Skip to main content

Man. The Mystery Pollster dug up some fantastic post 9/11 polls regarding what Americans thought about taking military action:

CBS/New York Times, 9/13-14/2001, n=959 adults (source: National Journal's Hotline).

Should the U.S. take military action against those responsible?  Yes: 93% of Republicans, 86% of Democrats, 76% of independents

Should the U.S. take military action against those responsible for attacks, even if it means innocent people are killed? Yes: 74% of Republicans, 64% of Democrats, 67% of independents

What if that meant going to war with a nation harboring those responsible for the attacks, then should the U.S. take military action against those responsible for the attacks?  Yes: 74% of Republicans, 61% of Democrats, 65% of independents

What if that meant thousands of innocent civilians may be killed, then should the U.S. take military action against whoever is responsible for the attacks? Yes vs. No: Republicans 66% to 16%, Democrats 55% to 28%, independents 60% to 19%.

And, regarding the question of whether or not the U.S. was in a state of war:

Los Angeles Times,  9/13-14/2001, n=1,561 adults:

In your opinion, is the United States now in a state of war?  Yes: 74% of Republicans, 70% of Democrats, 66% of independents (Q11)

If it is also determined that the Taliban ruling party in Afghanistan is harboring Osama bin Laden, would you support the United States and its allies retaliating with military action against Afghanistan, even if it could result in civilian casualties, or would you oppose that?   Support: 91% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, 78% of independents (Q37)

What about Osama bin Laden's organization itself? Do you think the United States should retaliate against Bin Laden's group through military action, or should the United States pursue justice by bringing him to trial in the United States?  Retaliate vs. bring to trial: Republicans 80% to 17%, Democrats 66% to 28%, independents 64% to 27% (Q38)

(All emphases are mine)

I'm preaching to the choir to emphasize, yet again, that Karl Rove's speech to the Conservative Party of New York is complete evil bullshit.  But it's also obviously an example GOP propaganda.  We were truly united as a nation back then, but the Republican rhetoric since then brainwashed the electorate to the point of believing that Democrats don't care about terrorism.

Note: Thanks to Kossack stevetat for pointing to the Mystery Pollster's post.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 02:41 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  and here's ole Tom Delay (4.00)
    via Atrios

    Tom Delay speaking to the College Republicans:

    House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), in a bit of a role reversal, came to the defense of Rove by repeating some of the most provocative lines to College Republicans and saying, "That's not slander. That's the truth." The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out an e-mail fundraising appeal proclaiming "Karl Rove Is Right."

    Tom DeLay on 9/20/2001:

    DELAY: Well, there's no American that wants us to fail, that's for sure. When we went home, every member that I've talked to had the same experience that I had. Everywhere I went, it didn't matter who you were talking to -- I ran into some of the most liberal constituents that I had. People would come up to me, hug me, kiss me. They would -- they'd just say they're with us, you know, "We want this done and we want it done right, and we're with you." I mean, the prayer rallies that we went to, the vigils that we saw.

    Liar!

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 02:48:28 PM PDT

  •  danged inconvenient liberal facts.... (none)
    Yep, more high-quality analysis from Mystery Pollster; also check the update at the end, where he shows that the liberal/moderate/conservative breakdown isn't much different. (something that should come as a surprise to no one, but hey...)
  •  Rove remembers this... (none)
    but doesn't care since this may score political points with his base and change the subject from Iraq, SS, gas prices, health care, etc.,

    What a pig.

    http://asilentcacaphony.blogspot.com

    •  And (none)
      ... Rove can still point to those polls and say "See?  They're not as patriotic as we are since fewer of them wanted justice."  (Using the doublespeak of the Right there, btw.)

      I'm all for continuing to hammer this anyway, so that they keep saying "It's just MoveOn.org."  I'll happily sacrifice MoveOn to put them in a position of saying that not all Democrats, liberals, or progressives are in their vilified class.  The fringe benefit is that if they strike down MoveOn (a big if), MoveOn will become more powerful than they can possibly imagine... ok, hyperbole, but I thought it might be fun to work the quote in.  But, with our base, this attention from the Right can only help MoveOn.

      I'm usually a proud Southerner. Well, not at the moment.

      by socratic on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 03:12:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  RHETORICAL QUESTIONS (4.00)
    We were truly united as a nation back then, but the Republican rhetoric since then brainwashed the electorate to the point of believing that Democrats don't care about terrorism.

    Why is wanting to bring Osama bin Laden to trial "not caring about terrorism"?

