Roved
The Democrats are going crazy over Karl Rove's recent observation that "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." At first I was surprised at the fuss they were making about this, but I think two things explain it. The first is that Democrats have been reeling the past week over the uproar that followed Dick Durbans seditious remarks equating our military at Gitmo to Nazis. Polls indicate that 70% of Americans think that the prisoners at Gitmo are being treated well or better than they deserve. Politically, then, this makes Durbin's statement as stupid as it was repugnant. In light of all this, it makes a lot of sense that they would be waiting to jump on the first statement from a Republican that they could broadcast as being "insulting" (in the words of Hillary).
But there's another reason--one that I think better explains what's going on. Rove's statement is evoking such outcry from Democrats because they know that his statement resounds with truth. It's just that Rove said in a rather pointed way what many believe. He cut to the quick and exposed the great philosphical difference between liberal and conservatives. And in a world where we face an enemy that believes all Jews and Christians should be killed, the liberal approach will never work. Restraint, diplomacy, and trying to understand why we upset the enemy will never protect us from these savages. Only imprisonment or death will keep our enemy at bay.
Were liberals like Durbin not so inclined to believe that our military effort against the enemy is tantamount to the approach of the Nazis, perhaps Rove wouldn't have had as much ground to stand on to make the statement he did. Sadly, they are quicker to echo the complaints of the enemy than they are to stand behind the commander in chief who's waging a war for our national security.
Oh, I forgot one other thing. Democrats hate Rove because he's an evil genious who was the architect of their defeat in 2000, 2002, and 2004.
But there's another reason--one that I think better explains what's going on. Rove's statement is evoking such outcry from Democrats because they know that his statement resounds with truth. It's just that Rove said in a rather pointed way what many believe. He cut to the quick and exposed the great philosphical difference between liberal and conservatives. And in a world where we face an enemy that believes all Jews and Christians should be killed, the liberal approach will never work. Restraint, diplomacy, and trying to understand why we upset the enemy will never protect us from these savages. Only imprisonment or death will keep our enemy at bay.
Were liberals like Durbin not so inclined to believe that our military effort against the enemy is tantamount to the approach of the Nazis, perhaps Rove wouldn't have had as much ground to stand on to make the statement he did. Sadly, they are quicker to echo the complaints of the enemy than they are to stand behind the commander in chief who's waging a war for our national security.
Oh, I forgot one other thing. Democrats hate Rove because he's an evil genious who was the architect of their defeat in 2000, 2002, and 2004.
1 Comments:
I am willing to give public figures the benefit of the doubt in almost all cases. I am willing to buy that they mean what they say, and mean it in the best way possible.
For example, I am willing to believe that Durbin is honestly horrified by what he honestly believes is inhumane treatment of Gitmo detainees (setting aside, for the moment, the question of what actually constitutes inhumane treatment).
I am willing to believe that those who call for "diplomacy" (however defined) over "force" (howver defined) in dealing with terrorists honestly think that such "diplomacy" is the best way to handle the situation.
I may also often think they are naive or incorrect or misguided or uniformed or bound by pre-suppositions (and may less often think they are right), but I am ulikely to think they are making statements for purely political gamesmanship reasons.
My more politically astute friend say I am the naive one. Perhaps, but I am much less paranoid as a result.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home