Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in 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...Well.
No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
First, let's gratuitously recall that this filthy, engorged dog's c-nt was once beat up by a girl. Second, let's gratuitously recall that this fatass makes me look like Lee Hainey. Third, and most importantly, let's observe that Karl Rove-- who never served or fought in a war-- is questioning the motives and the patriotism of men and women like MarineLiberal1775.
In fact go read MarineLiberal's impassioned response to Rove and Weepublican chickenhawks right now.
...
...
Ok. My take on Rove is that he's an over-achieving, doughy geek who has a permanent intellectual chip on his shoulder. If he has to prove himself by finding ways to unite half the country under a big tent of common hatred (ex: gays), then he's happy to do so.
I promise you: Karl Rove will never apologize for these statements, because that would mean he was wrong about something. And Rove can't admit to being wrong. So this is a great political moment, and Democrats should take full advantage.
Perhaps his quote was an expression of his frustration at Bush's lack of political capital. Or perhaps (dare I dream?) he's worried about the ongoing Plame investigation. I'll throw a 3-day block party the day he gets frogmarched...
Josh Marshall's reaction to this is absolutely on the money where he states: "The president and his partner are more concerned with going to war with half the country than they are with war against the country's enemies abroad."
