Brutally Honest

Linking Iraq to 9/11

Secular liberals are joining the pious left in criticizing Bush's speech.

The MSM is aflame with liberals decrying his repeated references to 9/11 last night.  Johnny is said to be envious.

Thankfully there are those out there that you and I can go to for some facts.

Like John at PowerLine:

The Associated Press reports: "Bush Criticized for Linking 9/11 and Iraq":

Democrats in particular criticized Bush for again raising the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq...

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

Pelosi's claim that there is "no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq" is mind-numbingly obtuse. Let's itemize just the huge, obvious connections:

1) The people we are fighting in Iraq are Islamist terrorists, many of them associated with al Qaeda, the same organization that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.

2) The principal purpose of the Iraq war is to promote the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the Arab world, which remains the only long-term cure for the problem of Islamist terrorism that anyone has proposed. (If the Democrats have an alternative, they're keeping it a secret.)

3) After Sept. 11, knowing what terrorists could achieve with (relatively) conventional weapons, it was no longer acceptable to risk leaving in power a tyrant like Saddam, who a) had a decades-long fascination with weapons of mass destruction; b) had used weapons of mass destruction on many occasions; c) was a long-time supporter of terrorist groups; and d) had long been viewed as such a threat to America and its allies that since 1998, regime change in Iraq had been the official policy of the United States government, based on an act of Congress.

4) Let's follow up on 3 c). One of the Democrats' most ridiculous mantras is that there was no connection between Saddam's Iraq and international terrorism. This claim is demonstrably false, but as usual, the Democrats are playing to the least well-informed Americans.

John goes on to list 10 of "Iraq's most notorious pre-war connections to 9/11 style terrorism". 

Do you think we can count Mike and Willzhead and the other pious sycophants amongst "the least well-informed"?

But I digress...

Captain Ed takes major players in the MSM (the mouthpiece for leftist propaganda) to task for getting Bush's 9/11 references wrong:

Nowhere in the speech does Bush say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. He mentioned 9/11 five times, in these contexts: Islamofascists declared war on the US, and it reached our shores on 9/11. After 9/11, Bush told Americans we would not wait to be attacked again. The only way for America to lose to the terrorists is to forget the lessons of 9/11. The terrorists want to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried on 9/11. And after 9/11, Bush warned us that the road ahead would be long and difficult, and that we would need the stamina to see it all the way through to the end.

Do yourself the favor of reading all of Captain Ed's upbraiding.

And consider yourself armed the next time "the least well-informed" parrot the party line.

"It Is Time For George Bush To Apologize"

Like moths to flame flies to a load of bovine fecal matter, I'm drawn to the religious left. More specifically, to the inanity spouted and the predictability pronounced.  Lots of crap out there to read and digest.  It must wear out those flies.

Perusing my Bloglines blogroll, I saw where Mike (who avoids "getting sucked into yelling matches" by banning dissenters) had linked to this Willzhead post:

We need strong moral courage and that may involve, among other things, being willing to admit where we have erred in the past, including the very recent past. It may involve George Bush himself owning up to the ways in which his administration deliberately misled people in a rush to war.

... that someone whose "sense of purpose" was "created by strong religious roots" would understand that words matter for each of us and if false words have caused us to get into commitments that are detrimental then we should run to remove ourselves from that commitment. In other words, this is not the time to stay on message but is, instead, the time to apologize and start figuring out next steps. I realize the consequences are great. His presidency, his future in the history books, perhaps even jail time literally hangs in the balance. But that very word he invoked - religion - comes from a French verb which means to "bind together". This is what so many of the principles of God seek to do, to bind us together through communal values. One of those values is the fact that we say we are sorry when we have done wrong.

Here you have those who decry the black and white thinking of conservative Christians (the pejorative term more commonly used is fundamentalists) who see nothing but black and white when it comes to W. and the alleged lies told.

No room here for these usual purveyors of unconditional forgiveness, who want to "love" the terrorists into changing their ways,  to allow that there is no clear and incontrovertible evidence to support the moonbat-ic mantra "Bush lied, people died".   

