We will build an ownership society by expanding the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance, and preparing Americans for the challenges of life in a free society. We are putting government on the side of reform and progress, modernization and greater freedom, more personal choice and greater prosperity. The great goal of modern-day conservatism is to make our society more prosperous and more just.

Third, we are defending Time-Honored Values. Conservatives have long known that political liberty depends on a healthy social and moral order. And so the President is committed to strengthening society’s key institutions — families, schools, communities, and protecting those mediating structures so important to our freedom, like our churches, neighborhood and private groups – the institutions that inculcate virtues, shape character, and provide the young with moral education.

That is why President Bush supports welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. That is why he has supported adoption and responsible fatherhood initiatives. That is why he is building a culture of life and upholding the dignity of the human person — and seeks a world in which every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. And that is why he has provided unprecedented support for religious charities that provide a safety net of mercy and compassion.

It is why President Bush supports the protection of traditional marriage against activist judges; why he signed legislation that insists on testing, high standards, and accountability in our schools; and why he he has fostered a culture of service and citizenship.

President Bush supports these things because he believes they will lead to a society that is more compassionate and decent, stronger and better. We are attempting to spread liberty abroad — and we must show that we are worthy of liberty at home.

Let me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:

“Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance. Liberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms.”

These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.

There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes — though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don’t. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life”; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. 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.”

I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

Moderation and restraint is not what I felt — and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will — and to brandish steel.

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did.

Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot — three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Let me end where I began. Forty years ago, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a proud liberal, won the Presidency in a landslide. His party held 68 Senate seats; 295 House seats; and 33 governorships.

In 2004 George W. Bush, a proud conservative, won the Presidency for the second time, receiving the most votes in American history. His party has now won seven of the last 10 Presidential elections. Republicans hold 55 Senate seats; 232 House seats; and 28 governorships.

These facts underscore how much progress has been made in four decades. It has been a remarkable rise. But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party — in this case, the Democrat Party — when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common good. We need to learn from our successes — and from the failures of the other side and ourselves. As the governing movement in America, conservatives cannot grow tired or timid. We have been given the opportunity to govern; now we have to show we deserve the trust of our fellow citizens.

At one time the conservative movement was largely a reactionary political party — and there was a sense of pessimism even among many of its ardent champions. You’ll recall that Whittaker Chambers, who gave up his affiliation with Communism to join the West in its struggle for freedom, said he believed he was joining the losing side.

For decades, liberals were setting the agenda, the pace of change, and the visionary goals. Conservatives were simply reacting to them. But times change, often for the better — and this President and today’s conservative movement are shaping history, not trying to stop it. Together we are articulating a compelling vision of a better world — and I am grateful to all of you who are making that better world a reality.

Thank you very much for your attention, for your support of this President, and above all, for your devotion to this country.

 
Discussion

What do you think? Leave a comment. Alternatively, write a post on your own weblog; this blog accepts trackbacks.

25 Comments
1.
On June 23rd, 2005 at 9:27 pm, Mr Fribble said:

While an apology (and ritual suicide) would be appropriate, I think folks are missing the bigger issue.

What you’re seeing here is–drum roll, please–official acknowledgement from the White House that the war is lost. The endgame at this point is to see that someone else takes the blame for “losing us the war.” There is no other point to this hateful speech–it does not advance the war effort one iota, and indeed hurts it (after all, having offended half the country can’t be good for recruiting, can it). Rove is attempting to make sure that the Republicans (and Bush) emerge from this with their reputations intact, or at least see that their opponents don’t get off without a few bruises. That’s why he won’t apologize. That’s why none of them will. They want to make it clear that the Democrats lost the war.

The best thing to do is make it public that what Rove (and other Republicans) are doing is a loser’s strategy. Directly confront them about whether Rove’s and others’ remarks help our troops or give comfort to the enemy and hinder us.

2.
On June 23rd, 2005 at 10:24 pm, burro said:

In my most humble and non-smart alecky sort of voice I must ask, are any of these words surprising? Does it take hearing the actual words coming out of his mouth to comprehend what Rove is thinking?

We’ve had quite a few years now to digest Rove’s practice of doing and saying whatever is necessary to hold on to all the marbles. What he said is what he thinks and he’s thought those things all along.

