Imagine an honest response from Dems to Rove's insult

[BurtWorm]

What would it be like? We're so used to a tone of "indignance" and calls for apologies. But what if, for example, the Dems said something like:

"You don't really want to go there, Mr. Rove. You really don't. We'll be only too happy to talk about how 'effective' your 'president' Bush was on the day of 9/11. We have a lot to say about how 'effective' your 'president' Bush has been since 9/11. We have volumes to say about the appropriateness of your 'president' Bush's war in Iraq as a response to 9/11. For the sake of national unity and out of respect for the memory of the victims of 9/11--and we will refrain from commenting at this point about the 'effectiveness' of your 'president' Bush's preparedness *before* 9/11--we have held our tongues. But if you really want to go there, Mr. Rove, we are extremely prepared to go there with you.

"Do you **really** want to go there, Mr. Rove?"

[ewagner]

1. Not bad....

not bad at all........

Not defensive at all....I like it almost as good as my approach..which is making Bush look bad by NOT calling for an apology or withdrawal.....

[BurtWorm]

2. Calling for an apology from Rove is like calling for a prayer from Satan.

'Taint gonna happen. There's no soul there to summon an apology from.

[ewagner]

3. I'm counting on that

the twist is to make the lack of an apology BUSH'S FAILURE.

[BurtWorm]

5. I am hungry to hear a Democrat let Rove have it with both barrels.

We know we've got it on them. If they want to play dirty, we can let them know that's a baaaaaad choice.

[pa28]

4. I like that.

I also wonder why resources were devoted to a phony war in Iraq while Osama Bin Laden slipped away. Remember when Bush said catching Bin Laden "did not really matter"?

I think Bush has some explaining to do in front of the 9-11 families.

[NYCGirl]

6. Read this from the DNC:

http://www.democrats.org/blog/trackback/00012258.html#trackbacklink

Rove is right: there are differences

White House spokesman Scott McClellan says that Karl Rove just meant that Democrats and Republicans had "different philosophies" when it comes to their reactions following 9/11. We agree. Our philosophies couldn't be more different when it comes to fighting international terrorism. Let's compare:

Democrats
Believe capturing the person primarily responsible for the attack should be a top priority.

Republicans
It's been four years, and Osama bin Laden is still free, even though Bush's CIA chief says he knows where he is.

Democrats
Investigate the intelligence failures that led to 9/11.

Republicans
Do everything in their power to block the 9/11 Commission from doing its work.

Democrats
Propose creating the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans
Push tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Democrats
Believe we should have stayed the course in Afghanistan, not allowing the Taliban to resurge, the warlords to take power, and the opium trade to skyrocket.

Republicans
Ignore Afghanistan as the situation worsens.

Democrats
Believe that we should be honest with our troops about the reasons we go to war, give them everything they need to be safe, and make sure we go in with an exit plan.

Republicans
Manipulate intelligence to trump up reasons to go to war, don't give our troops the support they need, constantly mislead the public about the direction the war is going, and fail to make an exit plan. And turn Iraq into the ultimate terrorist training ground.

[BurtWorm]

7. There you go!

That's what I've been dying to hear. Stuff it right back down Rove's fat gullet. :toast:

[BurtWorm]

8. American Progress Action Fund: Republican response to 9/11: All talk

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=700005

1,382 days after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large and al Qaeda is regrouping. More than three-and-a-half years ago Bush vowed to capture terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden “dead or alive.” He’s failed. The administration wants you to think it is hot on his tracks, however. CIA director Porter Goss said he had “an excellent idea” where Bin Laden is hiding. Vice President Cheney said he had “a pretty good idea of a general area that he's in.” With all the bluster, you’d think they could close the deal.


1,382 days after 9/11, terrorist attacks are at an all time high. By quantitative measures, the Bush administration’s approach to combating terrorism is an abject failure. Last year “he number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled,” according to the Washington Post. State Department data shows that “attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003.” How did the administration respond? By halting the publication of the State Department report.