    In your opinion, is the United States now in a state of war?
    Yes: 74% of Republicans, 70% of Democrats, 66% of independents (Q11)

    How does one have a war without at least two nations?

    In my opinion, the brainwashing is in truly believing that a war against terrorism can be won in a military sense. A goal like bringing Osama bin Laden and his top-most associates to justice is an achievable goal that has an exit strategery. "The war on terror" is a hobgoblin that can be used to control the American people (as the PNAC so presciently predicted, a "catalyzing event")

    •  I'll admit it - I thought it was a criminal act (4.00)
      and still do! I wasn't really keen on bombing Afghanistan from the Neolithic into the Paleolithic. Those civilians in that country have suffered a lot. IRAQ? phifff don't even think there was a reason.

      Trying to do my part to make the whole world a "reality-based community".

      by cmk on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 03:36:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ummmm ... (4.00)
    I'm not clear on the notion that we need rush to defend the Dem numbers that supported killing innocent civilians in retaliation of 9/11.

    I feel we're being herded into defending our worst nature. And then, I wonder why.

    It's the Stupidity, Stupid!

    by Q Dog on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 02:51:34 PM PDT

  •  Bush et al (none)
    USED our feelings and USED our sense of one purpose to create their own sword to do THEIR OWN purpose.  The torturing, the early bombing of Iraq, the lies, continual lies were all THEIRS not OURS.  They are like vultures circling the kill.  They let others kill for them.  They let others do their dirty work.  But they are not clean.  They are not wholesome.  And the stain of what they have done, are doing, is beginning to spread across their faces.  Rummy's face in the paper is an example.
  •  I can see the outlines of the GOP strategy. (none)
    1. Bluster as much as possible that the insurgency is in its last throes.

    2. Pull out of Iraq and proclaim victory.

    3. When things go bad because the Bush administration abandoned Iraq, blame the liberals for not doing their fair share.
    •  I doubt they can (none)
      get out of Iraq that fast. They are building bases to protect those oil resources and so they need to buy time in order to do that.

      My guess is that the Green Zone will be a city state of into itself, tying together the bases that
      protect the Iraqi oil reserves.

      Beyond that the Bushies wont care and they will set it up so the US can fight a perpetual holding action in throughout the rest of the country. It's much easier to defend restricted areas than it is the entire country... and that's what will happen... But they will need to buy time. :/

      Hermaphrodite with attitude!

      by Willadene on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 03:02:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  keeping the oil safe... (4.00)
        I don't understand why the media, in all the talk about withdrawal, doesn't get this point.  The Bush administration has no plan to abandon mideastern oil.  Why isn't this a central point of discussion.  Is all of the MSM so totally corrupt that they won't raise this issue?  I can't believe that they are so dumb as to miss it.
        •  It is truly disturbing... (none)
          ...how much of the talk about Iraq, our future in Iraq, and why we are in Iraq does not include the word 'oil'.  

          It's almost frightening, and certainly disheartening, to think that we have a media blindspot the size of an elephant.  

          BTW, even my (R) family members believe oil to be a big part of the motivation for this particular endeavor.  I don't understand why it's not part of, and WAS NEVER A PART OF, the national debate re: Iraq.

      •  This is a PR-driven Presidency. (none)
        That is why I suggest they are looking at a pullout. But you have a valid point about the bases. They could withdraw all but about 20,000 and then contract out the work of protecting the bases you mention to Halliburton. That way, they could "prove" that they have withdrawn when they have not.
      •  A new Israel and Palestine... (none)
        I've been quietly wondering how much this is going to turn into Israel v. Palestine round 2 for a while now.

        It even makes sense, now that Palestine seems to be more terrorist-free these days those who were involved there probably are interested in finding a new place to "make their living", so to speak.

        (An aside, but:

        Hermaphrodite with attitude!
        Another gender-ambiguous Kos poster? Yay!)

        The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

        by Shapeshifter on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 10:30:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A Two Spirit (none)
          At your service bows

          ;)  

          Hermaphrodite with attitude!

          by Willadene on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 10:33:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tangent! (none)
            Excellent!

            I'm... well... i don't know. See the name, i guess! Of course, as per my Norse heritage i'm closer to Loki than the two-spirits. But anyway!

            I wonder how many more of us there are on DKos. I bet a fair number, all things considered. Too bad those "pick a gender!" polls Kos occassionally does have no real "third party" choice, so to speak.

            Maybe there should be an "Androgynes of Kos Affiliation". It could be called "A.K.A."

            ...Or maybe not. Anyway. Nice to meet you!