I have read sputtering outrage and condemnation in many corners of the blogosphere over the last couple of hours and though Rove deserves it all, he was quite aware 48 hours ago what he was doing. Rove’s got no respect, really, for anyone other than himself. He revels in the calls to resign, knowing that nothing can force his hand. The tableau unfolds before him and he ponders his next move.

Until we are able to take back a significant chunk of government to generate some leverage, Karl can and will say pretty much whatever he wants.

If folks are angry enough at his cavalier use of 9/11 to bolster his own rhetoric and his casual dismissal of the patriotism and concern for country of liberals then that anger must be marshalled to gather resources and create plans for a concerted effort to win some elections.

Rove isn’t going to resign, nor will he be asked to leave.

3.
On June 23rd, 2005 at 10:48 pm, Mark said:

Spin, lies, more spin, and more lies.

When you compare what was said in this speech against what has been happening over the last 4 and 1/2 years it gives me an incredible feeling of disgust.

Right now I’m going to go kick something, and then tomorrow I am going to call the White House. I’m angry, I lost a family member on 9/11, my family has fought and died for this country since the revolutionary war, we have been here for almost 400 years, and to imply that I am a traitor is just going to far.

4.
On June 23rd, 2005 at 10:51 pm, aReader said:

Re: #1 Above — extremely good analysis IMHO, Mr Fribble.

Related, I’m thinking of the phrase “put the grown-ups back in charge”. We need some national grown-up figure (used to be Walter Cronkite, maybe not anymore) to step in. My dream is that some elder Republican with so-called “gravitas” will emerge and call out Bush for ruining the military and the country.

Who might that be? Gerald Ford? Nancy Reagan? Swharzkopff (remember, he refused to support Bush)? Colin Powell? Alan Simpson? GHWBush? Pleeeeeese, somebody help!

(PS – Example: Dwight Eisenhower’s son had a great editoral supporting Kerry for President last Fall)

5.
On June 23rd, 2005 at 11:01 pm, Yancey Anderson said:

While I agree to a certain extent with Mr. Fribble, in that I see this as wholly calcuated, I think there is something much larger and scarier for the administration. That is the Downing Street leaks. I have a feeling they see it as having legs, and the plan is to push it off the front pages by forcing the Dems hand. How many calls for Rove’s resignation, apology or Sepuku have we heard so far? It will never happen, but it will be reported.
I really think we need to keep our focus, and keep asking questions. Rightous indignation is a wonderful feeling, but we shouldn’t take our eye off the ball. The DSM will be this administrations Watergate. It’s hubris will be its downfall. We need to continue keeping pressure on the media. Keep them pointed in the right direction. It’s going to be up to us, no one else will be bothered.

6.
On June 24th, 2005 at 12:03 am, Stan Cranford said:

I read the speech. Could not find the slander.

I did however find the following to be very interesting and it strikes to the very heart of your “outrage”.

“Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance. Liberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms.” These are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.

Come on liberals; let’s hear some IDEAS! It’s not that difficult and you are supposed to be the brightest among us. All we hear are negative comments from your leaders about everything under the sun. Liberal/Socialists are completely devoid of positive ideas.

What about Social Security, it’s your baby! You started it, your leaders kept promising ever greater benefits to stay in office, it built every major liberal social/welfare program and is facing the biggest payout in it’s history in just a few short years. The system is bankrupt or will be and still nothing has been heard from the liberals except, “It isn’t broke� or “Bush wants to steal your retirement�.

Ah, the perfect analogy! The Social Security System and American Liberalism! Both will be dead in a few years unless they BOTH change.

7.
On June 24th, 2005 at 7:19 am, Mr. Fribble said:

Stan,
Too late trying to distract! This issue here is how Rove is betraying our troops and encouraging the enemy with his open contempt for his fellow countrymen. The fact that Republicans have ignored “liberal” (a term Republicans use to mean anyone who opposes Bush, like conservatives and scientists, and not merely progressives) ideas can be addressed in another thread. Stick to the topic, please.

