cognitive dissident

GOP spinmeister Karl Rove took a number of cheap shots at liberals in his speech last Wednesday to the New York Conservative Party. Rove talked of “comparing conservatism with liberalism,” and remarked that, “perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security." He then said, "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Unsurprisingly, the facts are not on Rove's side.

As Mark Blumenthal notes in "How Did Liberals React to 9/11?" at Mystery Pollster, "the Senate authorized military action against Afghanistan by a vote of 98 to 0 and the House approved 420 to 1." Are the wars they supported somehow therapeutic for the targets? Is Rove implying that there's only one liberal in Congress? Blumenthal also provides actual data – not baseless allegations – in his article, for those who are interested in joining the reality-based community.

Kristen Breitweiser lays Rove out in her "Karl Rove's Understanding of 9/11:"

Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important? Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages. Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive.” Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance. We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run,” and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.

[…]

Karl, you say you “understand” 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could “understand” what happened on 9/11?

The group Families of September 11 has this to say about Rove's comments:

As families whose relatives were victims of the 9/11 terror attacks, we believe it is an outrage that any Democrat, any Republican, any conservative or any liberal, stakes a "high ground" position based upon the September 11th death and destruction. Doing so assumes that all those who died and their loved ones would agree. In truth, some would and some would not. By definition the conduct is divisive and, because it is intended to be self-serving and politicizes 9/11, it is offensive.

We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others. His comments are not welcome

I'll bet you didn't hear either of those remarks in the "liberal media."

UPDATE (11 July 2005, 10:02 AM): P.M. Carpenter’s “Karl Rove on Sodium Pentothal” is a wonderful take on Rove’s reprehensible speech, and deserves to be widely read.

Bravo!