Karl Rove. The very name strikes fear and loathing in the hearts of Democrats everywhere. To them, he's the mad genius who connived to get Bush into the White House in 2000, stealing an election from the "rightful" winner, Al Gore. Rove is the guy who took down John Kerry at the knees, buckling his presidential campaign with numerous low-blows, like telling everyone that Kerry was a privileged dandy, or that his Purple Heart awards were hardware for an opportunist; finally calling out the Swift Boat Veterans to undermine reality. Karl Rove (and Dick Cheney?) is the real force of darkness in the White House. Democrats' wine glasses shake at the very mention of his name.
But the great thing is that Karl Rove has finally gotten Democrats to spill their wine (pray that it is not a 1959 Chateau Latour) all over the place. What, pray tell, did he say that so offended their liberal etiquette? Well, prepare yourself, for it is truly horrifying:
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
Rove made these comments Wednesday last, while speaking to the Conservative Party of New York. As most of you know, Rove is not an elected official. He is not a representative of a Congressional district; he is not a Senator from New Hampshire or Utah; he is not a head of a political party. He is a private citizen serving as an appointee in the White House.
But the wine-spilling is not about his position in government, but his position on Democrats. Rove's fastidious critics are calling for an apology from him and the White House. But their cries for contrition, sackcloth and ashes, and two days in pillory on the White House lawn, have produced nary a word from the Oval Office, or from Rove himself.
The real outrage in all this is that Democrats are calling Rove to apologize for a comment the truth of which is rooted in historical fact; while the same folks are silent about an elected official's remarks about Nazism and American troops - remarks which not only contradict history but abuse it - from the hallowed floor of the US Senate. Rove, you see, is a threat to America; while Sen. Dick Durbin is a patriot for his courage.
Here are a few facts that are worth noting. Regarding the claim that liberals "wanted to prepare indictments" after 9/11, please recall exactly what happened when Muslim terrorists successfully detonated a 1600-pound bomb beneath the World Trade Center in 1993. Remember that, or did you forget? The Clinton administration, rather than alarming the US citizenry by declaring the event an act of war, chose instead to view it as a criminal and not a military act. Thus, rather than involving the Pentagon, the Clinton administration chose to use the FBI, and did in fact bring indictments (and convictions) down on most of the perpetrators. President Clinton, it is worth noting, even though he traveled to the tri-state area shortly after the bombing, never visited the bombing site for a tour of the damage, apparently believing that a visit would give too much political significance to the bombing.
But the bombing was hugely significant, partly because of how close the bombing came to fully succeeding. For had the WTC tower toppled, as was intended, the death toll on THAT day would have made 9/11 seem like a fender-bender.
Moreover, according to Richard Miniter's interesting book Losing Bin Laden, a Clinton advisor - Laurie Mylroie? - later concluded that there was most likely a relationship between the 1993 bombing AND Saddam Hussein (some speculated Hussein supported the attack as retaliation for the Gulf War and subsequent sanctions against Iraq). Read Miniter's book and weep.
It is not beyond the realm of credulity that liberals wanted to indict, arrest and convict, the 9/11 terrorists. Likewise, it is not beyond credulity to currently hear liberals speak of indicting bin Laden, or Guantanamo Bay detainees, or Saddam Hussein.
As for Rove's claim that liberals wanted to "offer therapy" to the 9/11 terrorists, I've no evidence other than one small anecdote, drawn entirely from memory. It was an article I read, a tribute really, in American Photo magazine. It was written by a world-famous photojournalist in memory of Bill Biggart, the only photojournalist killed working the scene at Ground Zero in 2001. In that article, there was a line which spoke of irony. It went something like this:
"Little did the Arabs aiming their planes into the WTC realize that below them, working his cameras, was a man who could empathize with their cause."
It is a perfectly understandable comment to make, considering the circumstances. But latent in the American Photo writer's words, is a sentiment that is entirely liberal: Americans brought this on themselves. Moreover, post-9/11 there was plenty of soul-searching in America. And there was plenty of sentimentally-driven arguments for "understanding" and "empathy"; for "self-understanding".
Do you remember, too, that right after 9/11, liberals (and conservatives) were miffed that reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell suggested that 9/11 was, in part, retribution for America's sins, like homosexuality and abortion? Remember that both men apologized? But did you ever notice that the left has never apologized for its claims that the 9/11 attacks were due to other American sinners, like greedy capitalists, neo-conservatives like Donald Rumsfeld, and theocrats like Jerry Falwell. America was terrorized not because Americans were Americans, but because Americans were fat, or greedy; arrogant or just plain ignorant. In short, Americans were attacked because America was not more thoroughly liberal; European; globally-conscious; or more sensitive to the Islamic mind. Americans, to the liberal observer, were sinners of a socio-political sort. They were not immoral, like Robertson suggested, for embracing carnality or other sexual vices. They were immoral for being politically stupid. America deserved 9/11 not because of moral depravity. It deserved it because of Christians like Pat Robertson.
Hence, people on the street chanted mantras saturated with liberal sentiments, with a sort of typical "can't-we-all-just-get-long, make-love-not-war, create-jobs-not-bombs" kind of earnestness. In many ways, it was perfect water-cooler talk, bending each other's minds toward understanding our "enemies", who were not threats, only friends who misunderstood us, and we had failed to understand.
Of course, I know that I am over-simplifying. Post-9/11, there were many hawkish folks who had, up until then, been rather dove-like. But there remains the fact that liberals continue to be less bellicose, unless their target is Republican bellicosity, than their conservative peers. I mean, how many Republicans are holding up traffic and placards, protesting war and calling for retreat? How many Republicans would choose round-table diplomacy, or who would rather indict and convict Islamic terrorists? How many Republicans believe that America deserves to be hated, even by its former allies who reproach Bush and Co. for their alleged "imperial aggression"?
What Karl Rove said was right on target; he was not inaccurate. There is indeed a difference between the way conservatives and liberals view terrorism, which was Rove's broader point. If there is no difference, then liberals might as well support the conservatives. But the pertinent argument is not whether he was right. What matters is which methodology is right in dealing with terrorism: the in-your-front yard-not-our's fighting of the Republicans, or the retreatist let's-talk-this-over-and-reach-an-accord of the Democrats (the more liberal ones, of course).
I don't not know, really, nor do I claim to know. But what I do know is this: Karl Rove's remarks do not require anything resembling an apology, though he his likely to give one. But there is no umbrage among liberals when a Senator speaking on behalf of America likens us to a Nazi prison camp. Go figure.
There is indeed wine spilled at the name of Karl Rove. But it is cheap wine. That's why it is so easy to disregard. Pray that other wine is not spilled as a result of liberal passivity and misplaced blame. You know, the wine of blood, vintage the beginning of time.
Contratimes
PS. Have you heard anyone stick up for those conservatives, and I count myself among them, who did not want to do battle against radical Islam after 9/11? Perhaps Rove was actually flattering, in an inept way, Democrats by referring to them as the therapeutic party. Why this sudden rush by liberals to sound like warriors? "We support war, too, you know?!"
[I did hear one liberal counter-argument to Rove's remarks that it was the Democrats who proposed the Department of Homeland Security, thus proving that Democrats were not "soft" on terror. Unless I am mistaken, the Dept. of Hom. Sec. is not a military department: It does not declare or engage in war. It is a department that would "indict", I believe. So there are no guts to this particular counter-argument at all. Am I wrong? Please, let me know.]
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes
No comments:
Post a Comment