8.
On June 24th, 2005 at 9:27 am, dave s said:

Rove is a genius. By setting this trap, he has gotten the Dems to respond, and now the news is all about the most intemperate things any Dem has said for the last three years. And reporters will be looking for these. It’s going to he ‘he said, he said’ for a week. Can’t buy that kind of story, and he has manufactured it. He has changed the subject, and made it exactly what he wants.

9.
On June 24th, 2005 at 9:59 am, jeffstoned said:

You want some ideas, dittohead?

Okay. How about: economic and social justice, world leadership in which strength is matched with principle, investment in education and communities.

Now, it seems a stretch to believe that any Republican is interested in specific policy solutions beyond outlawing flag-burning and perhaps stoning some homosexuals or “loose women” in public when necessary to angry up the blood of the Faithful, but in case I’m wrong, here are a few for ya: a new Safety Net that would attach health care, portable pensions and lifelong educational opportunity to work, a “baby bond” provision that would start each new American with a private account at the beginning of life, which couldn’t be drawn upon for 18 years and would amass interest during that time; mandatory public service for 18-19 year olds (military or civil) in return for college tuition support.

That’s what our party is about. Yours seems to be about theocracy and oligarchy. And your policy ideas are evidently restricted to “you keep shopping, and we’ll keep spending,” and “America: We’re not as bad as Stalin.”

I find it very interesting that Karl Rove thinks the Democrats prescribe “understanding” of our terrorist foes. As a New Yorker who works on Wall Street and walked through the pulverized remains of the Towers that horrible morning, my blood boils every time I see bin Laden’s face–or that of his Saudi enablers. Yet Bush has said he “doesn’t care” where this arch-fiend is, and if he hasn’t treated the Saudi royals with “understanding,” I don’t know what else to call it.

This second term has exposed the hollow core of Republican “governance.” The congressional wing indulges in comprehensive pay-to-play intercourse with lobbyists, interrupted by the occasional foray into private morality (Schiavo); the president reassures us that he thinks about Iraq “every day,” while keeping his administration free of anyone with actual experience of war. And meanwhile we go deeper into hoc with the Chinese, the Saudis and other regimes who likely don’t have our best interests at heart. At some point they will stop furnish the rope, and just hang us. I wonder how Rove will then try to blame the disenfranchised opposition for the misery he and his party have brought to this country.

10.
On June 24th, 2005 at 10:00 am, Kris said:

I think Mr Fribble was dead on about the goal here. As usual they are trying to shift the blame to dems in bizarre and twisted ways. Something they were proudly responsible for just months ago they’re now (rightly) embarrassed about. So Rove spins this into being about “those weak liberals” though we voted for war with Afghanistan . . . its about corruption, conceit, deceit and sliding poll numbers. The war and the administration are becoming extremely unpopular and he’s trying to put a good face on them but it won’t work. The American people have heard enough lies and they no longer (except Stan and a few others) except the obviously false at face value. They’re desperately grasping at straws trying to save their extremely tarnished image by coming up with some pretty humorous statistics and blatantly untrue statements of ideology. It is true that conservatives are against the public schools, the legal systems, the pensions, etc., of the past . . . because it cost the wealthy their fair share and they don’t want to pay it . . . but it has nothing to do with the greater good or the future of our citizenry. Its about their pocketbooks. We all know that. We voted for war in Afghanistan and we were misled into war with Iaq. This is a reaction to the fact that more and more our citizens are waking up to reality of their dishonesty and their true agenda. Again they are attempting to create a new reality but nobody’s buying. The fact that they won’t force an apology only reinforces the newly accurate perception of their hubris. The emperor’s clothes are fading away. This only proves that they will stop at nothing to maintain the illusion of success. But like their buddies at Enron – its a house of cards that is showing all the signs of falling hard.
Now to get control of the elections so that the truth can be known- that we have won 5 of the last 10 presidential elections (at least) and will continue to win many more. They are scared because people are re-learning the lessons of Vietnam and Nazi Germany – a little late, but better late than never.

11.
On June 24th, 2005 at 10:30 am, Kris said:

The DNC responds to Karl Rove
Posted by Larkspur
Added to homepage Fri Jun 24th 2005, 10:21 AM ET

Rove is right: there are differences

White House spokesman Scott McClellan says that Karl Rove just meant that Democrats and Republicans had “different philosophies” when it comes to their reactions following 9/11. We agree. Our philosophies couldn’t be more different when it comes to fighting international terrorism. Let’s compare:

Democrats
Believe capturing the person primarily responsible for the attack should be a top priority.

