Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

Think at your own risk.

Friday, June 24, 2005

The (liberal) people vs. Karl Rove

Day two of the Karl Rove apology watch. He's still not budging, and neither is the White House, which today began to pivot the argument toward the question of who Rove was talking about: "liberals" or Democrats in general. (Meanwhile, the 9/11 families weigh in on Rove's comments, repudiating them.)

Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford deftly handled the subject on "Countdown" this afternoon, saying he's sure "his liberal friends" have exactly the same will to win the war on terror as Rove does (as polls show was indeed the case, across the ideological spectrum, in the aftermath of 9/11). Nice parry by Ford, which shows he has spotted the WH strategy in its defense of Rove: seeking to draw a dividing line between the elected Democrats (like New York Senators Schumer and Clinton,) who are calling for Rove's head and the "liberal groups" who (sometimes grudgingly) support them. Call it the "MoveOn defense":

WASHINGTON (AP) - A White House official said Friday the administration finds it "somewhat puzzling'' that Democrats are demanding presidential adviser Karl Rove's apology or resignation for implying that liberals are soft on terrorism.

"I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out,'' communications director Dan Bartlett said. "It's touched a chord with these Democrats. I'm not sure why.''

...

"It's somewhat puzzling why all these Democrats ... who responded forcefully after 9-11, who voted to support President Bush's pursuit of the war on terror, are now rallying to the defense of Moveon.org, this liberal organization who put out a petition in the days after 9-11 and said that we ought not use military force in responding to 9-11,'' Bartlett said on NBC's "Today'' show. "That is who Karl Rove cited in that speech ... There is no need to apologize.''

Appearing on CBS's "The Early Show,'' Bartlett said that Rove was "just pointing out that MoveOn.org is a liberal organization that didn't defend or accept the way that we prosecuted the war in the days after'' the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington.

At the end of the day, it's virtually indisputable that after the terror attacks, the vast majority of Americans were of one accord -- furious and more than willing to use force to exact payback, and the White House knows it (unfortunately, that payback was supposed to be the invasion of Afghanistan, which had overwhelming support from the American people following the attacks but which has become a tragic afterthought to Bush and his neocon friends' obsession with Iraq). A 2002 Harris poll even found overwhelming support for continued military action outside of Afghanistan, as well as the "assassination of terror leaders":

AMERICANS SHOW A READINESS TO USE MILITARY FORCE, ESPECIALLY TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND WHEN DONE MULTILATERALLY. AN INCREASED MAJORITY FAVORS ASSASSINATION OF TERRORIST LEADERS.
Americans express a willingness to use military force, including ground troops, in a variety of situations. This is especially true of military action aimed directly at combating terrorism and of multilateral rather than unilateral action. If a multilateral approach is not specified, however, the survey found no majority in favor of using force in several key scenarios that might involve extensive casualties.

In order to combat terrorism, an overwhelming majority of Americans (87%), favor U.S. air strikes against terrorist training camps (up 13 percentage points since 1998.) A hefty 84% favor similar attacks by U.S. ground troops, up a remarkable 27 percentage points, perhaps because of the nearly casualty-free success of the war in Afghanistan.

The use of military troops to "destroy a terrorist camp" is approved by fully 92% of the public. Smaller but still substantial majorities of the public also favor using U.S. troops to assist the Philippine government in fighting terrorism, to topple unfriendly regimes that support terrorist groups, and to help the government of Pakistan against a radical Islamic revolution. A solid 66% of Americans (up 12 points since 1998) favor the assassination of individual terrorist leaders.

It's also not debatable that Congressional Democrats became the veritable playthings of the Bush administration after the attacks, unanimously supporting the Afghanistan project, voting almost universally for the PATRIOT Act and even voting with one exception -- Russell Feingold -- to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

Rove's White House defenders are correct in stating that there were some in the U.S. who thought the use of force, even against Afghanistan, wasn't a good idea (though I still believe Rove was more than happy to impugn all Democrats -- not just liberal ones -- with his remarks). Those people did include liberals like the absolutely toxic ANSWER, the Win Without War Coalition, peacenik groups of all stripes and at times, Moveon.org (although many of these groups have since changed their focus to civil liberties and other issues). Unfortunately for Rove, the post 9/11 peace camp also included some families of 9/11 victims:

Far below the radar of the national media, contrary to what most of us expect, there are gentle but persistent voices who are telling a very different story about the effects of the tragedy of 9/11. An extraordinary group of people are telling their stories, all who lost loved ones in the attack, who took that stunning blow and turned it into a call to action toward a better future and away from the escalating violence that has dominated our world since that fateful day.

Slowly but very steadily, an extraordinary thread of human response has emerged from survivors of 9/11 victims. It has grown into a movement against war and the desire to turn the horrible violence of that day on its head, and work for a better day and a more peaceful world.
During the days and weeks following 9/11, the movement took flight as the families of victims began to speak out against the militaristic retribution that many were calling for in the streets and within the Bush administration. Through emails that became widely circulated and published on Web sites, letters to the editors of local and national news publications and appearances on talk radio and television news programs, these people slowly found one another.

On November 25, 2001, the Walk for Healing and Peace commenced with a group of
peace-oriented family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. Beginning at Georgetown University in D.C., the group traveled over the next eight days to New York City. By mid-December, this group (after much discussion and debate) had chosen a name that best represented their feelings: September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

Over the next two years, Peaceful Tomorrows participated in hundreds of peace actions, political events, news articles and shows, and traveled to both post-US-bombing Afghanistan and pre-US-bombing Iraq.

The stories of their actions, personal notes from the family members themselves, and emails from both supporters and dissenters have been collected by David Potorti in the book, "September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows: Turning Our Grief into Action for Peace," being published by RDV Books/Akashic Books on the two-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

These folks do fit nicely into Bartlett's spin narrative, because they are clearly liberals but not explicitly Democrats. And since Moveon is already such a nice, juicy target for the right, the White House "it's not you, it's them" defense makes it harder for elected Democrats to maneuver.

That said, the New York delegation had to speak out, and they did, forcefully. But do continuing calls for Rove's resignation make sense? Probably not. First off, he's not going to resign. Second, he's not going to apologize (as Dan Froomkin points out in WaPo today, "why apologize when you said exactly what you meant to say), particularly now that Dan Bartlett has positioned an apology as saying sorry to Moveon.org.

I'm probably on my own here, and maybe its because, like Congressman Ford, I don't consider myself a liberal, but personally I couldn't give a toss whether Karl Rove apologizes, resigns or moves to Neverland with Michael Jackson.

I'd prefer to see Democrats focus their anger on the people whose resignations would really mean something -- to our troops in the field who are suffering under their leadership, to the effort in Iraq, to the morale of the homefront, and yes, even to the credibility of the president: as I said in my earlier post, the line for resignations should form behind Donald "Westmoreland" Rumsfeld. After him, I'd take Porter Goss and Dick Cheney -- the guys who say they know where Osama bin Laden is but won't go get him for fear of offending governments like that of our pet dictator in Pakistan.

What changed about public support for the war on terrorism is not that it was undermined by mushy liberals. What changed is the infection of the legitimate terror war with neocon Iraq disase. Bush's distraction move -- invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and virtually forgetting about the guy who hit us: Osama bin Laden, is what poisoned the waters for him among liberals, Democrats, free-thinking Republicans, the late pope, the rest of the friggin world and even some American conservatives.

Rove may have been trying to pull the country back to its post-9/11 groupthink supporting the president by punishing liberals, but he's going to have to name call a lot more people than Moveon in order to fix what his boss has broken.

posted by JReid @ 1:13 PM