Instead, they've pounded the gavel with their righteous left hand and pronounced the man guilty, absent substantiation, absent due process, absent the fact that many of their political ideologues here in this country and abroad have apparently been "lying" about these matters as well for years before the war, a war "rushed" into after 17 impotent UN resolutions and 12 long years of Iraq's nose-thumbing at the international community and their brutal oppression of the Iraqi people.

If only George Bush  were a homosexual seeking ordination or a death row inmate facing execution, or a transvestite desiring to use the women's room would he receive any charity from this bunch.

Instead, he's a man who's admitted that Christ has changed his life, given him a strong sense of right and wrong, and that he prays daily. 

For this, he is villified by Christian moonbats and excoriated by pious leftist hypocrites who ask that he apologize for an infraction the man denies he's committed and for which there is no evidence.  (Quite the contrary in fact).

Is there any doubt now that these people are merely x-ray negatives of the fundamentalists they abhor?  You're either a pacifist Christian or you're a heretic.  You either believe it's their way or you're ex-communicated.

I have an idea for the holier-than-thou and self-righteous who are demanding an apology.  Would each of you head over to Gerard's place and accept this apology from W? 

Pretty please?

Real Live Preacher: Everett Joseph Smith was a real boy

Do yourself (and more specifically, your soul) a favor and go read Real Live Preacher's guest post over at The World According To Chuck.

The phone call came at night. Doesn’t it seem like they always do? I felt sick. I hung up the phone and turned to my wife. “John and Denise’s baby came.”

There was nothing to say, really. We sat there feeling horror and dread. “How far along?” she asked.

“Twenty-two weeks. A little boy, and he was alive.”

Her face fell. My wife is a chaplain. She spent years working labor and delivery, so she knows what twenty-two weeks means.

At twenty weeks, he would have been born dead. At twenty-five weeks he would have had a fighting chance. Twenty-two weeks is just old enough for the heart to beat but too young for the lungs to breathe.

Twenty-two weeks.

John and Denise lost a little girl the same way a few years back. She just came too soon. Everyone who knew them saw how scared they were this time. We were counting the weeks, hoping and praying it wouldn’t happen again. But it did.

Twenty-two weeks.

I gathered my keys and wallet and put a small New Testament into my pocket. “I’ve got to go to the hospital, but there’s something important I want to ask you before I go.”

Don't miss the rest.  Trust me, just don't. 

If Mr. Atkinson pastored a church here locally, there's little doubt that I would be there weekly.  Instead, I've decided to order his book.  Hopefully, it'll arrive before the Brutally Honest household heads to the Outer Banks in a little more than two weeks.

The Bush Speech - Quick impressions

The speech tonight was a good first step in bringing the realities of this war to the American people.  I liked the fact that time and again he made mention of 9/11 and brought home the point that what is happening in Iraq is part of a larger campaign.  I like the fact that he appealed to the American people to do what they can do to ensure that our military is supported.  I liked the fact that he asked for more recruits, that he emphasized the honor that would come to those who enlist and re-enlist during these times.  And the following excerpt I think best summarizes what we're doing:

America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence, to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th Century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve, or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom is entrusted to us in a special way — and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending.

However he didn't go far enough in my view to use the bully pulpit to denounce the Dick Durbin's, the Ted Kennedy's, and others who doing and saying things that undermine the fight and that are likely costing American and Iraqi lives.  He didn't do enough to communicate that good things are indeed happening in Iraq and that he's forced to do an end-around the MSM to communicate those things.  And I think there's more he can do to prepare and remind the American people that in essence we've only just begun.

But I did like his closing paragraphs:

To the soldiers in this hall, and our servicemen and women across the globe: I thank you for your courage under fire and your service to our Nation. I thank our military families — the burden of war falls especially hard on you. In this war, we have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom — and did not live to make the journey home. I have met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon. I have been inspired by their strength in the face of such great loss. We pray for the families. And the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission.

I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you. And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces. We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our Nation's uniform. When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom.

After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult — and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing. Our enemies are brutal — but they are no match for the United States of America — and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military.

