Retract Or Resign

by hilzoy

NYT, 6/23/2005:

"Karl Rove came to the heart of Manhattan last night to rhapsodize about the decline of liberalism in politics, saying Democrats responded weakly to Sept. 11 and had placed American troops in greater danger by criticizing their actions.

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in 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," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State."

CNN, 9/14/2001:

"Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution Friday authorizing President Bush to use force against those responsible for Tuesday's terrorist attacks, the same day it unanimously approved a $40 billion emergency spending package.

The House overwhelmingly passed the use-of-force resolution late Friday night by a 420-1 margin. (...)

The Senate approved the measure by a 98-0 margin earlier in the day.

In a statement, Bush praised the passage of the measures.

"I am gratified that the Congress has united so powerfully by taking this action. It sends a clear message -- our people are together, and we will prevail," he said."

Atrios, 6/23/2005: "We're all Dixie Chicks now."

*** Update: Washington Post:

"The White House defended Rove's remarks and accused Democrats of engaging in partisan attacks. Rove, said spokesman Scott McClellan, "was talking about the different philosophies and our different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism." "

Had I been at that press briefing, my follow-up question would have been: can you or Karl Rove provide any evidence whatsoever that the liberal approach following 9/11 was to provide therapy to our attackers? If not, doesn't what you've just said amount to "defending" Karl Rove's comments by saying that he told a despicable lie?

*** Update 2: Sign the Petition.

***Update 3: Sign the other petition.

Comments

[hilzoy]

K: Slarti can speak for himself, of course, but I read his comment as saying: what he gets out of Rove's remarks is that Durbin was objectively pro-Saddam (as opposed to intentionally so). Not that you are.

[Katherine]

I don't think he's saying I'm objectively pro-Saddam, I think he's saying that my characterization of Rove's intent (not MOTIVE, Slart, INTENT--until you provide another feasible explanation or give anything other than weak jokes about telepathy in response to my perfectly clear explanation of why I believe that to be intet) is equivalent to the characterization of opposition to war in Iraq as "objectively pro-Saddam." That's what pissed me off. Slarti doesn't call us traitors, he just shrugs when others do.

[hilzoy]

K: OK. My question for Slarti would be: how does reading Rove's remarks as saying that Durbin and liberals are "objectively pro-Saddam" square with the sentence that comes tight after what he says about Durbin, namely: "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." --?

I mean: 'objectively pro-Saddam' means: having effects that favor Saddam, whether or not you meant to. It is precisely not talking about motives. That Rove thought he could draw conclusions about liberals' motives contradicts that.

[Slartibartfast]

That's what pissed me off. Slarti doesn't call us traitors, he just shrugs when others do.

Just catching up with this, Katherine. I'm at the beach, and I haven't been paying attention.

First, you're asserting that you know Rove's intent without having any evidence that your portrayal is accurate. In my world, plausibility does not equate to actuality.

Second, don't expect me to get all excited about cleaning house when you democrats are equally lax about cleaning your own house.

Third, I'm going to reregister as an Independent, because the politicization of any and all public actions of both parties simply disgusts me. I'm going to do that just as soon as I get home. How I vote in any given election is, as always, a matter of who I think is going to be the least horrible choice, but the Republican party is losing one registered voter. Interpret that however you may; I've simply lost patience with the constant bickering. When the charter of the entire government has been subverted to a struggle for political dominance (as opposed to, you know, governing) I'm going to have to remove my support for that.

Now, have a nice day.

Slart*

*At least five shades darker than last week.

[hilzoy]

Yo, Slarti! How's vacation?

[liberal japonicus]

Got shark repellant?

[Jesurgislac]

Now, have a nice day.

You too.

[Katherine]

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to get you to acknowledge it as revealed truth, just as a serious, supported, relevant possibility. You can't KNOW other people's intent but we often make educated guesses and there are reasons for doing so.

There's a certain appeal in registering as an independent, but in my case, who would I be kidding? ;) And I tend to live in Democratic states where the primaries are the only competitive elections.

Anyhoo, safe swimming.

[Slartibartfast]

Vacation's going very, very well. If I had the wherewithal, I'd move to the beach and never, ever leave. Maybe it's deep-seated instinct.

The girls are turning a shade of brown that's really only characterizable as "nut". And that, through SPF 45 waterproof sunblock. Must be the surplus melanin.

I've seen a watercraft that I'd like to own; not a motorboat but a pedal-powered kayak. You can get decent speed from it, and you can pick it up out of the water and lug it to your car or room. I live close enough to a major lake that it might do for both peace&quiet that comes from being on the water, and keeping me in some semblance of physical condition.

So. Anyway. I've got four more days here, and a couple at my sister's place up the coast, so I'll be back in semi-frequent touch next week. The weather has been wonderful; the water has been comfortable yet refreshing, and we've seen all sorts of wildlife because we're basically across a channel from a wildlife refuge. The kids are loving it; we sat out on the dock and watched the porpoises frolicking (and occasionally stunning and eating mullet) just a dozen yards away. I'm thinking we're either going to have to rent a couple of two-seater kayaks or a small motorboat and cruise the bay area; it's where all the wildlife is.

L8r,

Slart

[Slartibartfast]

You can't KNOW other people's intent but we often make educated guesses and there are reasons for doing so.

Glad you replied, Katherine. Certainly what you just described is, as I understand it at least, the vital part of the heart of the scientific method, otherwise known as forming hypotheses. Testing hypotheses is a good chunk of the rest, and it's awfully difficult to do that without more data to work with.

Not saying this is a really effective technique where it comes to divining intent, but it's what we have.

And I'm out for the rest of the day. Really, this time.

Slart

[Slartibartfast]

"the vital part" should read "a vital part"

[dutchmarbel]

I've seen a watercraft that I'd like to own; not a motorboat but a pedal-powered kayak. You can get decent speed from it, and you can pick it up out of the water and lug it to your car or room. I live close enough to a major lake that it might do for both peace&quiet that comes from being on the water, and keeping me in some semblance of physical condition.

you could aways decide to build one of your own ;-)