More Responses To Rove

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

Along with my earlier post from 9/11 families, here are some more of my faves:

"Well, I think a lot more needs to be said about Karl Rove’s motives, because they’re not the people’s motives, and if the President really believed his own words of unity, then he should fire Karl Rove. If the President of the United States knows the meaning of his own words, he should listen to the plea of Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband when the Twin Towers came crashing down: she said, “if you’re going to use 9/11, use it to make this nation safer than it was on 9/11.

“And that’s not being done. If you’re going to use 9/11, if you’re going to be impassioned about the lives lost on 9/11, then do so by making us safer.”

“Karl Rove doesn’t owe me an apology, he doesn’t owe Democrats an apology, he owes her an apology—he owes an apology to every one of those families who paid the ultimate price on September 11th.

— John Kerry, via Lizard Queen

I’m devoting much of today’s report to Karl Rove’s vile comments denigrating half of the American public. My office overlooks Ground Zero, and I’m looking at the gaping footprint as I write this. My wife and I were in New York that day, on our way to the WTC for a morning meeting. A chance phone call dragged on a few minutes too long and most likely saved our lives. I lost friends in the towers, and when I walk past the site, as I do almost every evening, the pain is as real as it was on September 11th, 2001.

I spent my youth in Beirut during the height of Lebanon’s civil war, and I fought the Syrian presence in Lebanon long before the “Cedar Revolution.” I watched young boys give their lives and mothers cradle their dying children in blood-soaked arms. I’ve seen more bloodshed, war, and violence, and shot more guns than most of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists combined. I wouldn’t presume to question the strength or dignity of a stranger, and I pity those who blithely push the right=strong, left=weak rhetoric. It says far more about their inadequacies than it does about the target of their scorn. Today, Karl Rove took that rhetoric to a new, filthy low.

— Peter Daou of the Daou Report

Listen, I’m pissed as hell at Rove. I am a democrat and have been forever. (I’m 54) … my two kids who just happen to be in the US Army serving are also democrats. My son and daughter both joined as soon as they possibly could after 9/11.

So far they are both safe from harm (no thanks to Rove…).

My son and daughter both emailed me last night wanting to know just who in the hell the Rove guy is. They both want to plaster his face everywhere around the bases they are stationed. It seems that Rove didn’t know that a good percentage of enlisted folk were Democrats. They like to say around the bases that republicans don’t volunteer.

— Email to Kos

Ah, says [GOP Chairman] Mehlman, but those were Democrats. “Karl didn’t say the Democratic Party,” Mehlman told the Washington Post. “He said liberals.”

Well, that’s just great then. Can we now assume that Mehlman and his fellow Republicans have decided that they’ll no longer use the word “liberal” to refer to “Democrats” generally? From here on out, will Mehlman insist that his party-mates make a careful distinction between, say, “Democrats” like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and “liberals” like Michael Moore?

Don’t count on it: Republicans have put years of work into making “liberal” a dirty word, and they’re going to keep on using it to describe Democrats every time they can. Indeed, Mehlman’s careful distinction between “Democrats” and “liberals” didn’t even survive the duration of Rove’s slanderous speech. After charging that the comments of “Democrat” Dick Durbin were “putting our troops in greater danger,” Rove said: “No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

— Tom Grieve (Salon)

So, Karl, where’s Osama?

And I would think US soldiers have to worry about people shooting at them and blowing up RDX bombs from material we forgot to secure. Not Dick Durbin.

— Steve Gilliard

And my personal fave:

For the record, my motives aren’t to get more troops killed. If those were my motives I’d ship them off to a war on false pretenses without sufficient equipment to keep them safe.

— Atrios

Bonus: a call to Rove’s office by the Crooks and Liars folks (MP3 format)

“Last Throes” Revisited

Ken AshfordBush & Co., IraqLeave a Comment

"Be assured: Baghdad is safe, protected.”
“We are in control, they are not in control of anything, they don’t even control themselves!”
“They are becoming hysterical. This is the result of frustration.”
“They are achieving nothing; they are suffering from casualties. Those casualties are increasing, not decreasing."

Quotes from Dick Cheney?  Nope, but I can understand why you might think so.  (The answer is below the fold)

Is there any military commander who will back up Cheney’s (let’s be honest) lie about the Iraq insurgency being in its “last throes”? 

The top American commander for the Middle East said Thursday that the insurgency in Iraq had not diminished, seeming to contradict statements by Vice President Dick Cheney in recent days that the insurgents were in their “last throes.”