Thank you. And may God bless America.

Dialoguing with liberals - a lesson in frustration and futility for testosterone filled men

Leslie is one of Brutally Honest's guest bloggers and she has done an outstanding job thus far, not just in posting her own thoughts, but in replying to my own posts and the comments left by others, as she's done here while engaging Rick of a new life emerging. 

They were discoursing on notions of violence, of maturity, and being Christ-like.  Their exchange is worthy of reading in it's entirety but I was especially fond of Leslie's comments excerpted here:

I mean, has anyone stopped to wonder why God has inflicted men with so much aggressive testosterone in the first place? This is a rhetorical question. : ) Still, if I were being assaulted in some alley, I would hope that a good man walking by wouldn’t choose that moment to ignore his instincts [and] take the so-called high road.

I'm not usually prone to taking the so called high road.  It's not that I intentionally decide to be passionate, it's just that I am.  And that passion, that spanish part of me that boils over rather naturally, is something that really seethes the prim and proper liberal who desires to "dialog" and "communicate in a style that lends to mutual respect, to learning, to discussion".

Rick is aware of my... er... passionate style.  And yet we've "dialogued" and perhaps some "mutual respect" takes place.  After all, a new life emerging is on the blogroll here and as of this particular moment, Brutally Honest is on Rick's blogroll.

But I'm struck with what consistently takes place over at Mike's place. 

As anyone who reads Mike regularly is aware, the Bush administration is maligned often and swipes are also taken, more than occasionally, against conservative/traditional Christians and what some might call orthodox belief.

Which of course stirs my passions.

So I reply and things are going along rather nicely over there on a recent Mike post until David joins the fray.  David says things like:

I find it interesting to see that this thread has pursued such a wild tangent. Mike asked this to be referenced in terms of faith - pro or con. Instead it has turned into a vitriolic and myopic rant from Rick.

...

Perhaps Rick, to turn the table and use a horrificaly painful rhetorical device, you might consider that 9/11 held other lessons. That the American Dream is a nightmare to some, that the consumption it mandates comes at the expense of others and produces an excrement that is never dumped on home turf but always exported.

...

Rick is clearly an intelligent person and he clearly feels very strongly about his country (I assume he's American). But it's clear he has other priorities than those of Christ. We are arguing something here that is so rooted in worldview that if any intelligent dialogue is to be had the ground work is far from being done.

...

Rick, I respect your right and responsibility to have an opinion about these things. I'm curious to know if your faith, whatever that is, informs your opinions on these matters.

...

Let's approach this with a little humility and a little laughter.

I attempt at times, in my flawed and passionate way, to counter some of what's posted there.  And at times, I'm brutally honest (imagine that...) especially when someone, with humility and laughter, sees me as vitriolic and myopic, sees the American Dream as a nightmare to some and as excrement (are you folks seeing the humility here... and isn't David funny?) that is exported and dumped, and that I have priorities that have little to do with Christ (I guess I'm a Satan worshipper) and that before I can engage David intelligently, I'm going to have to lay a little groundwork.  And this folks is liberal humility steeped in laughter.

But it gets better.  David goes on to conduct a cyber psychological exam and describes me confidently in the following way:

Rick - To be honest I didn't completely read your latest rant so I won't reply to it.

He didn't read what I wrote (this is called dialog by liberals) but based on his... well... woman's intuition maybe or perhaps his tea leaf reading skills, or maybe it's his ability to discern who I am without reading what I've written, he deals the coup de grace:

You seem really, really angry, and as I've no desire to engage in dialogue only to find it is just angry rants, then I won't continue. But understand that your communication style does not lend itself to discussion, to learning, or to mutual respect.

...

We all see what we want to see and you seem very eager to find enemies around every corner.

...

But Rick, this conversation is not being held in love, and that my brother is where I leave the conversation. When you can discuss these things with others without the vitriol and the acrimony, then I think you'll find others more inclined to take you seriously. As it is you are defensive, offensive, and deeply embattled. Makes it hard to talk calmly and find any wisdom under all the rage.