Republicans
It’s been four years, and Osama bin Laden is still free, even though Bush’s CIA chief says he knows where he is.

Democrats
Investigate the intelligence failures that led to 9/11.

Republicans
Do everything in their power to block the 9/11 Commission from doing its work.

Democrats
Propose creating the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans
Push tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Democrats
Believe we should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, not allowing the Taliban to resurge, the warlords to take power, and the opium trade to skyrocket.

Republicans
Ignore Afghanistan as the situation worsens.

Democrats
Believe that we should be honest with our troops about the reasons we go to war, give them everything they need to be safe, and make sure we go in with an exit plan.

Republicans
Manipulate intelligence to trump up reasons to go to war, don’t give our troops the support they need, constantly mislead the public about the direction the war is going, and fail to make an exit plan. And turn Iraq into the ultimate terrorist training ground.

http://www.democrats.org/blog/comment/00012258.html

12.
On June 24th, 2005 at 1:05 pm, bob said:

The sad thing is, people like Stan really can’t find the slander. It’s a very real “blind spot” in their character, though they consider a strength and source of pride. But back to the point; yes Rove did this to distract. The republicans are not getting good press these days and certain stories are finding their way above the fold. Definitely time for some inflammatory comments about your opponent. Rove’s audience had already drank the kool-aid, so his attacks were wasted on them. This was just another attempt to keep the media away from everything from Downing Street and Rep. Cunningham to Dick Cheney’s sage “Last throes” comment. (I imagine they were hoping the Ed Klein attack book would eat up some of the news cycle,but since Klein can barely get on the air to peddle his wares, it was time to be more proactive.) And hey, it worked too. I just wasted five minutes on Karl.

13.
On June 24th, 2005 at 1:59 pm, Lisa McArdle said:

Mr. Fibble….I couldn’t have said it better myself. Your insight rocks!

14.
On June 24th, 2005 at 2:17 pm, Racerx said:

This is a distraction.

Why are they so worried?

hmm, couldn’t be the DSM getting actual media coverage, could it?

Naw…

15.
On June 24th, 2005 at 2:32 pm, Ted Rhapsody said:

Stan,
Here’s an idea for you. How about we catch Bin Laden and avenge the 3000+ American deaths of 9/11? How about that?

16.
On June 24th, 2005 at 3:34 pm, Jim said:

areader wrote “Who might that be? Gerald Ford? Nancy Reagan? Swharzkopff (remember, he refused to support Bush)? Colin Powell? Alan Simpson? GHWBush? Pleeeeeese, somebody help!”

General Schwartzkopff did come out for the president. He was at the Republican national Convention telling reports that he did support the president. Nancy Reagan’s only beef with the president is embryo research. And please GHW.. it’s his father… you know what your a moron.

JeffStoned wrote “Okay. How about: economic and social justice, world leadership in which strength is matched with principle, investment in education and communities.

Now, it seems a stretch to believe that any Republican is interested in specific policy solutions beyond outlawing flag-burning and perhaps stoning some homosexuals or “loose women” in public when necessary to angry up the blood of the Faithful, but in case I’m wrong, here are a few for ya: a new Safety Net that would attach health care, portable pensions and lifelong educational opportunity to work, a “baby bond” provision that would start each new American with a private account at the beginning of life, which couldn’t be drawn upon for 18 years and would amass interest during that time; mandatory public service for 18-19 year olds (military or civil) in return for college tuition support.”