            The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

            by Shapeshifter on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 11:13:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hajemashte ! (none)
              I know what you mean. I'm chromosomally both also so I really identify with your frustration. This business with people having to call you either maam or sir is amusing and irritating at the same time... espcially when clerks stammer 'maam umm.. sir.. umm maam' like a silly cyborg that got some water down the wrong parts. laughs

              Hermaphrodite with attitude!

              by Willadene on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 11:20:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Heh! (none)
                I should still get tested some day...

                I sort of like the confusion though as it's just about the only way the general public acknowledges my existence as a non-male, non-female person. So from that light it's fine. Of course the problem is that i then have a little voice inside my head that says "What if they club you when you turn around now?" Not very rational since people do mistake the genders of others. Just annoying.

                Now i feel like sticking up an "inclusive" gender-poll...

                The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

                by Shapeshifter on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 11:36:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  The statistics are not easily readable on the (none)
    front page.  
  •  for the life of me... (none)
    I just don't understand where the disconnect comes from. Rove is villifying other americans for not standing together.

    So we're evil for being devisive - thus undermining the american agenda. but he's railing the rails.

    Amazing. Why don't people catch on quicker?

    If you can read this, then you hate freedom.

    by NeoconSemanticist on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 03:05:09 PM PDT

  •  Now the spin is (none)
    I saw on the talking head shows like Fox News Sunday and NBC meet the press that what Karl REALLY was talking about was Moveon.org NOT all liberals. What a load of Bullcrap. He knew damn well that he was talking about all Liberals. He always pulls this stuff. Say one thing, stir up the crap then come back and try to spin it the way he wants.
    •  That's how McCarthyism works. (4.00)
      McCarthyism works like this:

      1. Make a broad, unsubstantiated accusation of "treason."
      2. Focus the accusation on the most articulate critics of your policy.
      3. Get people who should know better to join in condemning those critics out of fear of being lumped in with them.
      4. Once the articulate critics have been marginalized, hounded, or even jailed, go after the next group.

      Rinse and repeat.

      The tactic only works because some well-meaning folks fall for #3. And it stops working when they stop playing that role.

    •  A possible response... (none)
      "I've never given a dollar to MoveOn.org (not for lack of identification with their message but for lack of $$ to throw at them), so does that mean that, as a progressive and occasional liberal, I'm an acceptable American, Mr. Rove?  I'm not a MoveOn.org member or supporter, so does that mean that my belief that Iraq was a gross mistake and that your administration is a bunch of liars is now legitimate in your eyes?  If so, why are you bothering us and wasting our time with your shrill and pointless vomit?  What are you trying to distract us from?  You know, those of us whom you 'weren't talking about' but who still disagree with you?"

      I'm usually a proud Southerner. Well, not at the moment.

      by socratic on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 03:21:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  More than just propaganda (none)
    It may well be that Rove's remarks were intended simply to energize the Republican base by demonizing the Democrats.  But they seem to have had an additional purpose, intentional or not.  His hyperbolic statements are prodding the Democrats to defend themselves, as well they should.  But they have to be careful as to how they go about doing that.  The Dems response needs to include counter-attacks against the Republicans claims that they're doing the right thing in Iraq.  If the Dems start trying to prove their patriotism by demonstrating how supportive they were of Bush after 9/11, they'll play right into Rove's hands.  I'm not entirely sure that's what these numbers are showing (I'll decide when I've had a little more rest - long night last night.  Oops.)  But that is a concern that hits me upon my first reading of this.
  •  Good Job. (none)
    Important to note that the CBS NY Times poll dealt with military action against   those responsible for the attacks.

    Note also that the LA Times poll dealt with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan

    That is what the nation was interested in pursuing, not a trumped up nation-building, oil-securing, civilian-killing, soldier-sacrificing, debt-ballooning, force-depleting, goodwill-busting, abuse-unleashing, president-re-electing, unnecesary-for-defense war in Iraq.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 03:27:43 PM PDT

  •  The facts aren't necessary (none)
    We don't need to waste our time quoting factual polls about what liberals actually believed. We need to remind everyone that Rove is a slovenly, cowardly asshole who wouldn't dare to go down to graound zero and say what he said to the face of an actual New York Democrat.
    •  Rove in NYC (none)
      If Rove dared to repeat this in front of a public forum in NYC, he would be drawn and quartered post haste.

      The man, and I use the term loosely, is a menace.

      the political and commercial morals of the United States are not merely food for laughter, they are an entire banquet - mark twain

      by town on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 03:51:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sad (4.00)
    What if that meant thousands of innocent civilians may be killed, then should the U.S. take military action against whoever is responsible for the attacks?
    Yes vs. No:
    Republicans 66% to 16%,
    Democrats 55% to 28%,
    independents 60% to 19%

    -----------

    Sorry, but that's a sick fucking commentary on our bloodlust post 9/11.