Bottom line is that I must learn to be humble and filled with laughter, like David, when I insult, condescend, patronize and otherwise belittle an opponent.  This is called dialog, this is called being mutually respectful, this is called engaging in an environment where learning can take place. 

I did respond over there, to David's comments, and to John's but Mike chose to delete those comments.  You see, I wasn't being anywhere near as respectful, as endearing, as loving, as something other than offensive, defensive and embattling as David was to me.

Here are my comments that Mike chose to delete:

David... I don't need your arrogant, presumptious (and wrong-headed) cyber-psycho-analysis... and I'm not sure who else does.

You don't even read what I write (unless you mis-typed that sentence as well) and then you want to patronize what you think I wrote... ... you're in reality a laughable parody of who you think you are... and you know nothing of who you think I am.

You continue to live in your utopian ivory tower, condescending to those you deem to be unworthy of what you'd like to call dialogue... I'll continue to do what I do, which is recognize that kind of bullshit for what it is...

I then attempt to answer John's question to me but that was also deleted by Mike.  I post it here in case John makes his way over and truly wants to know my thoughts.

John, Dictionary.com provides the definitions of torture that I'm familiar with and that ought to be familiar with those not interested in making political statements.

Note that the traditional definition references severe physical pain and/or excruciating pysical or mental pain.

Now if you think humiliation (ie. underwear on head, temperature changes, naked pyramids, or listening to Christina Aguilerra) qualifies as torture, then I'm going to suggest you visit a library and read some Alexander Solzenitzen or perhaps you read about what took place in concentration camps of Germany or you visit with the Berg's (family of Nick) or watch the beheading videos that are out there or simply visit the Iraqi prisons where Hussein tortured his political prisoners.

I also urge you to produce some substantiation for the charge that "alot of abuse has been going on in these prisons". Or do you define alot as vaguely and as advantageously to your particular position as you did torture?

I don't particularly see my response to be any more hostile or disrespectful than David's reply to me.  My passion a bit more direct and to the point and not the passive-aggressive undercurrent  of hostility that belies David's post.  Yet Mike chose to delete my post and David's post, as of now, remains.

I just find this all curiously...  hypocritical.

Or am I just completely in the wrong here?

UPDATE:  Mike has deleted David's psychological rectal exam of me.  He e-mails me the following to break the news:

OK - I'm going to delete it. But, do yourself a favour - keep a copy of it., and take it out and read it once in a while. He nailed you dead to rights, and you don't like it.

Peace,
Mike

Peace eh?  Right, Mike... peace...

Sure...

MORE: La Shawn finds this piece that addresses the original issue:

“After speaking with soldiers, sailors, and civilians who collectively staff Gitmo, I left convinced that abuse definitely exists at the detention facilities, and it typically fails to receive the press attention it deserves: it’s the relentless, merciless attacks on American servicemen and women by these terrorist thugs. Many of the orange jumpsuit-clad detainees fight their captors at every opportunity, openly bragging of their desire to kill Americans. One has promised that, if released, he would find MPs in their homes through the internet, break into their houses at night, and ‘cut the throats of them and their families like sheep.’ Others claim authority and vindication to kill women, children, and other innocents who oppose their jihadist mission authorized by the Koran (the same one that hangs in every cell from a specially-designed holder intended to protect it from a touching the cell floor – all provided at U.S. taxpayer expense).”

UPDATE II:  Mike has banned me from posting over at Waving and Drowning. That's too bad... and it's telling...  He'll remain on the blogroll however.

Leftist looney tunes - play it again (and again and again Sam...)

Did you hear about the Australian ex-hostage who's wanting to pay $50,000 dollars or more to go after his captors?

Did you hear what the left has to say about that?

Did you read what some of our congressmen (and women) are saying about Gitmo?

And have you read what the religious left are saying about those of us who think that the Gitmo and Abu Grhaib stories are more about peddling propaganda than reporting truth?