1,382 days after 9/11, the Iraq war—a complete diversion from the fight against al Qaeda—has produced more terrorism not less. According to the CIA, “he war in Iraq is creating a training and recruitment ground for a new generation of "professionalized" Islamic terrorists.” An in-house CIA think tank concluded that in the poorly planned aftermath of the invasion, “hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders.” There is a serious risk that Iraq is now “creating newly radicalized and experienced jihadis who return home to cause trouble in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere.”

[wellst0nev0ter]

9. Just Show The Clip From "Farenheit 9-11"

with Bush's deer-in-the-headlights look during the attacks and be done with it.

[bettyellen]

10. "Senator Brrent" says it best.....

brentspeak (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-23-05 04:29 PM
Original message
Senator BRENT responds to comments made by Karl Rove

Edited on Thu Jun-23-05 04:31 PM by brentspeak

(er, if I was a Senator)

Apology? No, I don't ask for an apology from Mr.Rove. In fact, I'm grateful for what he said. It gives me an opportunity to speak about the differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to combatting terrorism.

It was a Democratic administration that captured and convicted the terrorists who attacked the WTC in 1993.

It was a Democrat who instituted the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and who appointed the nation's first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.

It was a Democrat who stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.


And a Democrat who stopped the planned attack to kill the Pope.

And a Democrat who stopped the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

A Democrat who stopped the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

A Democrat who stopped the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

A Democrat who Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

A Democrat who named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

A Democrat who sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.)

A Democrat who sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

But it was a Republican president who flaunted a 30-day vacation at his ranch in the month prior to 9/11; a vacation coordinated by none other than Mr. Karl Rove to convey a public image of the President as "relaxed, and taking things easy."

And it was a Republican administration that drove not one but two anti-terrorism czars to resign in frustration, due to conflicts with the White House.

And it was a Republican National Security Advisor who, prior to 9/11, crafted a national security presentation that included mention of the Star Wars missile defense program, Cuba's Fidel Castro, and unaccounted nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union -- but no mention at all of Islamic terrorism.

So, no. No apology is necessary from Mr.Rove. A "You're welcome" would be more appropriate.

From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, ev

[notadmblnd]

11. and they could start with something like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3939378

also on the greatest page.

[understandinglife]

12. Since George Bush is too weak to attack Bin Laden, he's attacking American

I like this response from "Michael in New York" posted yesterday at AMERICAblog:

"George Bush's numbers are collapsing. He couldn't get a "Fridays Off" law passed in Congress and the American people are increasingly worried about our troops in Iraq (maybe because they still aren't properly equipped?). So what does Bush do? First he attacks gays. Then he pushes the flag burning amendment. And today he attacks the majority of Americans who think he's doing a lousy job and calls them traitors.

It's very simple: George Bush has had almost four years to hunt down and kill Osama Bin Laden. He's failed miserably. Since George Bush is too weak to attack Bin Laden, he's attacking Americans.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/george-bush-and-karl-rove-most.html

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - One question, my fellow Americans, why is Bush not in jail?

[BurtWorm]

13. Here is (a part of) Kristen Breitweiser's devastating reply to Rove:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/kristen-breitweiser/karl-roves-understandin_3103.html


For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective “understanding of 9/11” seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."

Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)

Karl, you say you “understand” 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could “understand” what happened on 9/11?

Since the release of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, have you helped bring to fruition any of the commission's recommendations? Have you truly made our homeland safer by hardening/eliminating soft targets? Because, to me rebuilding a tower that is 1,776 feet tall where the World Trade Center once stood seems to be only providing more soft targets for the terrorists to hit. Moreover, your support for the use of nuclear energy seems to be providing even more soft targets. Tell me, while you write your nifty little speeches about nuclear power, do you explain to your audience how our nuclear plants will be protected against terrorist attack or infiltration? What assurances do you give that nuclear waste will not find its way into terrorist's dirty bombs and onto our city streets? And, how do you assure your audience that the shipment of radioactive material will not become a terrorist target as it rolls through their own backyards?