    •  Thank you. (none)
      What's worse, it's exactly the kind of attitude Rove associates with patriotism.  Worst of all, there will be millions of "liberals" lining up to agree
    •  That's human nature. (none)
      After 11/2, I hated the south and all of the other so called red states. I got a big kick out of "Fuck the South" and that "Jesusland" cartoon. I don't feel that way now. That was just a way for many of us to cope with a disaster. I wanted to stomp some Taliban ass after 9/11. I was pissed and bummed. Time has a way of putting things in perspective. Now it is clear that Rove is no genius. He's a little weasle who got lucky, just like Bin Laden. He's a religious zealot, just like Bin Laden.  He helped Bush in the election, just like Bin Laden. And I despise him with extreme prejudice, just like Bin Laden!

      I think the American people--I hope the American-I don't think, let me--I hope the American people trust me.-George W. Bush

      by kitebro on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 04:32:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Consider me a 9/11 Democrat (none)
    I'm not a registered Dem, I'm Independent.

    But consider me like a Democrat (socially liberal) who's still in the 9/11 state of mind.

    We're at war with Islamofascism, and until all Islamofascists are dead or captured, the war isn't over!

    Draft Russ Feingold!

    by xavier86 on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 03:42:28 PM PDT

    •  Yeeeesssss... Excellent (none)
      That's what I imagine Karl saying, tapping his fingers together as he reads your post.

      Let me be the first to agree that we are battling the Islamofascists, and must continue until they lose support.  But as long as our strategy is only to 'kill or capture,' as you mention, we will never win this war; it will go on forever.  And that'll be just fine as far as the Republicans are concerned.  They've been playing off the '9/11 state of mind' you mention for the past four years and will gladly continue to do so as long as they're allowed.

      And since you felt the need to point it out in your post, I'm saying this as a Democratic-aligned Independent myself, FWIW.

    •  Qwestion (none)
      Since Russ Finegold thinks the Iraq war has nothing to do with 9/11,  and is an economic as well as social liberal, why do you want to draft him.  You obviously like the war.  Social Liberal only could  describe Richard Perle and  I don't want his vote. People who claim to be liberals but favor imperialism and nuking  brown people are just wierd, and probably dishonest.

      Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

      by NoAlternative on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 11:04:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  great ethics, we have (none)
    What if that meant thousands of innocent civilians may be killed, then should the U.S. take military action against whoever is responsible for the attacks? Yes vs. No: Republicans 66% to 16%, Democrats 55% to 28%, independents 60% to 19%

    A pretty sad statement on our vaunted morals and Judeo-Christian ethics.

  •  No apologies from this unrepentant liberal (4.00)
    I am disgusted that "liberals" are falling over each other to prove that they were fully behind Bush's rush to destroy Afghanistan.  One of the times I was most proud of this nation was the few days after 9/11.  We not only rallied to support those in who suffered in our country, there was a loud outcry to not villify muslims who weren't involved.  People were buying the Koran and trying to understand what had happened.  We were talking about real issues in the midst of our sorrow.  We were Americans, acting at our best.  

    And then, after fumbling for a response, the Bush administration proceeded to destroy a country.  Not that Afghanistan wasn't already pretty well destroyed by the Taliban and the years of warfare.  I am not convinced that this war made any difference in anything but the accessibility of gas pipe line routes in Afghanistan and the ability to produce heroin freely again.  I think women are being raped at a much higher rate than under the Taliban and, in most places, little more free.  

    I am not an expert - this is just what I glean from the scanty coverage in the papers.  I don't apologize for being a liberal, for thinking that legal action was appropriate instead of war.  I am sorry my party has chosen to do otherwise.  

    •  What don't you get (none)
      about hard numbers?

      Look at those poll numbers.

      What is so confusing about that?

      Did you fucking read the post?

      •  Not sure... (none)
        but I don't think it's the numbers that chicagof is refering to. I'm remembering that one of the campaign strategies used to pull Kerry's claws was to pull Kerry closer to the prez via national security issues.

        During the campaign it seemed that Dems were falling all over themselves to sound as strong and determined as the prez...if not moreso. And Reps could turn around and say, "Lookit that. There really isn't much difference between Kerry's position and our position on the issues that really matter. Why would you want to change horses mid-stream?"

