e-Claire

A collection of Quotes

will the American people really buy self-delusion and projection?

Karl Rove:
[snip]

Let me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:

“Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance.… [L]iberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms.”

These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.

There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes - though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don’t. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life”; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and 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. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be” to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”

I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

Moderation and restraint is not what I felt - and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will - and to brandish steel.

MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see … Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

Senator Harry Reid D-NV: “Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign.  Dividing our country for political gain is an insult to all Americans and to the common memory we all carry with us from that day."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer D-NY: “There’s a certain line that you should not cross, and last night, Karl Rove crossed that line. He didn’t just put his toe over the line; he jumped way over,"

Karl Rove: “Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot - three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals. ."

Hillary Clinton [to Rumsfeld]: “I would hope that you and other members of the administration would immediately repudiate such an insulting comment from a high-ranking official in the president’s inner circle."

Charles Schumer:"To inject politics into this and to defame a large number of people… It’s not what New York and America is all about."

Frank Lautenberg: ..."we should not dishonor their memory by using that tragic day for political trash talk."

Nancy Pelosi: “Karl Rove has moved to center stage in the theater of the absurd.  Our entire country came together after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  His shameful comments trying to revise history insult the victims of 9/11 and all of us who support them.  President Bush must repudiate these remarks.

“For Karl Rove and his Republican allies to try to exploit 9/11 for political purposes—once again—just shows you how desperate Republicans are to change the subject to distract Americans from their failures."

MoveOn.org, formerly 9-11Peace.org [9.13.01]
We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction.

Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter’s crimes. ...

Lastly and most emphatically, we demand that there be no recourse to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or any weapons of indiscriminate destruction, and feel that it is our inalienable human right to live in a world free of such arms. 

[ThanQ! Raw Story]

George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 18
“War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering - all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would have pursued Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we would not have invaded Iraq. Nor would we have our military struggling to perform police work in full combat gear and getting killed in the process."

Three days after the terrorist attacks, the Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 420-1 [Barbara Lee D-CA] for a resolution authorizing Bush to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those responsible for the terrorism.

Kerry: [NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03]
“(W)hat We’ve Learned Is That The War On Terror Is Much More Of An Intelligence Operation And A Law Enforcement Operation."

Of the six Democrats who signed a letter calling for an apology, five of them voted for the war in Afghanistan, and four voted to authorize war in Iraq. Mr. Corzine voted against the war in Iraq, and Mr. Lautenberg was not in the Senate at the time of either vote.
[Frank R. Lautenberg D-NJ, Jon CorzineD-NJ, Joe Lieberman D-CN, Christopher J. Dodd D-CN, Charles E. Schumer D-NY, Hillary Rodham Clinton D-NY,

[updated for clarity of quotes]

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

<< Back to main