Though he declined during his Congressional testimony to comment directly on Mr. Cheney’s statements, the commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, said that more foreign fighters were coming into Iraq and that the insurgency’s “overall strength is about the same” as it was six months ago.

[Source]

You know, a week or so ago, the Bush Administration announced that it was going to begin a “renewed public-relations push” to combat the fact that the majority of Americans, including an increasing number of Republicans in Congress, oppose Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq.  Regrettably, it seems the Bush idea of “public relations” is to lie about the facts on the ground (Cheney’s “last throes"), liberal-bash (Rove), or to tell America that our commander-in-chief thinks about Iraq every single day.  I’m not sure, PR-wise, that’s the best strategy for the White House.

UPDATE: “Last throes”?  Bite me, Cheney.  This is real.

The speaker is former Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (under Saddam)—better known as “Baghdad Bob”—from the spring of 2003 [Source]

P.S.:  More from the Dickhole Memory Hole:

[W]e will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.

Cheney on Meet The Press, March 2003

Supreme Court Watch

Ken AshfordSupreme CourtLeave a Comment

Monday is going to be fun.  The Supreme Court is expected to hand down the final decisions of the term—one of them dealing with the Ten Commandments—and then, it is widely thought, Chief Justice Rehnquist (who is ailing) will announce his resignation from the bench.

And then we’re in for months of wrangling about the replacement nominee.

Conventional wisdom is that the Democrats in the Senate will block whoever Bush nominates.  I wouldn’t automatically assume that—there are many fine jurists with a conservative bent, and Democrats have approved of 96% of the Bush nominees to lower-than-Supreme federal courts.  I think the reaction will turn on who the nominee actually is, not the fact that Bush nominated him.

What many overlook is that, with Rehnquist’s ride into the sunset, there will be essentially two positions open in the Court.  One is the Chief Justice position, Rehnquist’s replacement.  More often than not, the new justice is brought in to serve as Chief Justice.  But it doesn’t have to be that way—an associate justice can be “promoted” to Chief Justice.  Rehnquist himself was a former SCOTUS associate justice (only two other times was an associate judge promoted to Chief Justice). 

Here, I think, lies the seeds of a compromise.  It seems to me that Bush could promote Scalia to Chief Justice, and select a moderate Kennedy-type to fill the associate position.  Or alternatively, promote someone like Stevens to Chief Justice, in “exchange” for a slightly far-to-the-right associate justice.  Either of these solutions will save both parties from months of bitching, filibustering, etc.  (Such a compromise is hardly novel—in fact, a similar compromise was anticipated in an episode of “The West Wing").

A compromise is in both party’s interests.  Almost every poll has shown that the partisan wrangling in Washington (over filibusters, Schiavo, Bolton, etc.) has turned public sentiment against both the White House and hall of Congress.  The real or perceived gridlock is going to result in retributions in 2006 and 2008, as the electorate will adopt an I-don’t-care-who-they-are-let’s-get-some-new-blood attitude.

The Chief Justice position is an interesting one.  They don’t really have the power to sway the other justices or dictate what cases come before the Court.  But they assign who writes opinions and the language of written opinions often works its way into the vernacular of everyday life.  They also have some important adminstrative duties.  You can read more here.

In any event, Monday—I think—is going to be interesting.

Invocation of the 9/11 Dead – The Families React To Rove

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

As families whose relatives were victims of the 9/11 terror attacks, we believe it is an outrage that any Democrat, any Republican, any conservative, or any liberal stakes a “high ground” position based upon the September 11th death and destruction. Doing so assumes that all those who died and their loved ones would agree. In truth, some would and some would not. By definition the conduct is divisive and, because it is intended to be self-serving and politicizes 9/11, it is offensive.

We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others. His comments are not welcome.

From familiesofseptember11.org.

Related post here.

Responses to Rove, the Douchebag

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

Speaking in a Manhattan ballroom just a few miles north of ground zero, Karl Rove said on Wednesday night that the Democratic party did not understand the consequences of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” Rove said. “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”…

[Source]

Amid the calls for—at the very least—an apology from Rove, we have these justifiable reactions:

Yeah, Karl? You think so? Well, we wanted bin Laden dead or in custody. Your whiny little boss let bin Laden get away because he thought it was more important to get some other guy he said “tried to kill my dad.”

. . . And lest we forget:

Except for a lapse of several months, Selective Service records show presidential adviser Karl Rove escaped the draft for nearly three years at the height of the Vietnam War using student deferments….

Far from being a conscientious objector, [Mark] Gustavson [a college friend and classmate] recalls, Rove’s opposition to the war was political. He considered the conflict a “political skirmish that was not being properly administered.”….