        That being said, the post rocks, dood :)

        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

        by kredwyn on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 05:30:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok, I see what you're saying. (none)
          In any case, I would like to see a reference from him/her.
          •  Yeah me too :) (none)

            "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

            by kredwyn on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 05:43:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll try to explain (none)
              I am not denying the numbers you printed.  They back up the awareness of many Americans being angry, and wanting to strike back. They could be said to show that Democrats weren't wimps. But they don't capture the other side of the response.  We did respond in ways that made me proud. I have only quantitative data but it includes such things as http://main.edc.org/newsroom/features/beyondblame.asp
              which describes lesson plans developed within a week of 9/11 that tried to help children understand what was happening.  These plans included:

              lessons, designed to stimulate student reflection, discussion, and writing. Lesson 1, "What Is Justice? What Is the Injustice Here?" guides students through a discussion of the events of September 11th and reports of subsequent attacks and threats made against innocent people perceived to be of Arab descent. Lesson 2, "Has the Past Been Just?" examines parallels between the aftermath of September 11th and the internment of Japanese Americans in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.* Lesson 3, "How Can You Prevent Injustice?" leads students through a discussion of the kinds of actions they can take to prevent injustice and discrimination.

              This particular set of materials was endorsed by over 200 professional organizations and used in schools around the world in the year after 9/11.  I don't think any public educator in 2005 would dare use such a curriculum.  We can no longer talk about "our guilt" or look at how we perpetrate injustice without being labelled "traitors".

              Another snapshot of what was happening right after 9/11 can be found in the archives of that time:
              http://lcweb4.loc.gov/911/911/DrillSearch
              that give us insight into letters to the editor, web sites, etc.  This points to a much more varied response than is seen in the polls.  The initial response to 9/11 on the pages of the Atlanta Constitution web site included many people who said things such as:

              The reasons for these terrorist attacks should be determined and then the response should be fashioned to address this. If the US was attacked because of its involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, we should reexamine this involvement and make some efforts to come to some compromise about it. If the US was attacked because of what is perceived as callousness in our dealings with other countries, specifically Middle Eastern countries, we should look seriously at these dealings and make plans to cease and desist with them. An eye for an eye is not going to heal our land. As Reverend Floyd Flake said on the radio this morning, God wants people to be just with one another. Justice does not mean retribution.

              This is in the Atlanta Constitution archives at: http://wasearch.loc.gov/sep11/20010915032201/http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terrorism/voices/respo nse.html

              I am going on too long.  The point is that we tend to forget that we had a varied response in the first days.  The Bush administration quickly turned that into a unified response and have continued to make it increasingly hard for us to remember that we first didn't all want to jump into war with Afghanistan.  We were anxious to talk about the best way to combat terrorism, but that included many approaches - and many wanted to be sure that we attacked only those who had attacked us.

  •  I loved this line (none)
    It's at the incomparably superb blog, Today in Iraq, in today's main entry, by 'Friendly Fire'.  It's by way of comment on the news from the London Sunday Times and confirmed by Rumsfeld this morning that the US is in face-to-face negotiations with Iraqi insurgents:

    I sincerely hope that the wingnuts and the warmongers will not construe this as giving therapy to the terrorists.

    Hahaha.   Rove really deserves to be skewered and have his dumbass carcass roasted over an open spit in the light of this latest revelation on how the Wimperor has gone all soft in the Warren-Terruh.

    Can you imagine the Screamathon from the Right if this had happened under Clinton or any other Dem Prez?

    Four more years of peace and prosperity---not

    by stunster on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 03:59:37 PM PDT

  •  Democrats (none)
    wanted to go to war against the country responsible for 9/11; repubs wanted to go to war with the most convenient Muslim target.  
  •  This plays into their hand (3.50)
    God, I hated reading this post.  This is a preposterous response to Rove's statement.  If Dems think they have to defend themselves from this crap by wailing, "Hey, we are too as tough as you Republican conservaties," then they can enjoy, for the foreseeable future, an image that is entirely consistent with Rove's description.

    If we are establishing our toughness bona fides by responding to Rove, then he has won, case closed.  Maybe we could try something like this:

    Under the Rovian approach, we are less safe from terrorism, we have lost lives in a war the justification for which was deliberately fabricated, our defenses have been unnecessarily weakened, and if Dems had won, we would have caught OBL.

    If that doesn't work for you, find something else.  But please stop with this weak-ass whining about Rove.

  •  Right Wing Talk Radio (none)
    I was doing an hour-and-a-half drive today and tooling through the radio dial.

    I came upon a wingnut radio program (Laura something or other? Ingram? I dunno. I don't listen to them enough to know the players without a scorecard).

