Is Rove Right?

In a June 22 speech on the state of conservatism, Karl Rove said:

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and 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. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time toÂ… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to theÂ… terrorist attacks against the United States."

Democrats went ballistic over this. There were calls for Rove's resignation. Keith Olbermann's response is typical:

In the ravings of Karl Rove against liberals (and the ravings of liberals against Karl Rove), I am reminded of yet another in my endless supply of pop culture references: The Twilight Zone episode called "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

[...] Think of how we responded — politically — to 9/11. First there was overwhelming non-partisanship. Years of deteriorating relations between the parties vanished; were even apologized for. And within three years the Republicans were insisting that a Democratic presidential victory would mean more terrorist attacks.

There is an interesting retorical trick at play here. Rove said "Liberals" but everyone is responding as though he had said "Congressional Democrats." He didn't and that makes all the difference.

An article here lists some of the liberal organizations that were against invading Afghanistan. I remember seeing a "Not in our Name" protest in November, 2001. A women-only group wore black dresses and veils to show solidarity with Afghan women against US oppression (I suspect that these same women were protesting Afghan women's oppression by the Taliban a few months earlier).

So, is it fair for Rove to smear all Democrats because of the actions of some fringe elements?

Yes, when these elements include George Soros's Open Society Institute and MoveOn.org. Half the financing for Kerry's campaign (the anti-Bush half) came from these sources. When you take someone's money it implies that you support their views.

This touches a huge problem that the Democrats have. Since McGovern in 1972 they have been the party of peace. A big wing of the party is against war for any reason. Congressional Democrats in 2001 knew that this was an unworkable position but since then the peace activists have mobilized to retake control of the party. You don't have to look any further than the current DNC chairman, Howard Dean.

I admit, I'm not sure of his stands on Afghanistan. They don't matter much anyway since no one was paying attention to him until 2003 when he briefly emerged as the Democrat front-runner on the basis of his anti-war stance.

As long as the America-is-wrong/the terrorists-are-right wing of the party has such a prominent position Rove is justified in his comments.