– No More Mr. Nice Guy

I was standing on line at a blood bank with peoples’ ashes raining down on me while you and everyone you work with except Richard Clarke – who says you guys really, really blew this one – were shitting yourself in a bunker in the White House basement.

Fuck you, Karl. Fuck you very much indeed.

– Julia at Sisyphus Shrugged

Karl Rove sure has my number. Everything I’ve ever written criticizing the mistreatment of detainees at the hands of the American government has been designed to encourage terrorists to defeat the United States of America and set back the cause of freedom. Indeed, the entirety of my (admittedly brief) career in journalism has been motivated by nothing more than a spiteful detestation of my country and my fellow citizens, and a treasonous desire to see them brought low.

– Matt Yglesius

That’s how the Republican party plays the game these days: accuse Democrats of being traitors and poltroons, and then, when they’re called on it, turn up the volume even higher while simultaneously pretending that they’re just talking about “different philosophies.” This is McCarthy level thuggery, and one can only hope that Karl Rove meets the same bad end as the junior senator from Wisconsin.

– Kevin Drum

We’re all Dixie Chicks now.

– Atrios

"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."

– CNN 9/15/01

The elected branches of our government, and both political parties, are united in our resolve to fight and stop and punish those who would do harm to the American people.

– George Bush, 10/26/01

CALL TO ACTION: Contact your Republican representative and ask if Rove speaks for them

Callous Invocation Of The Dead

Ken AshfordRepublicansLeave a Comment

Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who really should do more to stay out of the spotlight (he’s under investigation for lots of stuff), is channeling the 9/11 victims.  The subject was the passage by the House of a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, and he said:

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center,” said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. “Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

Source.

Well, let’s ignore for the moment that almost none of the 9/11 victims were “on top of” the World Trade Center.  It was probably bad phrasing on Duke’s part.

Let’s just consider the propriety of putting words in the mouths of tragedy victims (who can’t speak for themselves) in order to further your political agenda.  Put simply, it’s vile and opportunistic.

And while I’m on it, what makes him believe that?  Did all 9/11 victims have conservative beliefs (or, perhaps, they became conservative upon their deaths)?  I’m willing to bet that there were a pretty hefty handful of lib’ral yankees who perished that day in New York (the one casualty I knew personally was downright radical) who wouldn’t endorse an anti-flag-burning amendment.  Perhaps some of them held views similar to that of their elected representative, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY):

"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

So what makes Cunningham think that 9/11 victims would support the amendment?  I think it has something to do with victimology, a trait I have noticed from many neo-conservatives.  They often act like victims (for example, they possess the White House and Congress, yet whine about how they are oppressed and victimized by the terrible minority party and liberal media).  Therefore, they presume that all victims are conservatives—that’s my theory. But I digress.

So what’s next?  “Halt gay marriages—the 3,000 victims of September 11 would want you to”?

And what will be the reaction, I wonder, from the Take-Back-The-Memorialites, who claim that 9/11 should not be used to advance political agendas (even ones about international freedom)?  Outrage, petitions and demonstrations against Cunningham?  I won’t hold my breath.

Lying Liars (Drudge/Klein Version)

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

BcThis is a picture of Bill Clinton kissing an unidentified woman.  It appears on Drudge’s site exactly as I show it below.  Drudge’s text is about the new Hillary Clinton book and carries the headline “BOOK CLAIM: HILLARY HUMILIATED AS BILL HAS NEW AFFAIRS”, and it seems that this photo appears in the piece-of-shit book as well.

The photo is heavily cropped, and darkened to give the impression that Clinton was photographed giving a young woman a clandestined kiss at night somewhere.  In fact, it took place in broad daylight surrounded by hundreds of people at a Kerry rally.  And it wasn’t, as Drudge claimed, a “mouth-kiss”.  For the full story, the words of the photographer, and the actual unretouched photos, see here.

Republicans Hate Republicans

Ken AshfordRepublicansLeave a Comment

It looks like the enemy is engaged in infighting amongst themselves, which means that we are winning.  Conservative columnist Neil Boortz writes:

There are a lot of listeners out there who really need to make some attempt at growing up.  Well, maybe not a lot of listeners .. but quite a few.

Yesterday I spent some time on the air detailing the spending habits of the Republicans since they gained control of both the legislative and executive branches of our Imperial Federal Government.  Federal government spending has gone up by 33 percent since George W. Bush took office.  For those of you who think that we were spending enough when Clinton was president … just imagine spending one-third more! 