    The sub was asking call-ins for the quote of the week. At least while I was listening, Rove was winning (the other two were something from Teddy Kennedy, I think, and Durbin's apology on the Senate floor).

    Their reasoning was that the "uproar" by the left on this was all part of Karl's master plan-- make us look weak in a "methinks the lady doth protest too much" mode.

    I don't know if they're right or not. Maybe this is a smokescreen to protect Karl from looking bad.

    But it's at least worth considering-- does keeping this alive hurt us?

    Honestly, I don't really care what Karl Rove thinks of me/us/liberals.

    What bothers me about his remarks is that one of the things the wingnut echo chamber is very good at is inserting lies into the American psyche as conventional wisdom.

    This is an example. Another-- seen in Krauthammer's column on Friday-- is that we are devoid of ideas. Another is that we're the "tax and spend" party.

    Does protesting that Karl is lying help us by defeating the lies? Or does it help him by keeping the issue in front of the American people? I don't know. Smarter than me is needed to figure this one out I guess.

  •  Not to be a naysayer, but how do they come (none)
    up with a statistic like:

    "Should the U.S. take military action against those responsible?  Yes: 93% of Republicans, 86% of Democrats, 76% of independents"

    I mean, shouldn't the overall "Yes", be somewhere between the Rep & Dem. responses?  Why is it higher than either one, I wonder.  My advance apologies if this is a real dumb question.

    RIP: LAND OF THE FREE

    by NorCalJim on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 05:25:07 PM PDT

  •  So is Rove's plan (none)
    To get liberals to attempt to paint ourselves in more of his mindset? ie, Frame things so that any attempt at understanding (not sympathizing with) enemies is weak, and we rally to show how tough we are?
    •  Yes, perhaps (none)
      Whether that was his original intention or not, who knows?  His original intention may well have been just to demonize the Dems to energize the Republican base.  But what you (and others above) describe is definitely a potential pitfall, regardless of what his original intentions were.
  •  Rove was just talking about Moveon.org. (none)
    That is the party line. And that it was low-profile local fund-raiser, and that it was taken out of its context. Well, when the same thing happened to Durbin, it was okay to take it out of context. I know, I know...we all know it, and that I am preaching to the choir. But it frustrates me no end, that none of the MSM don't expose the obvious hypocrisy. Is it too much to ask? Is it too much to demand that they keep track of hypocrisies that surface over say a 2-week window? Just 2 weeks...we know it is a utopian dream to wish anything longer.

    "Truth often suffers more by the heat of its defenders than the arguments of its opposers." William Penn

    by jeeves on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 06:00:15 PM PDT

  •  You know what's truly evil bullshit? (none)
    The fact that it took mystery pollster and bloggers to investigate and dig up the evidence that Rove is a malicious, traitorous, lying, SOB.

    It's the fact that the media just parrot what the administration says, as though they deserve ANY credence whatsoever at this point.

    No body armor for the troops!  Nearly 2000 US servicemembers dead!  The Taliban still going strong in Afghanistan!  Massive cuts in benefits for veterans in key areas!  

    How is it possible that these things don't get thrown in the administration's faces every single time they open their mouths?

    That they don't get brought up by media, journalists, pundits' that they don't get thrown in the faces of Bush et al, is very evil indeed.

  •  Terrorist Tim McVeigh (none)
    Could anyone ask Rove what he thought of the "therapy" Tim McVeigh got under a Democratic government?

    And then maybe we could compare the state of McVeigh with the state of Bin Laden?

  •  Fire Karl Rove (none)
    The DSCC has a great new petition up...

    http://www.dscc.org/firerove

  •  put Rove in his place (none)
    Why doesn't the media call Rove on his stupid remarks - show that repubs are getting deperate to hold onto their rightie base - of only 30% who still support the Iraq disaster. The Dems should not play to him - just act amused and respond 'sounds like Karl favors McCarthyism like tactics.'
  •  9/11 was a criminal act (none)
    To declare war was to play right into OBL's hands.

    To use 9/11 as a pretext for going after Saddam was to play right into OBL's hands.

    To alienate not just moderate Muslims but our traditional allies in Europe was to play right into OBL's hands.

    In fact, just about everything Bush has done plays right into OBL's hands.

    It's the oil, folks, it's the oil. I'm with the commenter upthread (sorry, lost the name): why in the MSM is there never any mention of oil, never any mention of permanent bases being built?

    We have met the enemy, and he is us. --Pogo (Walt Kelly)

    by d52boy on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 07:20:08 PM PDT

  •  St. Louis Post dispatch snarks Curly Rove (none)
    RIMSHOT: Rummy, Dick and Jane

    SEN. DICK DURBIN, D-Ill., discovered last week that when you're down, you can count on Rummy.

