You are an old stiffy, aren’t you? Of course, there are “wants”; with the primary one being to attempt to undermine support for the war in Iraq. Some of this is driven by a genuinely felt (but wrongheaded, in my opinion) belief that the war is simply wrong; some is driven by the cynicism inherent in professional politics; and some is driven by knee-jerk opposition to anything done by a Republican administration. The “want” is to try to impede or halt the war in Iraq, and is this desire that provides the motivation. Being driven by this “motivation” and in trying to satisfy this “want”, statements are made and actions are taken that result in greater danger for our troops in the Middle East. Clearly those making these statements and taking these actions either feel that what they are doing does not, in fact, truly increase danger for our troops, or they feel that the increased danger is worth it for the greater good of trying to end the war. I disagree on both points, but I do not for a minute think that they “want” to see our troops killed. This motivation is what Rove was alluding to: that liberals are so desirous of trying to undermine the war effort that they inadvertently or cynically turn a blind eye and take positions that increase the danger our troops are under over there. Capish?
I tend to agree. That doesn’t mean it’s something that can just be laughed off, however, particularly if one wishes to have the moral high ground when attacking Rove’s slanders.
Of course it’s a trap, and the Democrats are falling for it.
Look, the last thing Democrats want to do is get out in the media and start playing the, “are Democrats really weak on defense?” game. Just holding that argument means you lose.
Also, the trap is somewhat ingenious, in that it forced Democrats to either A) declare themselves to not be ‘liberal’, or to defend ‘liberals’ as if they are synonymous with Democrats.
The problem for Democrats is that, while they may not be the things Rove says, they have certainly embraced the faction of the left that is, and they derive no small part of their funding from them. So Rove forced them to either denounce their own funding providers, or defend them and be smeared by the actions of the fringe.
Another thing this does is give Republicans a legitimate reason to start throwing back out all the stupid and weak-sounding quotes they can dredge up against the Democrats, in ‘defense’ of Rove.
Also, once Democrats are on the defensive about this stuff, it’s going to make it harder for them to say anything at all against the war in Iraq, Gitmo, or anything else without the Republicans going, “See? We told you!”.
If the Democrats were smart, they would have ignored this, or responded with a simple, “This goes to show you how craven the Republicans are. We have bigger things to worry about, and this is the last we’ll say on it.” If they make this a big deal, “Are the Democrats Weak on Defense?” is going to be the topic of discussion for a while. The Democrats simply can’t win.
I never bought into the, “Karl Rove is an evil genius” stuff, but now I’m beginning to wonder. From a purely political standpoint, this was genius.
There’s giggling in the White House tonight.
Sure, I capisce. but it’s hogwash. Look at the quote!
The very first sentence belies the extra interpretation you are trying to stuff into it. He is specificly denying nuance. Al Jazzera broadcast put Americcan troops in greater danger, and no more needs to be said about the motives of liberals. Sentence B follows directly on Sentence A, and the connection is made explicit: nothing more needs be said!
The construction of the statement not only doesn’t support your interpretation, it specificly denies it! Theres no “allluding to” here, its flat, cut and dried.
Yeah, Sam, you got lots to be proud of there.
So you’re claiming that when Rove said "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals. ", what he really MEANT was what you just typed?
If so, the “No more needs be said” part seems rather factually incorrect, wouldn’t you say?
Anyhow, since we’re on the topic:
(a) how would you feel if a precisely equivalent statement were made by an equivalent public figure in the Democratic party? IE, Ted Kennedy gets up and says “Bush is continuing to pursue this war, despite the fact that there isn’t enough armor for some humvees, which results in lots of our sons being killed. No more needs to be said about the motives of conservatives”. Isn’t that an insanely outrageous and provocative statement?
Would you be mollified if someone came up and said “well, what Ted Kennedy MEANS is that conservatives think that the war in Iraq is important enough to pursue, even though logistical difficulties, which they are working to overcome as fast as they can, have prevented all the necessary armor from reaching the frontline troops, whose deaths we mourn”, even though it sure SOUNDS like Ted Kennedy is saying “conservatives are going out of their way to do things which increase the number of US deaths”?
(b) Please provide any justification, through cites and studies, or through logic, for your claim that Durbin’s statements put US troops at additional risk. That just doesn’t make sense to me. It’s not like he was leaking information that was previously unavailable. He was just using strong (and arguably offensive/inappropriate) rhetoric to describe that information.
It’s hard to imagine that there was a conversation like this:
Omar: Hey, Abdul, did you hear about Gitmo?
