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

[tirianmal.livejournal.com]

Take a deep breath and repeat after me.

Karl Rove is unimportant. Karl Rove is unimportant. Karl Rove is unimportant.

The best revenge against him is actually to just ignore him. Make him irrelevant.

[blusurfer.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, Karl Rove is important. He is one of the president's closest long-time advisors and the garbage that spews from his mouth every day influences the so-called leader of the free world.

Nothing will change in this country or its current goverment if we pretend that it doesn't exist.

[spccadet.livejournal.com]

The only thing I see is the so-called leader of the free world driving the country into the ground so that other countries (such as China) become larger world powers than the US even sooner...

[tirianmal.livejournal.com]

I don't want to ignore his influence, ... I want to get to a point where he has no influence.

But sadly such is probably unrealistic to hope for.

[blusurfer.livejournal.com]

Karl Rove is the anti-christ.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_re_us/rove_speech

Three days after the terrorist attacks, the Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 420-1 for a resolution authorizing Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the terrorism. After the votes, Bush said in a statement: "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."

Sounds like a rather unified preparation for war to me. Although I guess I am an evil, American-hating liberal since I have a huge amount of respect for the congresswoman from California who realized that giving Bush unchecked power just might not be a good idea.

Here's something to brighten your mood even further...

[blusurfer.livejournal.com]

...apparently, if you can't beat 'em, you've got to join 'em.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_en_tv/cpb_new_president_3;_ylt=AjjixdQfUGWof.5b2eKbHiNZJ_wA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[rez-lo.livejournal.com]

The Families of September 11 have a message for Karl Rove.

I think the extremism is connected with Bush's falling approval ratings, frankly. Still outrageous, though.

[mainframe76.livejournal.com]

so...Karl Rove's opinion regarding Democrats' take on 9/11 makes you angry. yet Durbin's slander of U.S. troops and classification of Guantanamo as a gulag don't? nary a comment on your blog regarding Durbin's tripe yet Rove's opinion upsets you? frankly, i fail to understand why this upsets you so much and the other so little.

- merc

[tristmasjedi.livejournal.com]

Ladieeeeeeeeeeeeeeez and Gennelmun! Prepare yerselves for the ulllltimate champeeeeeenship of clever word choice!

Innnnnnnnn this corner! Imbecilic "tripe" and vicious "slander" surrounding persistent allegations of torture at a prison where, by startling coincidence, American authorities insist they can keep people until the end of an unwinnable war! Liberals want to deeeeeeeeeeeestroy Amurrrrrrca, geeeeeeeive aid and comfert to her enemieeeeees, and killlllllll your babies!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand in this corner! A perfectly reasonable "opinion" which, y'know, just happens to be clearly contradicted by fact! Karl Rooooooove is yer good friend aaaaand protectoooor, standin' over you while sleep with the shineeeeng shield of truth and distortion in one hand and the sword of reasonable debate and thuggery in the other! Trust the federal governmennnnnt to keep you safe!

(Ahem: Jaina, not out to hijack your post for trouble, and feel free to delete this if you like; I was just amused by that one. Please don't kill me.)

[mainframe76.livejournal.com]

feel free to mock me all you wish, nuk. doesn't really matter to me. i do notice, however, that you mention Rove's comments aren't supported by facts yet, along with every other liberal whining about his comments, fail to demonstrate that they aren't supported by fact.

quite frankly, i think Rove's comments are quite adequately supported by fact.

and if you think Guantanamo Bay is a gulag and U.S. troops are no better than Nazis, the Khmer Rouge or Stalinists, then you, quite frankly, have lost your mind.

have a pleasant weekend.

- merc

[hokie.livejournal.com]

That's a horrible misrepresentation of what Dick Durbin said, and you know it, merc. Durbin's entire point was that we're better than Nazis and we're better than Stalinists and maybe, just maybe, we should act like it, instead of having policies that show that we value human beings, because when we think about torture, it's not something we ever associate with ourselves, and it's something we just might have a problem with. It's not even an issue of "Right now, we're just like them," it's an issue of "We're acting in ways that one might associate with them and we're better than that."

Additionally, as stupid as Amnesty's word choice was, they weren't speaking literally. Is this something we can understand? Guantanamo is not literally the Soviet gulag and no one ever claimed it was.

Good lord. I have no interest in civility, per se, but can we please be honest about what we're talking about?

[mainframe76.livejournal.com]

actually, no it isn't.
and, i quote: "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

so, apparently, American troops were treating the Gitmo prisoners the way those locked up by the Nazis, Khmer Rouge and Stalinists were treated.

how is that not a disgusting comparison? Durbin doesn't have to make the point that we're better than the Nazis, Stalinists and Khmer Rouge. that's freaking obvious - mainly, b/c we're not slaughtering anyone.

good Lord, if room-temperature manipulation and loud rap-music playing over a loud speaker is considered torture then everytime i go to the mall, i'm being tortured.

chained to the ground? boo-hoo.

this is what Durbin thinks people would assume is the stuff of Nazi, Khmer Rouge or Stalinist torture?

also, whether or not Amnesty Int'l was speaking literally is completely beside the point. "Gitmo is figuratively like the gulags." is still a damn stupid, careless, ignorant thing to say.

your comment, in my opinion, bears no merit.

[hokie.livejournal.com]

You're completely ignoring the "that had no concern for human beings part," the rest was throwing out examples.