***

The truth here is that the Republicans are no longer the party of less government and less government spending.  When it comes to government spending and the growth of government there seems to be no difference between Democrats and Republicans. 

Now … to get to the point here.  As soon as I went on the air to detail the heavy spending habits of the Republicans I started getting the email messages telling me what a evil person I am because of my “hatred” of Republicans.  That’s right.  I “hate” Republicans because I don’t like the way they spend money.

Some of you need to grow up.  Do you realize how silly and childish you look when you stumble forth with that “hate” nonsense?  Is that the intellectual contribution you have to make to this debate?  Someone makes you a bit uncomfortable by detailing the profligate spending habits of your political party, and all you can come up with is “I’m never going to listen to you again because you hate Republicans.” What are you going to do next?  Stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue?  Face it .. your political party has some pretty big zits.  The solution is not to break the mirror.

Heh.

Tomlinson – Partisan Liar

Ken AshfordRepublicans, Right Wing and Inept MediaLeave a Comment

From the New York Times:

Sixteen Democratic senators called on President Bush to remove Kenneth Y. Tomlinson as head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because of their concerns that he is injecting partisan politics into public radio and television.

Some will no doubt say that Tomlinson is trying to REMOVE partisan politics from public radio and television, because PBS is so “liberal”.  This will come as news to William F. Buckley, who hosted one of PBS’s most popular shows—Firing Line—until it ended in 1999.

It would be an odd argument, considering how Tomlinson hires conservative pollsters to “monitor” PBS’s content, gives public money to Republican lobbyists, and takes cues from the White House.

A developing story, as they say…

Intolerance – The Reality Show

Ken AshfordPopular CultureLeave a Comment

Here’s the premise for ABC’s new reality series, “Welcome To The Neighborhood”:

Three well-to-do white Christians families get new neighbors.  The neighbor-families include an African-American family, a Caucasian family, a Korean family, a Latino family, a gay family, plus one family in which husband and wife are heavily tattooed, and another in which mom and dad are devoted to the practice of Wicca, sometimes known as witchcraft or paganism.

Apparently, the opinionated white Christian families vote off the neighbors one-by-one, until the final neighbor—presumably, the least offensive—wins.  The winning family gets a four-bedroom, three-bath home, plus furnishings, upgrades and two years’ worth of property taxes paid for them.

ABC is doing its best to spin the program as educational—a social experiment in which we can learn about racism, sexism, etc., . . . and a little bit about ourselves. 

But we know why people will watch—they will watch to see the fur fly.  And ABC knows that, too.  It’s using intolerance as a basis for entertainment, not education. Read more here.

What TBogg Says

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

His language may be strong, and his analysis somewhat oversimplistic, but if you can see past it, I think he’s drawn a pretty good bead on the right wingers.  Reflecting on Durbin’s non-apology for pointing out torture, TBogg writes:

Every time the chickenhawks endorse torture they make it more dangerous for American service people. Do they care? Not really. They don’t have any kids in the line of fire. Not Hindrocket Jr and not the lil’ Surbers. Their kids are too white and too special to make any sacrifices.

Let’s be honest here. These people fit into two categories.

1) They know what they are saying is bullshit but they have to deflect the emerging storyline that the war is being lost, public opinion is running away from them, and they were wrong wrong wrong and now 1724 American soldiers are dead because their President lied, they knew it, but they wanted someone to go kick some raghead ass so they could feel safe at night because they’re congenital cowards at heart. Who cares what they think? Fuck ‘em.

2) They’re stupid. Stone cold, paste-eating, ditto-headed walking advertisements for eugenics who want so hard to fit in that they’ll parrot any talking point that is explained to them in easy to understand terms as long as you keep it within the two syllable limit. To respond to them with anything more than a patronizing pat on the head and an offer of pudding or a shiny dime is a waste of time. So fuck them too.

What Time Is It?

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

Bush is plummeting in the polls, republicans and public support are turning against Bush on social security, the War in Iraq, and John Bolton, and everybody’s talking about the hyped-up and “fixed” pre-war intelligence.

You know what that means, right?  Yup, it’s time for Bush to energize his base by going after the gays.  Nothing like playing upon middle America’s homophobia to get a bump or two in the polls.  Hey, it worked in November….

P.S.  The photo of Bush in the above link is kinda odd.  Is it me, or is Bush the only person who can frown and smile at the same time?  (Cover up half of his face with your hand, then slide your hand over and cover the other half.  You’ll see what I mean)

At Long Last, I Introduce . . .

Ken AshfordGodstuffLeave a Comment

. . . the religious left.