Abdul: Yeah, they chained our brethren to the walls, starved them, tortured them, and urinated on the Koran
Omar: Darn them
Abdul: Yes, darn them. Oh well, there’s nothing that we can do about it.
Ali (dashing): Hey, you guys, did you know that a US senator was just talking about the conditions at Gitmo??
Omar: he was?
Ali: Yes! They included chaining our brethren to the walls!
Omar and Abdul: We know
Ali: And starving them!
Omar and Abdul: We know
Ali: and torturing them!
Omar and Abdul: We know
Ali: And urinating on the Koran
Omar and Abdul: We know
Ali: And he said that those actions were more like the actions of Nazis or Gulags than of the US
Omar and Abdul: NAZIS AND GULAGS!!! To the TerrorMobile!!!
Really, I can’t see how the report of Durbin’s remarks would have any impact at all. (Unless you’re going to pull out the “well, they’ll see that we’re divided, which will strengthen their resolve to fight on” business, which is a blatantly untenable argument, as it can be used to quash ANY disagreement.)
Who’s talking about being proud? I was careful to say, “From a purely political standpoint…”
As an ethical matter, all I’ll say is that it’s not even within an order of magnitude of Durbin’s comments. But we’re not going to agree on that, so please, continue that long leap into the briar patch.
So when a guys pulls a gun and says “Yer money or yer life!” what he really means is:
“I wish to engage you in a discussion of the relative value of materialism, as compared to the existential ground of your life, with a special emphasis on the writings of St. Francis of Assisi…”
So what you’re saying is that if someone takes the time to refute those pitiful claims, then the GOP wins, because we’re talking about whether democrats are weak, instead of real issues. And if no one takes the time to refute them, the the GOP wins, because then they’ve PROVED that democrats are weak?
Don’t you ever feel guilty being associated with political maneuvering that cynical? Don’t you think to yourself “if my party wins, I want it to be because we’re RIGHT and people actual LIKE our IDEAS”?
(Oh, and for the record, anyone with half a brain who reads the linked quotes will realized that the vast majority of them are only relevant in Dichotomy-World, in which “if you aren’t with us, you’re against us” is taken to a ridiculous, 100% extreme, of “if you ever express any sentiment involving any subtlety at all that does not involve bombing arabs at all times, you are against us”.) (And look at me, falling right into Karl Rove’s trap! Damn you Karl Rove! Damn yooooouuuuuu!!!)
Yeah, yeah, yeah…I knew whichever spelling I used, you would try to one-up me. 
Perhaps I should have said “capish/capisce/capiche.”
At any any rate, I simply disagree with your stance. His statement merely says that careless, inflamatory statements made by our own leaders are being broadcast by Al-Jazeera in order to undermine our efforts in Iraq and bolster the opposition.
Your one-plus-one-equals-three interpretation of his words simply doesn’t make sense, so now I’ll ask you a question: how is it exactly (in your own words, please) that Rove’s statement “specificly” [sic] 
denies my interpretation of it?
BTW, pre-emptive appologies to Hentor the Barbarian for my last post. Just chalk it up to it being an incredible bad day here. I shouldn’t have blown up though in this forum…and it was a definite over react.
For the record though I think what you wrote was a bit unfair…I wasn’t saying any of that stuff.
Anyway, sorry.
-XT
Really? Let’s analyze them: (Well, I already did this thread, but hey, no one responded (pout), so I’ll analyze them again.)
Durbin’s comments:
PRO:
-Factually accurate
-Clear and precise
-Very very specific in only referring to specific bad incidents, not gitmo as a whole, the military as a whole, Republicans, Bush, etc.
-Didn’t make implications about motivations, just talked about what happened
CON:
-Talked about Nazis, which is a no-no, for some silly reasons, and some legitimate reasons.
-Very serious accusations* (torture, mistreatment, peeing on Koran)
Note: There is no meaningful way in which you, Sam Stone, ought to feel personally attacked by Durbin’s comments
Rove’s comments:
PRO:
-Didn’t talk about Nazis.
-Ummm, contained no major grammatical errors?
CON:
-Vague and weaselly
-Attacked ALL liberals, despite only talking about Durbin
-Contained no support for rather odd claim that Durbin’s remarks, however inappropriate, would have a real impact on American body counts
-Made implications about motivations
-Very serious accusations** (liberals want Americans to die, or at the very very very best, at least don’t really mind when Americans die)
Note: I, personally, feel attacked by Rove’s comments. Many other SDMB liberals appear to, as well.
