W.House rejects apology for Rove's Sept. 11 remarks

[maddezmom]

~snip~
White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended Rove's remarks and rebuffed suggestions that he apologize. "Of course not," McClellan said.

He said Rove was "talking about the different philosophies and different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

"I would think that they would want to be able to defend their philosophy and their approach, and I know that the Democratic leadership at this point is offering no ideas and no vision for the American people," McClellan said.

Rove's remarks were reminiscent of some of President Bush's speeches from his re-election campaign last year but seemed to go further in saying liberals had offered therapy for the attackers.

~snip~
more:http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050623/pl_nm/bush_rove_dc_1

[JuniperLea]

"I would think that they would want to be able to defend their philosophy

And what, pray tell, has the current admin done besides attacking the wrong country for the wrong reason and creating more terrorism?

[ray of light]

39. well, this is all another diversion anyway...lots of bad news out there

but they get a kick out of doing this. it's a diversion!

[intheflow]

43. A diversion-- SO TRUE!

That's the first thing I thought when I saw this on the news today. :grr:

[Dickie Flatt]

1. It also went further in saying that DURBIN WANTS TROOPS DEAD

[Cha]

2. What did we say?!

We said..the big fat fuck would not apologize for his insane remarks.

rove is an evil manipulator..evil manipulators don't apologize.

[bullimiami]

3. first rule of liars, never admit it, never apologize.

what did you expect.

[VegasWolf]

18. Hope Durbin wipes the tears out of his eyes and takes a few notes.nt

[lonestarnot]

4. ROVER we offer you therapy!

Doggie style!

[lonestarnot]

5. RED ROVER RED ROVER SEND GANNON RIGHT OVER!

[Daphne08]

32. Bwahahahahaha!!!

:rofl:

I needed a laugh. Thanks.

[lonestarnot]

36. No problem...

[UCLA Dem]

6. Keep at them Dems don't let them worm their way out!!!

[MsUnderstood]

7. So to clarify. . .

If durbin compares the torture described in an FBI report about a foriegn prisoner in an American Military prison to an experience of a prisoner in a holcaust camp and he must apologize.

Dean says Republicans are basically white christians and that republicans have never worked and honest day in their life.

Rove says


"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."

If Dean and Durbin are called to apologize then hold Rove to the same standards.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. rove is a dirty little piece of shit. The bastard will never admit

that they are the ones who have caused all the problems for the last 4+ years. Instead he makes some half-assed snide remark about what somebody else would would have done. I hope he chokes on it.

[jsamuel]

9. His words - HERE - he is falling all over himself!!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050623-1.html#c

Q Last night Karl Rove, in a speech, accused the Democrats of trying to send the terrorists into therapy and not responding appropriately to 9/11, whereas the Republicans, he felt, responded appropriately. He's been called on to make an apology. Will Karl Rove will apologize, and is this elevating the discourse, the way you said the President will do?

MR. McCLELLAN: Talking about different philosophies and different approaches? That's what Karl Rove was talking about. He was talking about the different philosophies and our different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism. And I don't know who is even making such a suggestion.

Q Harry Reid.

Q Nancy Pelosi.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I would think that they would want to be able to defend their philosophy and their approach. I mean, I know that the Democratic leadership at this point is offering no ideas and no vision for the American people, but Karl was simply pointing out the different philosophies and different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism.

Q He said the Democrats wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. That's not injecting politics into the tragedy of September 11th?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's talking about the different philosophies for winning the war on terrorism. The President recognizes that the way to win the war on terrorism is to take the fight to the enemy, to stay on the offensive, and to work to spread freedom and democracy to defend the ideology of hatred that they espouse, and the ideology of tyranny and oppression.

Q So will the President ask Karl Rove to apologize?

MR. McCLELLAN: Of course not, Jessica. This is simply talking about different philosophies and different approaches. And I think you have to look at it in that context. If people want to try to engage in personal attacks instead of defending their philosophy, that's their business. But it's important to point out the different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism. And that's all he was doing.

Q So you're suggesting that Rove's approach to discussing the philosophy that Democrats -- is to say that they want to prepare indictments and seek counseling. That's their philosophy, is that what you were saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the comments were saying -- the conservative approach and the liberal approach is what he was talking about.

Q He was saying that that's the comparison in their philosophies?

MR. McCLELLAN: He was speaking to a political organization. There are many who have looked at the war on terrorism and said it is a law enforcement matter, that we should prosecute people. The President recognizes that it is a war and that we must stay on the offensive, we must take the fight to the enemy. The best way to defeat the enemy is to fight them abroad and bring them to justice before they can carry out their attacks here at home.

Q And the therapy? What about the therapy?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that's what he's -- and I think that's what he's talking about.

Go ahead.

Q Was the rhetoric appropriate?

Q Are you talking to Democrats about releasing more information that would allow the Bolton nomination to go forward?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we have continued to reach out --

..........................................

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050623-1.html#d

Q Scott, going back to Jessica's question. So are you saying that it's completely appropriate the way Karl Rove invoked 9/11? And what would you say to those who say that the comments were simply partisan and hurtful?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that Karl was simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism. That's what he was doing. The President of the United States -- you bring up something that's very important -- has worked to elevate the discourse in this town and reach out to get things done, and that's what he's done. Now, Karl was simply pointing out the differences that exist in how we approach the war on terrorism and how different people view it in a different way.

Q Well, what's the philosophy he's --

MR. McCLELLAN: So what -- Jessica, I'm sorry, I'm going to keep going to others. You've had your opportunity.

Q What is the -- I mean, the understanding of the Democrat's philosophy, then?

MR. McCLELLAN: Was that simply pointing -- well, let me point out, was that simply talking about differences in how you approach the war on terrorism?

