Saturday, June 25, 2005
Rove struck a nerve
Karl Rove: "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
How does this translate into an accusation of "treason"? Are liberals so ashamed of their positions that they see accusations of treason where none exists? The basis of Senator Durbin's critique of Guantanamo is that it does not provide "due process" under American constitutional law.
In fact, the real point of the FBI agent's report, quoted by the Senator, was that the FBI interrogated terrorists in accordance with their normal criminal investigation methods, while stronger tactics were employed at Guantanamo.
What alternative to prosecuting the war in Iraq do opponents offer but criminal investigation and prosecution? That does not suggest that opposition to the war in Iraq and the alternative of criminal prosecution is treasonous, but merely that it suggests a different approach subject to debate as much as the war itself.
Liberals seem quite prepared to offer up strong, some would suggest outrageous, metaphors and personal attacks on the President, Vice President, Republicans and the American military.
Guantanamo as evoking Nazi death camps and the gulag, President Bush as Hitler, Republicans as fascists and the administration as creating intelligence of WMD to justify a war solely to enrich Halliburton and other "Republican" companies represent standard bill of fare for many of those expressing outrage at Mr. Rove's comment.
I can imagine no worse accusation of treason than the charge of creating false intelligence to generate a war solely for personal financial gain. How disgusting! Yet that seems to be fair comment while quoting MoveOn.org is beyond the pale.
And do not point to the "Downing Street Memos" as support. Any fair reading of them shows clearly that the British believed Iraq possessed WMD and were concerned that Saddam would use them if attacked. The real concern expressed in the memos was not regarding WMD but whether a legal justification for war existed.
Amazing how a memo discussing concerns that Saddam would use his WMD if attacked has gotten twisted into the US creating WMD where they did not exist.
If liberals believe their positions, they need to forthrightly defend them rather than whining about accusations of treason where none exists while viciously attacking their opponents as traitors.
How does this translate into an accusation of "treason"? Are liberals so ashamed of their positions that they see accusations of treason where none exists? The basis of Senator Durbin's critique of Guantanamo is that it does not provide "due process" under American constitutional law.
In fact, the real point of the FBI agent's report, quoted by the Senator, was that the FBI interrogated terrorists in accordance with their normal criminal investigation methods, while stronger tactics were employed at Guantanamo.
What alternative to prosecuting the war in Iraq do opponents offer but criminal investigation and prosecution? That does not suggest that opposition to the war in Iraq and the alternative of criminal prosecution is treasonous, but merely that it suggests a different approach subject to debate as much as the war itself.
Liberals seem quite prepared to offer up strong, some would suggest outrageous, metaphors and personal attacks on the President, Vice President, Republicans and the American military.
Guantanamo as evoking Nazi death camps and the gulag, President Bush as Hitler, Republicans as fascists and the administration as creating intelligence of WMD to justify a war solely to enrich Halliburton and other "Republican" companies represent standard bill of fare for many of those expressing outrage at Mr. Rove's comment.
I can imagine no worse accusation of treason than the charge of creating false intelligence to generate a war solely for personal financial gain. How disgusting! Yet that seems to be fair comment while quoting MoveOn.org is beyond the pale.
And do not point to the "Downing Street Memos" as support. Any fair reading of them shows clearly that the British believed Iraq possessed WMD and were concerned that Saddam would use them if attacked. The real concern expressed in the memos was not regarding WMD but whether a legal justification for war existed.
Amazing how a memo discussing concerns that Saddam would use his WMD if attacked has gotten twisted into the US creating WMD where they did not exist.
If liberals believe their positions, they need to forthrightly defend them rather than whining about accusations of treason where none exists while viciously attacking their opponents as traitors.
# posted by Thomas A. Becket : 7:28 AM