I believe that torture itself is dishonorable. I believe that failing to condemn torture is dishonorable. I believe that condoning the practice of torture empowers our enemies and puts American lives at risk. And I believe that by embracing the immoral, counterproductive and utterly un-American practice of torture we make America more closely resemble the kinds of infamous and evil regimes we ought never to resemble in the slightest.

I believe that those who defend the practice of torture lessen America. I believe that the condemnation of those who condemn torture lessens America.

Here's a part of what I had to say over at Mike's in response:

The problem is that the definition of torture has been redefined. As has the meaning of Gulag. As have many other words all so that a particular political agenda can be accomplished (or a particular political ideology be advanced).

The redefiners are those who have problems with Bush specifically, and with his policies on Iraq. You see, they'd rather we go back to 12 years of impotent UN resolutions and French, German, Russian and Kofi Annan making profits off of dead, maimed, hungry and suffering Iraqis.

The redefiners are also quick to forget that those guilty of committing crimes at Abu Grhaib, those guilty of treating hardened killers like frat boys at an initiation, are being punished, are being brought to justice. They also are quick to forget that the majority of prisoners are being treated so well, many of them refuse to leave when offered freedom.

They also conveniently forget what real torture is and what they call torture today isn't.

These Utopians (members of the Church of Gumby Jesus) decry the behavior of Gitmo prison guards who might accidently piss on a Quran while forgetting that some of the people being guarded think nothing of blowing up mosques (filled with Qurans).

...

I also can't help but think that some of you need to relive 9/11. Yes, it might take a minute or two to load, but some of you seriously need to take that time. It's more than obvious that you've forgotten.

More than obvious.

On a related note, The Anchoress has written a letter to the American Soldier, a letter meant to counter the kind of bovine fecal matter being passed as truth by leftists and their lunatic fringe-ologists.  It's a must read.  Here's an excerpt as to why:

Parents of some of our servicemen and women are reporting that their children, and husbands and wives - who are out there putting their lives on the line to save the likes of you and me the trouble of having to deal with decades of terrorism on our shore, are watching the antics of the left, and the media’s determined efforts to portray them as savages, or torturers or baby-killers, to under-report their heroic and effective work and over-report the very wrong behavior of a few, and they are beginning to lose heart. They’re wondering if anyone in America cares about what they are doing. Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler has set up an email address where you can send the troops your encouragement and thanks.

I know that I have some of the greatest, big-hearted blog readers on the ‘net. I hope many of you will take a few moments to write a simple line or two and send it along, to let our troops know they are appreciated and not forgotten.

And are certainly not the kind of guys (and gals) the pious left and their secular sycophants in the media are so willing and so quick to portray them as. 

Where is their shame?

UPDATE: Speaking of leftist looney tunes, Tony Woodlief may become an international fugitive if the moonbats get their way:

I only have time to write a few words before I catch a truck to an undisclosed border crossing, where I will begin my new life as a fugitive from international justice. The jig is up, as a law professor at Michigan State University declared in her recent letter to The Atlantic Monthly:

Corporal punishment of children—regardless of how "moderate," and no matter by whom dispensed—is considered a violation of international human-rights law. The practice violates at least six human-rights treaties: the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the American Convention on Human Rights; and the European Social Charter.

Spanking, in the eyes of many a leftist, is torture.

Believe it.

How popular is your name?

Check it out over at The Baby Name Wizard.

Pretty danged neat.

Al Jazeera?

Is something going on at Al Jazeera?

Al Jazeera - often accused by the Americans of stirring anti-US feeling - has adopted less of an "Us and Them" approach.

The militants are no longer referred to as the "resistance" but as gunmen or suicide bombers.

The BBC goes on to say:

One recent attack drew this comment from the al-Jazeera reporter: "Most of the time it's civilians who pay the price for the violence that has cost thousands of their lives".

Al-Jazeera's main rival, the Dubai-based al-Arabiya, has also shown little sympathy for the bombers - a recent report, instead, painted a favourable picture of British soldiers patrolling Basra.

I mean, it's still Al Jazeera, and it's still the BBC, but still.

Thanks to Kate at Small Dead Animals.