    After Mr. Durbin apologized - appropriately - for his overwrought remark about Guantanamo Bay and Nazis, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld provided this insightful analysis for Fox News: "Some people always in their lives say something they wish they hadn't said. We just watched Jane Fonda run around trying to recover from the things she did and said during the Vietnam War. . . . He said some things, and he's going to have to live with them, and I think that's not a happy prospect."

    Thank heavens, Mr. Rumsfeld - who approved the abusive interrogation tactics at Gitmo - has nothing to apologize for.

    Washington Post is losing 2,000 subscribers a month, wonder why?

    by seesdifferent on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 09:12:32 PM PDT

  •  St. Louis Post dispatch snarks Curly Rove (none)
    RIMSHOT: Rummy, Dick and Jane

    SEN. DICK DURBIN, D-Ill., discovered last week that when you're down, you can count on Rummy.

    After Mr. Durbin apologized - appropriately - for his overwrought remark about Guantanamo Bay and Nazis, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld provided this insightful analysis for Fox News: "Some people always in their lives say something they wish they hadn't said. We just watched Jane Fonda run around trying to recover from the things she did and said during the Vietnam War. . . . He said some things, and he's going to have to live with them, and I think that's not a happy prospect."

    Thank heavens, Mr. Rumsfeld - who approved the abusive interrogation tactics at Gitmo - has nothing to apologize for.

    Washington Post is losing 2,000 subscribers a month, wonder why?

    by seesdifferent on Sun Jun 26, 2005 at 09:16:10 PM PDT

  •  Republican Cowards (none)
    It wasn't liberals who pulled troops out of Afghanistan, where they were hunting for  Osama, to launch a totally unnecessary war in Iraq that has turned the entire world against us. It wasn't liberals who insisted on using just enough troops to lose. It wasn't liberals who were so frightened that they threw over America's beacon of liberty and the rule of law in an instant, endorsing torture and destroying the Geneva Convention, huddling behind an incompetent, ignorant "strong man" because their little, yellow hearts were fluttering in fear.
    •  And it wasn't liberals (none)
      who cried "wag the dog" when Bill Clinton wanted to go after bin Laden long BEFORE 9/11. CLinton WANTED to take out al Qaeda but the REPUBLICANS in Congress prevented him from doing so.

      Delenda est Sinclair! http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

      by mole333 on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 04:33:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Independents more pacifist than Dems? (none)
    It's interesting that the independents, on many of the questions, were less in favor of the war than either party. Sort of contradicts the idea that compromise positions are the best way to appeal to moderates...

    Those who cannot remember the future are condemned to repeat it.

    by Abou Ben Adhem on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 12:20:48 AM PDT

  •  As a New Yorker (none)
    I ask everyone who reads this to PLEASE use it as the basis for a letter to the editor raging against Rove. I ask for your help to take 9/11 back from the right wingers. I am sick of people like Rove desecrating the memory of my fellow New Yorkers who died in 9/11. PLease write letters to the editor and please write letters to the politicians that represent you asking that they demand that Bush apologize to NYC and to the nation for Rove's comments and that he fire Rove.

    I am so outraged that I think my anger and activism have doubled since Rove's comment. I want to see us ENERGIZED by his disgusting comments and I hope our efforts to save our Democray INCREASE because of him. If nothing else, at least send MoveOn.org a donation in honor of Fox News claiming that it was MoveOn.org that Rove was referring to when he exploited the memory of the attack on my city. Or donate to Corzine, the opponant of the guy who ROve was raising money for. But PLEASE use this as inspiriation to redouble your efforts to defeat the un-American, corrupt neo-Cons.

    Delenda est Sinclair! http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

    by mole333 on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 04:31:40 AM PDT

  •  A Different View From The Polls (none)
    It doesn't have a partisan breakdown, but a poll that didn't reinforce the war frame by priming for it--as the LA Times clearly did--showed a lot more doubt about war as the proper response.  This was the US results of the 35-nation Gallup Poll. It found that only 54% of Americans favored military retaliation, compared to 30% who favored a criminal justice response--extraditing the terrorists responsible and putting them on trial.  The remaining 16% were undecided.  

    That 30% figure was part of an overwhelming world-wide consensus.  The Gallup poll was replicated in 34 other countries.  The military response was favored in only two--Israel and India, both of which have decades-long experience with terrorists from Muslim nations, and both of which have tried a military response, with terrible results.  Everywhere else, landslide majorities favored a non-military response, ranging  from 67% to 88% among NATO/Western European nations, from 64% to 83% among Eastern European nations, and from 83% to 94% in Latin America.