Where does the money for this safety net come from? by the way isn’t that supposed to be SS? Mandatory public service for 18-19 year olds in return for they’re fafsa? Great so the parents work pay federal taxes, then they’re kids have to do public service to get back that money. ya that sounds fair

Kris wrote ::read his thing above:: Your a moron (by the way thats a scientific term if you didn’t already know)

Bob wrote “The sad thing is, people like Stan really can’t find the slander. It’s a very real “blind spot” in their character, though they consider a strength and source of pride. But back to the point; yes Rove did this to distract.”
Bob whether this was done as a distraction or not you have to admit he was gievn the ammunition to say it. Moveon.org with there petition. Kerry with we need to understand where the terrorist are comming from. The sense I got from democrats is that we deserved what we got on sept 11th.

ted wrote “Stan,
Here’s an idea for you. How about we catch Bin Laden and avenge the 3000+ American deaths of 9/11? How about that? ”
Do you not believe for a second that if we could actually catch him that it would have been done by now. No the pentagon and cia is soley made of republicans who are extremly loyal to the president. Again another moron

17.
On June 24th, 2005 at 5:04 pm, Robert said:

Karl Rove is right. There is more outrage from the democrats by his comments then for what they should really be outraged about. From the start in the middle to now and eventually the end of this engagement they have been against the war and for helping to stabilize the country of Iraq. They care more for the Prisoners in Gauntamina and abu grahib. They should shut up all ready and help fight this thing correctly but they dont, rather they hinder the efforts with thier blather and venom, and will help in dragging this engagement on, by not being on board. They are on thier way to becoming obsolete!!!

18.
On June 24th, 2005 at 5:44 pm, Mr. Fribble said:

Hi Robert,
Those people you’re calling obsolete are about 49% of the electorate and the recruiting base for our military. Your Republicans are showing their support for the troops by chasing off the recruiters, so you won’t be getting many more troops from them. Those “liberals” you and your betters casually insult have even less reason now to join up than your fellow Republicans.

So ask yourself (and your Party) what’s more important: scoring political points or winning the war.

Obviously, winning the war comes second. And it’s safe to rant (and send your neighbors off to die or get maimed) than to serve.

19.
On June 24th, 2005 at 6:41 pm, Edo said:

Jim,

The sense I got from democrats is that we deserved what we got on sept 11th.

Funny that’s exactly the position of Fred Phelps. That *conservative* still says the US deserved the attack. And, hey! what do you know, he’s not the only *conservative*: what were Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson’s comments again? Can’t remember?

That’s okay, I’ll help:

Jerry Falwell said God may have allowed what the nation deserved because of moral decay and said Americans should have an attitude of repentance before God and asking for God’s protection. He specifically listed the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People For the American way as sharing in the blame. Pat Robertson responded with agreement.

As I’ve said to other conservative’s I’ll see your Ward Churchill and Michael Moore and raise you a Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson.

FYI: Moore and Churchill never ran for president. Robertson did. So don’t even try to claim any “they’re not the mainstream” BS.

20.
On June 24th, 2005 at 6:52 pm, Edo said:

Oh and Jim, if you don’t like the paraphrasing, here’s a partial transcript:

Falwell said, “What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.”
Robertson replied, “Well, Jerry, that’s my feeling. I think we’ve just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven’t begun to see what they can do to the major population.”

Falwell said, “The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I’ll hear from them for this, but throwing God…successfully with the help of the federal court system…throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad…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 try to secularize America…I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen.”

21.
On June 24th, 2005 at 7:00 pm, goatchowder said:

Phoebe Cates in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”:

“He’s not a guy, he’s a little prick!”

22.
On June 24th, 2005 at 7:13 pm, bob said:

Jim wrote “Bob whether this was done as a distraction or not you have to admit he was gievn the ammunition to say it. Moveon.org with there petition. Kerry with we need to understand where the terrorist are comming from. The sense I got from democrats is that we deserved what we got on sept 11th.”

Okay, Jim, you have got to turn your radio away from the am stations. I’m not sure where you got the sense that Democrats thought we got what we deserved. Sounds like the very definition of what right wingnuts call the “blame-America-first crowd,” that doesn’t mean it really happened. (Remember when they claimed that Hillary wouldn’t meet with any of the 9-11 victims families, even though she did?) As a matter of fact, w It comes to blaming first, I remember two popular TV preachers who decided that the 9/11/01 attack was all the fault of everyone on the left. I think this was about 24-48 hours after the attack.

