|
Articles:
Counterpoint
Karl
Rove, Get A Clue
Friday, June 24, 2005
Republicans
seem to have an affinity for declaring that Democrats are
"out of touch" with mainstream Americans. Considering
that the GOP won the last two presidential elections by a
slim majority, it would stand to reason that, at best, Democrats
are only out of touch with about 51% of Americans. At the
same time, I would surmise that Republicans are out of touch
with the other 49%. Consider the following recent statements
by Bush advisor Karl Rove. I contend that he is at least as
clueless about liberal ideals as liberals are about conservative
ideals.
Please
note, the following quoted segments are taken from this
article on MSNBC.com.
Rove,
the architect behind President Bush’s election victories,
on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative
Party that “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks
and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding
for our attackers.” Conservatives, he said, “saw
the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”
He
added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the
mistake of calling for “moderation and restraint”
after the terrorist attacks.
Has
anything ever happened to you where you got mad, and were
quick to blame someone? Ever curse them up and down, and vent
all your anger at them? Ever find out later that they weren't
to blame? If you did, I bet you felt like an ass afterwards.
It's in this analogy that we can find the motivation behind
the "moderation and restraint" liberals called for
after the terrorist attacks. Conservatives wanted swift justice
after the attacks. Is that to say liberals didn't? Of course
they did. Liberals, however, didn't want to run out half-cocked
and lay waste to an entire people without being sure they
were to blame. They also didn't want to have a bunch of unecessary
civilian casualties, American military casualties, or fiscal
waste in an ill-conceived war.
First,
we identified the Taliban and al-Qaida terrorist groups operating
in Afghanistan as the culprits of the terrorst attacks. We
invaded that nation, and largely eradicated those responsible.
Mission accomplished, justice was served. Or maybe not. The
leader of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, escaped and allegedly
remains on the run. One would think we would doggedly pursue
this murderer until we was killed or captured and executed.
Then, finally, justice would be served for the attacks against
our nation.
Instead,
our leaders took their eyes off the prize and declared Iraq
as the new haven for anti-American terrorists. A nation, they
declared, that was armed to the teeth with weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) and terrorists galore. Even if Iraq was
home to terrorists, it was not home to bin Laden or the other
terrorists who attacked us on September 11. Most of them were
dead or captured, and the few who remained were likely still
hiding out in Afghanistan or Pakistan. So, even if potential
terrorists lived in Iraq, could we really punish them for
September 11 when they weren't even involved? That's like
having a bad day at work and then coming home and kicking
your dog. Even if he's a bad dog, he didn't cause your bad
day.
So
suddenly, we went from punishing those who attacked us to
punishing anyone who may ever conceivably attack us from now
until eternity. We went from a decisive action against clear
targets who were proven guilty, to a bottomless well of warfare
against all comers. We laid waste to Iraq on claims of WMDs
and imminent terrorist plots against us, only to later find
out they were all wrong. This wasn't a glorious, decisive
action against those who attacked us. This was a bottomless
pit, a misunderstood, misinformed, unplanned debacle that
grew into a life of its own. Our leaders said we had to wipe
them out, because they had WMDs and they were going to use
them against us. We found out that wasn't true, and the leaders
were quick to blame everyone but themselves, failed to take
responsibility, and even had to nerve to suggest that wasn't
why we attacked them.
So
now we are stuck in Iraq. We can't pull out now, for fear
of destabilizing the entire region. Yet our persistence only
causes more death. I fail to see the logic when someone's
solution to American deaths is to cause more American deaths.
Daily guerilla and suicide attacks against our soldiers continue
to plague us. Iraq was a hornet's nest to be sure, but the
hornets in this particular nest weren't bothering us until
we went in and stirred them all up. And you can't go into
a hornet's nest and not expect to get stung, but apparently
our leaders believed they could.
If
we had simply continued to pursue bin Laden and bring him
to justice, I believe most Americans would have been satisfied.
Instead we ran roughshod into an unrelated fight, against
people who were dispicable, but nonetheless not responsible
for the September 11 attacks. In addition to killing or capturing
these people, we leveled their country along with over 100,000
of their innocent civilians. We've thus far lost almost 2,000
of our own people, with more dying almost daily and countless
more with lifelong injuries. We've spent scores of billions
of dollars, drove up our national deficit to a new record
high, and expanded government to near-totalitarian levels.
For what? For WMDs that don't exist? To remove a tottering,
ineffective dictator from "power"? To exact vengeance
against those who didn't commit the crime?
THIS
is why liberals called for "moderation and restraint"
prior to war. Unlike some people, liberals seem to remember
the lessons of the past. Specifically, the quagmire in Vietnam.
It was the most unpopular war in our history, because it had
no real goal, and no victory. We were stuck in a situation,
unwilling to retreat, and responded to bloodshed with more
bloodshed. People are starting to see the parallels in Iraq.
It doesn't seem to be improving, violence and death persist,
and there is no timetable for our withdrawal. We're hemorrhaging
cash, falling further into debt, and tax increases are inevitable.
It's turning into the same protracted and unwinnable conflict
we faced in Vietnam.
Conservatives
can brag about how great they are because they ran gung-ho
into Iraq, but I believe now the American people are starting
to realize it was a mistake. Americans were almost unanimously
behind invading Afghanistan and punishing those who attacked
us. Many were also supportive of invading Iraq, on the claims
of WMDs. But now that our reasons for invading Iraq have evaporated,
and the deaths of Americans continue, Americans are probably
starting to think a little more "moderation and restraint"
prior to invading would have been a good idea. Too bad the
liberals don't run the country, we may have saved a few thousand
American lives.
Finally,
it's because of that statement that I can't believe conservatives
believe liberals are "anti-US soldier". If anything,
liberals care more for the welfare of our fighting men and
women. Why else would they be so pissed off about waging an
illegitimate war, and losing American lives for no clear and
profound reason? Liberals are definitely opposed to politicans
leading our soldiers into unecessary risk and death. But they
oppose the leaders, not the soliders. If anything, it is the
conservative politicians, most of whom lack any military experience,
who send our troops to fight and die who are "anti-US
solider".
So
get a clue, Karl Rove. While some ignorant hillbillies may
buy into your brand of half-baked, disasterous, and deadly
cowboy politics, I don't believe most Americans see death
as an American value. A little "moderation and restraint"
could have saved you from the egg on your face, and the egg
on the faces of your masters. It could have saved American
taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars. It could have
prevented a kneejerk, false urgency to expand government like
never before, which threatens our liberties. Most importantly
it could have saved thousands of young fighting men and women
from facing their untimely deaths or disfigurements. Saved,
as well, the lives of over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians
who just wanted to live a good life like any of us. Given
this grotesque waste of money and human life, along with the
growing authoritarianism in our government, I just can't understand
how you can call yourselves "conservative".
Once
you hear the details of victory, it is hard to distinguish
it from a defeat.
--Jean-Paul Sartre
Everybody's
worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy
way: stop participating in it. --Noam Chomsky
|
