While we liberals are getting all steamed by Rove's remarks and the WH's and Republican Party's official support of them, let's pause a few moments to give the WH advisor's contentions more serious consideration.
Rove states that we liberals have a different philosophy about fighting the war on terra and responding to 9-11.
First, he says we were all about seeking indictments instead of just bombing the shit out of them. Well, as it turns out, we did end up getting a few indictments. Lookie here:
But wait. Is Rove saying that the Bush administration didn't prepare any indictments as a reaction to 9/11?What about this, from former Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom--I believe--George W. Bush appointed?
"This morning, a federal grand jury indictment charging Nuradin M. Abdi, a 32-year-old Somali national, was unsealed in Columbus, Ohio. Abdi was arrested on immigration charges and has been held by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since November 28, 2003. I note that an indictment is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The charges against Abdi are:* Conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists;* Conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda; and,* Two counts of fraud and misuse of documents."
Gee, Rove must have been just furious at Ashcroft. Not only did he deal with Abdi with a mere indictment rather than personally taking him out and putting two bullets behind his ear, but he openly announced that he was presumed innocent!! What a wimp. What a marshmallow. And he calls himself a "Conservative"!
But what about Rove's overall pitch, that somehow liberals didn't approve of bombing the shit out of them? Well, naturally, roll call votes exist to show the level of support for bombing the shit out of Afghanistan, and as it turns out, only one Democrat didn't support the Afghanistan resolution on September 14, 2001.
However, let's not stop there, content as we might be to proudly show our militant colors so those big bad Republicans won't beat us up and steal our lunch money anymore.
Let's ask the question: How well, exactly, has the bombing and take-over of Afghanistan gone?
We knocked over the Taliban, whose crime it was to have provided a country for bin Laden and his gang to play around in. But we didn't actually get the guys who orchestrated 9-11 did we? Not sure what the proper metrics should be to evaluate the bombing campaign, but wouldn't one of them be that we actually succeed in nailing the main culprits?
Now, we got our guy in Afghanistan, but the drug trade there is booming, and it turns out we're still fighting Taliban remnents while simultaneously trying to establish permanent military bases in Afghanistan's Iraq neighbor.
Let's address a final matter: US culpability for 9-11. What's wrong with suggesting that our policies were at least part of the reason we were attacked? Isn't this called taking personal responsibility? Rove's buddies in the evangelical world attributed the 9-11 attacks to our own supposed moral failings as a nation. And surely, if we could be honest for a moment, we have to recognize that we've been mucking around in the Middle East for decades, usually covertly, for our nation's material and ideological benefit but often to the detriment of the region's population.
So, yes, I accept the charge that as a liberal, my philosophy of how to respond to 9-11 is different compared to that of some others. I think mine is the more responsible response.