Jim, there are so many people out there who are nothing more than headline-reading sheep. They don’t care about being well-informed, they just want to know what to think and who to blame. This administration knows this all too well and attempts to use it to sway public opinion. (Remember the 71% of the public who thought Saddam helped plan the attacks on 9-11-01?) The bumpersticker politics used by Rove is easy and simple. And taking the next step by seriously discussing the details is difficult and an easy way of being called soft on terror. Do you really think Osama attacked us because “they hate our freedom?” Do you care what his motives were? Will you be surprised if/when it happens again? We need to understand our enemies, Jim, and if Karl want to call us unpatriotic for doing that, well, that’s his right as an American citizen. It’s also an easy and cheap shot. But back to your point, when your job description is to always put party before country, it’s easy to find ammo against the other side.

23.
On June 25th, 2005 at 7:31 pm, Eric said:

I’m not surprised by Rove. He is brilliant. Democratic leaders don’t own television stations at this time, so they are at the mercy of the radical rapid republican press machines, and Rove is the brain behind the little man in the White House.

The Republicans even now in the Senate are starting to realize that there will need to be a “patsy” for the failures occuring in Iraq. When civil war starts in the next year, someone will need to be blamed, and Rove is starting the BIG LIE that its liberals. When, actually, liberals have voted with everyone to fund the military, sometimes more, to make sure that those in combat had what it takes.

But, seriously, Democrats have been crying foul for several years about the intelligence, while Republicans have been blocking. Bush knew about 9/11, his cronies were aware of the threat, yet did nothing. He has the war he wanted, so he could be an aggressor. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and here again, ROVE continues the BIG LIE attempting once again to connect 9/11 with IRAQ. Iraq was not funding terrorists in America, the Taliban was. You know, the group we left to regroup in Afghanistan right this minute?

Yes, and the Republican foreign policy seems to be we will invade countries without nuclear weapons, but not invade those who are shipping them. Isn’t it interesting? Hmmm, who has the bad ideas? This President and his cabinet are completely beyond the brink of stupidity, pushing misquided values in the hopes of creating their own theocracy, blind to their own sins, and deaf to comparisons to horrific events that are too close to home.

24.
On June 26th, 2005 at 5:40 pm, Proud American Liberal said:

I am truly disgusted by Rove’s malicious comments. It shows how willing many conservatives are to exploit 9/11. When will the Bush Administration understand? Many liberals (including myself) supported the invasion of Afghanistan. I believe that it has been mishandled (why haven’t we found Bin Laden?), but I believe it was the right thing to do. The conservatives don’t realize that it was WRONG to invade Iraq, and people who don’t support that war are not unpatriotic… they had (and still have) the right idea! For the record, Howard Dean and Michael Moore both supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but condemned the War in Iraq (rightly so). Liberals need to mobililze, and stop trying to hide their liberalism while the extreme right wing has so much power… we can’t be afraid of our own politics. We need to show our liberalism with PRIDE and rally together against the right wing. Save our government, save our citizens, save our troops, save our environment, save our civil liberties, and save our freedoms: Work for the liberal cause. Stop this slander from being the only voice heard by working against it. Progressive causes are being silenced by the conservative noise-machine. Above all, we must stand up for our rights as proud, patriotic liberals.

25.
On June 26th, 2005 at 11:45 pm, Bryne said:

Wow, thank you for posting the full transcript. Even though I feel Rove has evil in his blood, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt until I had the chance to read the comments in context. I believed that it would probably turn out that he was being malicious, but I wanted to see for myself. After reading this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8347159/), I needed to see the whole thing. And as surprising as it is, the White House misled again. To say that Rove was speaking only of groups like MoveOn.org is ridiculous. The whole tone of the speech was comparing Liberals with Conservatives. They should be ashamed of themselves. But yet again, they’re not. There are a lot of us who consider ourselves Liberal, yet don’t believe every little piece of anti-Conservative snippet that comes out. With this administration, that’s getting harder and harder to do these days.

 

Buy Abilify (Aripiprazole) Online without Prescription - from only $0.91! Buy Medrol Online, no Prescription Methylprednisolone - Pain, Inflammation, Arthritis, Joint Pain, Buy Solian (Amisulpride) Online without Prescription - from only $0.75! Kaufen Alopec (Propecia) Online ohne rezept Buy Medrol (Methylprednisolone) Online without Prescription - from only $0.72! Koop Metformin zonder Recept, Kopen Glucophage Online Buy Aerolin Online, no Prescription Ventolin - Bronchospasm, Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, COPD