angry

[jaina]

You all know that I almost never talk politics on this journal. But today I'm making a special exception. From the AP:

Speaking in a ballroom just a few miles north of ground zero, Karl Rove said the Democratic party did not understand the consequences of the Sept. 11, 2001, 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 Wednesday night. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Okay, in the first place, that's blatantly false. Blatantly. In the second place, that is a fucking disgusting thing to say, on SO many levels. It's crude. It's divisive. It smacks of opportunism. And did I mention the part where it's COMPLETELY UNTRUE!?

So, so angry right now. The whole mess about cutting public broadcasting funding isn't helping my mood, either.

Comments

[mainframe76.livejournal.com]

"I've read Dick Durbin's statement on the Senate floor. Carefully and in full. He quoted a statement from an FBI agent about American treatment of prisoners.

Do you think that the FBI agent is lying? Do you think that the kind of treatment he describes is American? I agree with what Durbin said -- and no, he didn't say that we're running Gulags or concentration camps."

so you think that the treatment described is Nazi-, Khmer Rouge-, or Stalinist gulag-treatment? quite frankly, i think your reading comprehension needs a little work.

"And to criticize Jaina because she's angry about Karl Rove's statement -- which appears to be about using 9/11 for partisan purposes -- and telling her that she needs to criticize Durbin as well -- is bad logic.

Engage her on the issue she chose. Defend the Rove statement. Don't throw in red herrings."

Jaina's more than free to feel angry about whatever she wishes to feel angry about. all i was doing was bringing up the point that i felt it curious that Rove's commentary was infuriating while Durbin comparing American troops to Nazis, etc. was not worthy of mention.

this has, actually, nothing to do with the merit of what Rove stated - that's not the point i'm addressing - it's which commentary infuriates and which doesn't.

i think you see red herrings where none exist.