See, a fair reading of the quote has it sound like a multiple choice question. Suppose you got this description without knowing its source. Would you think it described the actions of a) Nazis, b) Soviets, c) Khmer Rouge, or d) Americans? And Durbin's point was that almost nobody would choose d), even though it's the correct answer. I don't see how this is difficult. He didn't say "This is what the Nazis did, we are no different from them." He didn't say "This is the Holocaust all over again." He said "We are not different enough from these groups, because if you got this account, you would choose, rather than it having been committed by Americans, that it had been committed by some group with no respect for other human beings. But guess what? It was us. Shouldn't we be better than that?"

Good lord, spare me the manufactured outrage. Was it a stupid thing to do? Yes, because you knew what was coming? But inappropriate? Hardly. Hell, those techniques were used by the Nazis and Soviets, though the Nazis eventually found (or their leading interrogators did, anyway), that torture wasn't effective at all. How's that for irony? In any case, that's certainly not how I want my representatives acting.

As for the rest of your nonsense, I'll let other people read it for how ridiculous it is. There's a reason that position is called a "stress position." Durbin also described how the prisoners defecated themselves, how the temperatures were left for hours to be well over 100 degrees, and how they weren't given food or water for extended periods of time.

So you can go on chortling about how easy they have it, what with your privileged little existence. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Because it's from an FBI agent detailing what he referred to as abusive behavior. And yes, almost everyone this side of Rush Limbaugh does think it's abusive behavior. There's a reason that wasn't what any outrage was over.

If my comment was meritless, yours was just completely insipid and without any sort of connection to reality other than an attempt to justify the preconceived notion you'd gotten and won't change. It must be nice to not have to worry about integrity or fair readings when outrage and mockings based on strawmen will suffice.

[mainframe76.livejournal.com]

good Lord, Hokie, you're a piece of work.
"the multiple choice question" of Durbin's bears no merit b/c regardless of how uncomfortable the terrorists in Gitmo are made, their treatment is nothing compared to those in the camps of any of the evil regimes he mentioned.
'fair' reading?
give me a break.
the fact that you don't find his comments inappropriate tells me all i need to know about you and your character.
guess we can just agree to despise each other. whoopee.

as for the rest of your nonsense, i'll let others read it for how ridiculous it is.

[hokie.livejournal.com]

Again, you're completely missing the point, after apparently skipping all of my response except for the multiple choice part.

I'll repeat this one more time, then add this entire exchange to the list along with others you've engaged in such as "poor people are poor because they did drugs or dropped out of school."

Durbin's point was nothing other than what the Israeli historian Avi Schlaim once wrote: "The issue isn't whether or not we are the same as the Nazis, the issue is that we aren't different enough." Now, you can agree or disagree with that all you want, but don't misrepresent the damned point in order to score some rhetorical cheap shots.

There. I'm done.

[mainframe76.livejournal.com]

i disagree with that statement.

there; i'm done, too.
yipee.

[mainframe76.livejournal.com]

oh, and great job attacking my vocabulary.
always easier than arguing the merits, that.

cheers.

- merc

[tristmasjedi.livejournal.com]

Myeh. Okay, Jaina, you have my apologies for not restraining The Smartass. Should've known better. I promise to be good in future and only comment on Happy Entries.

[mainframe76.livejournal.com]

yeah.
"only comment on happy entries."
b/c angry entries are solely intended for echo-chamber support.
God forbid anyone propose anything 'disagreeable.'
what the heck's a blog for? ceaseless pattings on the back?
if that's really what Jaina wants, fine with me. i'll honor that request.
it's not my intent to antagonize. it is my intent to defend that which i think is right vs. that which i think is wrong.

[knitress.livejournal.com]

Hello.

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.

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.

[tirianmal.livejournal.com]

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

Amen.

[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.

[mainframe76.livejournal.com]

since you find it so hard to believe that Rove's comments have any basis in fact, i suggest you read this: http://www.postwatchblog.com/2005/06/the_political_b.html

and follow the links.

[julietvalcouer.livejournal.com]

Well, you have to admit, once it came to actually doing anything about it besides trying to be "understanding", most liberals really didn't want to do anything about it. They're too busy blaming us for it and making improper comparisons to the Soviet Union and Hitler. (I so hope Dick Durbin loses his seat next year. Maybe then he'll think about opening his mouth about subjects he really doesn't understand.) A few DEMOCRATS (as opposed to flaming liberals) have their heads on straight, but the political left is notoriously bad at understanding who the bad guys are and what a practical response to them is. (Look at a liberal administration's response to North Korea making threats--they gave them a breeder reactor. What did they THINK the North Koreans were going to use the plutonium for?)

Public Broadcasting...heh. Let 'em get their own sponsors. The CTW could pay for all their own shows already out of their merchandising deals, there aren't any news shows on PBS worth watching (who would anyway? I can turn on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC any time I want--heck, CNN Headline News means I can get news updates repeating every twenty minutes) and the other good shows are available on BBC America and cable channels. NPR, meanwhile, got a massive bequest and can pay for themselves. They've both long outlived their purpose.

And it's YOUR journal. Post politics if you want. Sheesh. This isn't supposed to be some sort of topical blog, or it wasn't last time I checked. If you get subscribers paying for content, they can start having expectations about what gets put in.