*These accusations are true
**These accusations are false
Now you’re directly contradicting what you yourself said in post #61. Here, you’re saying that he’s simply stating that democrats are carelessly saying things that will bolster the opposition. In post 61, you said that he said that democrats are carelessly saying things that will boster the opposition, BECAUSE THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT AMERICAN DEATHS, or at least care less about American deaths than they do about political gain.
In any case, please respond to the rest of Elucidator’s post, in which he tears your position apart rather eloquently.
Even the stuff quoted in 'luci’s post #45?
I’m still mystified as to how the words of liberals put US troops in danger. Rove is getting desperate with his idol’s poll numbers in free fall, so he tries to rescue him by equating liberals with killing American troops. Fortunately, as a public speaker Rove has little impact, he’s one of the few people that can make Cheney seem charismatic.
SA, you missed your calling, a brilliant career in deconstructionist semiotics could have been yours. Words don’t mean what they mean until they are tortured into screaming something entirely different.
I believe the word “simple” means just that: simple. Uncomplicated, unburdened of hidden meanings and complex nuances. So when someone says: I’m going to keep this simple he is expressing his intention to exclude any more interpretation that his words directly state. He then states that Al Jazz is broadcasting Durbins statements (and please note does not provide any evidence of such) to place our troops in danger and…listen carefully here, this is the punch line…that this is all that needs to be said about the motivations of liberals! That that is what motivates liberals.
There’s nothing else there, SA. This ain’t Talmudic scholarship, it says what it says!
And by the way, who the hell is Catherine McKinney, who’s every word I (apparently) hang upon?
Oh, and since I can’t resist talking about this issue, thus falling into Rove’s little trap, and since we’re on the topic, it seems to me that a lot of the complaining is about quotes like “we should use some restraint and judgment when responding to 9/11”. Well, it seems to me that we DID use restraint and judgment. If we hadn’t, we would have turned the entire middle east into a glowing parking lot. We used restraint and judgment, and decided that the right course of action was to first figure out who was responsible for 9/11, specifically, which we did (OBL and AQ), then figure out where they were (Afghanistan), then demand that they be handed over (we did, and they weren’t), then get international support (we did), then invade Afghanistan in a prudent and militarily sound but expiditious fashion (which we did), then, while we were there, topple the Taliban, because they were hateful fuckers (which we did).
All of that is basically restrained and prudent, compared to what we could have done differently at any of those steps.
There are a FEW people who actually flat out 100% opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, but there sure as heck aren’t many, and they are WAY WAY WAY WAY outside the democratic mainstream. (As far as I know.)
And what about someone who would have done exactly the same thing we did, but would have given the Taliban one additional ultimatum, lasting one additional month. (I’m hypothesizing that there might be such people, not claiming that there are.) Why, with such lily-livered soft-on-terror Osama-huggers in charge, we wouldn’t have kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan until Januray of 2002, instead of December of 2001!!! Thank God we had Bush instead!!!
I agree with furt and sam that Rove’s words were carefully chosen. He is sly, indeed.
Sam, liberals are not now and have never been a “fringe” group. Maybe I misunderstood you. A liberal Presidential candidate took 49 out of 50 states in 1964.
You were referring to the use of “gulag.” Amnesty International has almost 2 million members in 150 countries. It has no political affiliations. Liberals are not the only ones interested in human rights. Right?
Debaser: You quoted from Bartlett on the Today show:
I could be mistaken, but I believe that that petition asked that any military action be taken in defense of our country and not in retaliation. I don’t think they called for using no military force in Afghanistan.
Bricker, did the “touchy-feely” comments by some liberals have to do with feeding the starving refugees along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border? Don’t you just hate it when people get sentimental over human life?
So you have to be a liberal to object to devisive comments and untrue statements? Hillary may be more liberal than her moderate husband; I certainly won’t argue the point at all. But consider that most death associated with 9-11 happened in downtown Manhattan – a very liberal city in a generally liberal state. Hillary Clinton is the Senator from that state. NYC pulled together as never before. Rove’s statement was made in NYC. Even if she had been a Republican, I think she would have spoken out against his comment.
Here’s my take on it. Rove is calling anyone who dares question anything a traitor. The key word is MOTIVES. It is one thing to say Democrats or liberals did something dumb that helped the enemy. It is a whole nother thing to “infer” that they diid it on purpose. I would love to meet Rove and personally kick his ass.