The success of the Religious Right in appropriating the language of Christianity has led many people to become generally wary of religion in the public sphere and of Christianity in particular.  The Religious Right has used the language of Christianity to promote an extreme and divisive political agenda that has helped polarize our nation. But foundational Christian values like compassion, justice and peace are largely absent from our political discussion.  And there are millions of Christian Americans who share progressive views, or, at a minimum, are increasingly turned off by the extreme rhetoric and political agenda of the Religious Right.

The Christian Alliance for Progress is a national movement that started in Jacksonville, Florida among ordinary Americans who want to reclaim Christianity and change this current political picture.  Members in the movement want to restore core values of Christianity while honoring diverse views about religion and Christian life.  Many Americans, especially people of faith, are ready to hear from Christians who are tolerant, and who understand the many ways that our faiths impact our views of public life. The Christian Alliance advances a renewed, progressive vision of Gospel values and seeks to help Americans express this moral vision in our lives and in our politics

Support them.

Okay.  I wonder how long it will be before this group gets compared to Nazis/Hitler.  I’m starting the clock nnnnnnnnow–

More from their website—where they stand on “The Issues”:

Caring For “The Least Of These” – Pursuing Economic Justice

The Jesus of the Gospels calls us to good stewardship, justice, and care for “the least of these.” We call on our nation’s leaders to seek economic justice in the management of our nation’s wealth.

Caring for the Earth – Responsible Environmental Stewardship for Today

Jesus urged his followers to be good stewards and to act for good in the world here and now.  We respond by caring for God’s created world today, holding our environment in trust for our children.

Rejecting Bigotry, Embracing Dignity – Equality for Gays and Lesbians

Jesus taught equality, justice and obligation.  We accept Jesus’ call to love one another and to welcome all God’s children at the table.

Honoring the Sanctity Of Childbearing Decisions
Effective Prevention vs. Criminalizing Abortion

Jesus taught compassion, responsibility, and equality.  Following his call, we support responsible, compassionate programs that are genuinely effective in helping prevent unintended pregnancy.  We affirm that each woman’s body belongs to herself.  No woman should be forced either to bear a child or to terminate a pregnancy.

Forsaking Brute Power – Seeking Peace, Not War

Jesus knew power and he knew it could be used for justice or for conquest.  Over and over, Jesus blessed his followers with peace and urged them to peace.  Following his example, we call for restraint – not aggression – in the exercise of our nation’s power.

Extending Healing to All – Health Care for All Americans

Jesus’ insisted on justice, equality, and care for “the least of these.” Acting on his teachings, we claim every American must have access to excellent health care.

Rush on Durbin

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Now actually being compelled to confront what Durbin actually said on the Senate floor, the wingnuts are starting the meme that the FBI memo that Durbin read from . . . is . . . wait for it . . . fabricated.  That’s right.  Durbin simply made it up, according to the desparate wingers.

From the June 17 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

So what we have here is a knowledgeable official—this is from the Fox News website—a knowledgeable official familiar with the memo cited by Durbin, as well as other memos. He said that “the FBI agent made no such allegation and the memo described only someone chained to the floor. Anything beyond that is simply an interpretation, the official said.”

So I think that’s why I say we need to see this memo that Durbin read from. We need to see it. He can read from it. He can copy it to a piece of paper and take the piece of paper to the Senate floor, but let’s see the actual memo. Let’s make him produce it.

Done.  (Memo to Fox News and Rush: it’s been public for a while now…)

Operation Yellow Elephant

Ken AshfordIraq, RepublicansLeave a Comment

Sticker_1 The objective of OPERATION YELLOW ELEPHANT is to recruit College Republicans and Young Republicans to serve as infantry. They demanded this war and now viciously support it. It’s only right that they also experience it.

So far, it isn’t going too well.  Recently, as reported here, Operation Yellow Elephant tried to get a recruitment ad into the program of the upcoming Young Republican “America – Fuck Yeah!” Jamboree (or whatever it’s called).  The ad text reads:

OUR NATION IS AT WAR! * We are in a desparate struggle for all we believe in * Our military is suffering a manpower crisis * Why are you here when your country needs you in Iraq? * Talk is cheap.  American needs more from you. * College, family, and careers can wait. * Heed your nation’s call and enlist in the infantry today.

The ad (reprinted below) was rejected.  Apparently, it was too much of a downer ("too negative") for the pimply-faced pro-war yahoos, who bitch and moan about troop defamation, and who tireless insist on the soundness of torture and the Iraq war, but who don’t have the balls to actually sign up and fight for the cause that they champion.  Imagine my surprise.

Yrad