    In Pakistan, 69% supported extradition and trial, while only 9% supported military action.

    Those who favored a criminal justice response have nothing to apologize for. To the contrary. The war response gave the terrorists exactly what they were looking for--the status of warriors.  Even if it had been "successful," it would have confered on them the status of martyrs, which would have fueled a whole new generation to follow in their footsteps.  Before we chose that response, they were heinous criminals--nothing more.  A trial in which the families of victims--including Moslems--were paraded before the world would have totally discredited terrorism as a political option for at least a generation to come.

    But we lost our heads. We let ourselves be manipulated into the most foolish response possible.  It is easy now to criticize Bush for the abominable way he conducted the war. The hard criticism--the necessary criticism--is that war itself was the mistake.  There is nothing wimpy or unpatriotic about wanting to choose the effective response.

  •  This is about '06 (none)
    This is just part of the never-ending campaign. He's priming the same pump they used in '02 congressional races.
  •  Thousands of innocent civilians? (4.00)
    The third question was:  What if that meant thousands of innocent civilians may be killed, then should the U.S. take military action against whoever is responsible for the attacks?

    That Democrats joined the majority YES response to this is NOT something to be proud of.  

    Certainly we would all agree that it's possible to be in the majority and be wrong.  So let's not sell our souls in order to make Rove wrong.

  •  So proud! (4.00)
    Retaliate vs. bring to trial:
    Republicans 80% to 17%
    Democrats 66% to 28%
    independents 64% to 27%

    If that doesn't make one proud to be a sadist member of a God-fearing, God-loving, justice-seeking country.  Awesome.

    I guess bringing 'justice' to the terrorists via retaliation is 'the American way' of justice for the greater percentage of our population.  

    That whole justice/courts/laws thing is so overrated, anyways.  Let's just go kill a whole bunch of innocent not-so-American-looking, not-very-good-English-speaking people - that will serve the perpetrators right.  The terrorists killed almost 3000 innocent Americans - we'll kill tens of thousands of innocent non-Americans.  That's the very definition of justice, isn't it?

    Oh - the innocents?  Justice for the innocents who got killed?  Fuck 'em - they're dead anyways.  They won't know the difference.  We have to get revenge for their deaths.

    'Circle of violence', you say?  Never heard of it...

    Check out Link TV's daily Middle East digest program, Mosaic.

    by shmooth on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 11:34:48 AM PDT

  •  shameful day for Democrats (none)
    As several Kossacks above are pointing out, this is a disgusting chapter for Democrats, who were practically in lock step with Bush until their own children started dying, and who have on average slightly more concern for innocent civilians than he does.

    Paul Rosenberg and I gave Democrats too much credit in recent blogs when we suggested Rove was right - that Democrats try to understand their enemy and win, rather than indulge blind, idiotic blood thirst.

    Kudos to Plutonium Page and Mystery Pollster for proving us wrong!  This poll may go down in history books alongside Hitler's 96%+ mandate.

    You're making a terrific case that the majority of Americans, who now strongly oppose the Iraq war, will never be led by Democrats or Republicans.  

    What do you think is our best strategy for all us Independents at this point?

    •  I Wasn't Wrong! (none)
      Democrats do try to understand. It's just that the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is not as strong as it used to be.  Also, 9/11 was an exceptional event, of a kind that routinely causes people to react in a reactionary manner.

      Polls like these have to be taken with a grain of salt for three reasons: (1) the poll's external social context, in which alternatives to war were virtually impossible to find, (2) the poll's internal context, in which previous questions primed people to support war, (3) the impact of 9/11, the kind of event that temporarily moves the great mass of people significantly to the right--as documented by Robert Altemeyer in his research into Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA):

      Rightwing authoritarianism (RWA) is the convergence of three attitudinal clusters:
          * Authoritarian submission: A high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.
          * Authoritarian aggression: A general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities.
          * Conventionalism: A high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.
      RWA correlates with (1) faulty reasoning, (2) hostility toward outgroups, (3) profound character flaws (dogmatism, hypocrisy, etc.) and (4) blindness to one's own failings.

      The differences in RWA between party members--both in Canada and the US) is significant, but relatively modest, but it grows wider at higher levels. And it is dwarfed by the effects of fear-inducing events.  (Altemeyer himself talks about how he was gulled into supporting represssive measures in response to a terrorism scare in Canada in the mid-70s, I believe.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site