Luckily, other people in the administration were able to force moderation and restraint on them and investigate who actually attacked us. While no fan of moveon.org, isn't that exactly what they were saying: don't go off half cocked, go after the terroists and not the people of a country they might reside in, get the international community involved. All these things happened, although I doubt moveon.org had anything to do with it. We even tried to get the Taliban to cooperate and only attacked them when they refused to help.

Seriously, I think Rove is trying to conflate Iraq with 9-11 again. He was certainly implying the Democrats are who he meant be "liberals", ignoring the unamimous (except for 1 vote) support for the Afganistan war in both houses. This is part of their desire to create an alternate history.

Democrats -- moonbats all -- who tried to downplay, ignore and pooh-pooh the comments of Senator "Dick Dastardly" Durbin (Disingenuous-IL) last week are now up in arms over comments made by White House Advisor Karl Rove this week. The Dems...

Phones were ringing off the hook yesterday across Washington, D.C., as Democrat lawmakers desperately sought appointments with their therapists, after Karl Rove's speech in which he said liberals "saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to pr...

On the one hand, Dick Durbin's comments are parsed to make clear that he was not comparing US troops to the Soviets, the Khmer Rouge, nor the Nazis. Even if he says that, looking at the US troops' actions, they could well be attributed to acts of those other regimes. No comparison, no equivalency here.

On the other hand, Karl Rove says, "No more need be said about the motives of liberals," and the same people who say that Durbin's meaning is clear are claiming that Rove meant that liberals are traitors.

And here I am, thinking words have meaning....

The comparison with Dean is apt; sort of the political equivalent of a pub name-calling episode, as I see it.

That being said, I'm amazed at how many conservatives (or at least the ones who comment on blogs) somehow equate a disagreement with Bush admin. foreign policy with treason or weakness. I suppose it's easier to tar all liberals with the Michael Moore/Moveon brush than to engage them in substantive argument.

Everybody that I know on both the left and right is deeply interested in preserving our national security by winning the War on Terror. Terrorists do not discriminate based on ideological affiliation. It is clear by now that nobody knows exactly what to do thus disagreement and debate are vital to our national interest.

Finding a senator who would admit to being a liberal is harder than trying to capture the Loch Ness Monster...But by reacting so passionately to Rove, these senators reveal to all of us that his words cut close to the bone.

So I take a day off to finish up a website project, and Karl Rove kicks off a firestorm in the 'sphere. I saw that story last night, and I kind of figured that the usual suspects, along with the...

I presume that you got the very same spam from Peter Daou that I got (and that almost assuredly a thousand other bloggers got.)

But I am surprised that you bothered to quote it, particularly his passing reference to the latest variation of the "chickenhawk" argument. By that sort of logic, one could just as easily call those on the anti-war side of the spectrum "armchair jihadists." (I wish I could remember who coined that expression.)

One can justifiably push the right=strong left=weak argument without being "blithe." Indeed, the simple evidence of experience would make it an apt comparison, and one that bears usage.

Karl Rove make a typical political statement and a firestorm breaks out. Well, a firestorm among the Democrats, anyway, which I will admit is more akin to a tempest in a teapot. He said,