...Leslie

Down the road with Brutally Honest

Two exciting things are happening that yours truly will be a part of in the not too distant future (Lord willin' and the crick don't rise).

First, I've signed up to be a part of PajamasMedia.Com.  Information can be found here, here, here and here.  I'm pretty pumped about the possibilities. I obviously will be a bit player in the grand scheme of things but hey, from this vantage point, there's only upward mobility.

The other thing Brutally Honest will be a part of is Chris Missick's Web of Support:

I want to begin by thanking you for taking the time to check out this blog as this exciting new project begins.  In the welcome section, I have posted a brief idea of what I am setting out to accomplish.  Throughout my year long deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom, I received some amazing gestures of support from folks all over our great country.  I intend on spending the next few months meeting with some of these patriots, and discovering the heart of service behind the support those of us who are deployed receive from the home front.  Ultimately, this experience will culminate in a unique memoir that is not just a narrative on one soldier's wartime experience, but an introspective look at what we as Americans have done, and can do, to help support America's armed forces.  Stay tuned for more information as I share with you my progress in this unique American travelogue.

Pretty cool eh?  Chris sent me an e-mail a few days ago that was... humbling...  and I readily accepted his offer to do what I can to assist him as he takes on this new mission.  Stop by Chris' place, tell him I sent you, and look for cool happenings down the road.

Ted Kennedy - Throwing a lifeline to terrorists

This simply sickens and infuriates me:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted June 23 that U.S. troops are defeating the stubborn insurgency in Iraq, and rejected calls that the Pentagon scale back the military presence there.

”Any who say that we’ve lost this war, or that we’re losing this war, are wrong. We are not,” said Rumsfeld, who appeared with his top military commanders at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The U.S. defense secretary said some in Congress have suggested that deadlines be set for a U.S. withdrawal, but he rejected that idea as counterproductive to U.S. military objectives, saying it would only embolden America’s enemies.

”It would throw a lifeline to terrorists, who in recent months have suffered significant losses and casualties, been denied havens and suffered weakened popular support,” he said.

...

Senator Ted Kennedy, one of Congress’s most vociferous Iraq war critics, slammed the war effort as “consistently grossly mismanaged,” and held Rumsfeld personally responsible.

”We are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying and there really is no end in sight,” the liberal Democratic senator said.

Ted "Hiccup" Kennedy went on to ask Rumsfeld to resign for what he called "gross errors and mistakes".

It's clear to anyone able to fog a mirror that we're not only at war with terrorists but there's a propaganda war being waged by the left and their co-conspirators in the media.  The Kennedy's, the Durbin's and too many others to list here are clearly siding with the enemy, either purposely or with a colossal amount of ignorance (and I can't simply continue to believe the latter while evidence for the former continues to pile high, no matter how much I'd like to give the other side the benefit of the doubt).

A little more than a week ago, I called for the Bush administration to come out with guns blazing and use the bully pulpit at their disposal to press back hard against these leftist loons.  And let me be clear, if you want to oppose this administration AND you have a better plan, then by all means, that's what America's about.  Criticize BUT then tell the American people what you might do different.  And for God's sake, understand that anything you might say will likely be on Al Jazeera that night, aiding and abetting the fanatics hell-bent on not only killing our airmen, soldiers, sailors and marines but innocent civilians too.

I have no doubt in my mind that Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and others have said things that give the terrorists a sense that given enough time, and the continued rhetoric of America's clueless left, the American people will wilt and withdraw.

I was glad to see Karl Rove step into the war of words:

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Rove asked "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

...

Rove last night also criticized Democrats for responding weakly to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: "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," Rove said.

'Bout damned time things like this are said by higher muckety-mucks in the Bush administration... now it's W's turn...

Lives are at stake and it's time the liberals are reminded of that fact by people other than those of us who make up the Pajamahadeenistas...

UPDATE: Juliette jumps in with a must read as she reacts to the left's reaction to Rove's comments:

Soldiers get their lives endangered but no one is supposed to say jack. Liberals get their feelings hurt and scream bloody murder.

It's enough to make you a bit cynical.