It's worked before

Karl Rove is directing a new attack on Democrats, and he's participating this time. Don't for a second think that this wasn't well thought out and meticulously planned.

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.... 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.... No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.

Yes, Rove is saying that Democrats "don't get" 9/11. He is saying that Democrats are motivated by a desire to kill our own troops, and that we excuse the terrorists.

Mr. Rove also said American armed forces overseas were in more jeopardy as a result of remarks last week by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, who compared American mistreatment of detainees to the acts of "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags's, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others."

"Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?" Mr. Rove asked. "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al jazzier 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."

Isn't that something? He is quite clearly saying that our motives are to put our troops in danger.

The White House agrees with Rove - which is not surprising since I'm sure this was all well planned out..

The White House defended Rove's remarks and accused Democrats of engaging in partisan attacks. Rove, said spokesman Scott McClellan, "was talking about the different philosophies and our different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

McClellan is saying "yes, Democrats want to harm our troops and coddle terrorists."

And other Republican's are joining in this coordinated attack:

"Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SHAH), who joined price at the press conference, told Cybercast News Service that it "is just inconceivable and truly incorrigible that in the midst of the war, that the Democratic leaders would be conducting guerrilla warfare on American troops..."

This is quite a desperate maneuver, but unfortunately, it's very effective.

Republican's talk in very stark terms that dumb people can understand. They say "we want to kill terrorists, liberals just think terrorists need therapy." They say "we support the troops. Liberals hate American troops and wish to do them harm."

It's all rather preposterous to thinking people, but a majority of American's are not thinking people. As the post title says, it's worked before. This type of characterization has worked before.

It's possible that they might have gone over the top this time, and it'll be interesting to see how this shakes out in the media coverage.

But - just in case I need to say this. Democrats do want to fight this war on terrorism, but in a smarter and more effective way than the Republicans have done. Frankly, the Republicans have botched it badly.

Do we want to defeat terrorists? Yes, indeed. I've said this countless times, but Republican's/conservatives seem to think it's a zero sum game. You kill one terrorists, and there is one less. It doesn't work like that.

Yes, Democrats want to understand terrorists. That only makes sense. The foundation of defense is a strong military, but we understand that for long term success, the issues that are driving the violence need to be addressed. The Republican's would simply have us "at war" indefinitely... which makes sense when you consider the money that is involved.

But, to say that Democrats are attacking the troops is just weird. It smells of desperation..

While it's noble that the Conservatives "prepared for war", doesn't it seem odd that the country they invaded had nothing to do with 9/11, had nothing to do with WMD's, and had nothing to do with Al-Quaida? That's like invading Sweden after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Not particularly bright, eh?

Does it need to be stated again that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian? Do I need to post that picture of Bush holding hands with the Saudi prince again? Should I post the picture of them kissing again?

By the way, just as an aside; Mark Bingham was instrumental in stopping the 4th hijacked plane on 9/11. It looked like the hijackers target was either the capital or the white house. Bingham was a principal in attacking the hijackers, which resulted in the plane crashing in a field instead.

Mark Bingham was gay.