Q It was talking about suggesting that Democrats simply want to offer therapy and understanding to those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

MR. McCLELLAN: And view it as essentially a law enforcement matter.

Q Well, they feel as though there is, in fact, an ugly partisan and hurtful tone to those remarks --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think that it's --

Q -- that don't elevate the discourse.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- some Democratic leaders that chose to attack for those comments instead of defend their philosophy.

Go ahead.

Q Scott, just again on Karl's remarks last night, when he talked about the indictments, was he simply reflecting the sentiments of the President, who, as we know, in many, many speeches, perhaps in jest, talked about referring to the terrorists as saying maybe they thought after 9/11, we would just file a lawsuit?

MR. McCLELLAN: The war on terrorism brought us, to our shores -- let me back up, because the President -- this was talked about at length over the course of the last four years, Ed. We had a pre-9/11 mind set prior to the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon here in Washington. Those attacks showed us that we were vulnerable here at home to the threats of terrorism.

And for too long, people looked at these terrorist attacks and thought they could be dealt with in a certain way. Maybe there would be ways to negotiate with terrorists or maybe there would be ways to simply prosecute people for carrying out terrorist activity around the world. And the Middle East, during all that time, was becoming a breeding ground for this kind of terrorism. It was becoming a breeding ground for an ideology that is based on hatred and oppression and violence. And we were looking the other way.

That's why the President said this is a comprehensive war, this is a war, that's what it is. It's a comprehensive war on terrorism, it's a comprehensive war on an ideology, this is a long struggle that we are in. And the President outlined a comprehensive strategy for winning this war and defeating the ideology of hatred and oppression. And I think all Karl was talking about last night was the different approaches to how you go about winning the war on terrorism. So, you know, some can try to make more out of it than they should, but he was simply talking about the different approaches.

Q So when the President many times in the past actually has evoked laughter from his audiences when he talked about they thought we'd just filing a lawsuit, was he saying that in jest or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Ed. In fact, he was saying it with all seriousness, because if you look back to how things were dealt with prior to 9/11, people knew exactly what he was talking about. When we were attacked previously on our own shores, people were prosecuted. That's what he was talking about. But we didn't recognize that -- the threat that we were facing from abroad. The President saw very clearly on September 11th that this was a struggle of ideologies and this was a war on terrorism, a war that we must win to build a free and peaceful future for people across the world, and to ensure our long-term security. I think you all know that in this room. And, you know, if people want to engage in partisan bickering, that's their business. We're going to talk about what the differences are when it comes to how we move forward.

Q Continuing on with this then, Scott, are you suggesting that it was not Karl's intention to belittle that philosophy, merely to illustrate it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, you have his remarks, you can go back and look at his remarks for yourself.

Q Scott, you ask us oftentimes for specifics -- does Karl have in mind a particular Democratic leader who suggested therapy for the folks who attacked on 9/11?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can look at his remarks, Mark.

Q He didn't mention any names, and I'm asking you if you know.

MR. McCLELLAN: I know, so you should go look at your remarks.

Q So in other words, there are no --

MR. McCLELLAN: Clearly, there are people who have taken a different approach, and I don't think we need to get into names.

Q But someone who specifically has suggested therapy?

MR. McCLELLAN: Mark, if you want to make more than it was, then you're welcome to, but I think you should go back and look at his remarks. I didn't see his remarks.

Q He didn't name any names, which is why I'm asking you.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and you can go back and look at his remarks and see for yourself what it says.

[Seabiscuit]

12. McClellan's a real piece of work. Reminds me of Ron Zigler.

[jsamuel]

13. He is studdering and every time they ask "So you are saying that Dems'...

philosophy is to provide therapy?", he says something that has nothing to do with the question, then eventually circles back to "Rove was talking about different philosophies, not joking." Which prompts the same question again, every time.

WHAT A DUMBASS!!

:rofl:

[orwell]

15. Set Up

You can tell this is another set up. Notice how they repeat the talking points no matter what is being asked. They will never answer a question that reframes in a negative light. They just stick to the points.

Even if the logic is self contradictory, they stick to it. This is pure propaganda, the big lie perfectly executed. They are saying to us that now that they have won re-election, they can do anything they want. Right on the heels of hectoring Durbin into an apology, they launch a mortar volley right back across the green line. If your opponent shows any weakness, you go for the throat. And America cheers!

Classic Rove. Keep everyone pissed off so they do not execute strategically. Define the field of battle. Always attack, even if you are retreating.

These elite fascists must sit around and laugh their asses off on how easy it is. There is a lot more pain ahead before this worm turns, but turn it will. Unfortunately, a lot of people will be brutalized in the process.

World on fire...

[rocktivity]

10. Hey, Durbin--it's not too late to retract YOUR apology!

:bounce:
rocknation

[UpInArms]

11. Q for the Scotty-lying-dog-sack-of-shit:

Are you defending your indefensible positions of being attackers with no cause?

You make me :puke: you asswipe :argh:

[newscott]

14. Prison is too good for these scum.

[mitchum]

34. It certainly is

[Beware the Beast Man]

16. There is a hell, and Karl Rove is going there.

I have faith in this.

[VegasWolf]

17. Unfortunately there is no hell and Rove and his ilk are living the good

life here on earth.

[Robeson]

21. Yep. Justice unserved.

[mitchum]

35. Unfortunately, you are correct

[Cocoa]

19. the Dems approach involves capturing Osama bin Laden

in contrast to Bush's...

Here's one section of the DNC's excellent response to Rove:

http://www.democrats.org/blog/comment/00012255.html

<snip>

Osama Still at Large, Iraq a New Breeding Ground for Terrorists

Bush "Hardly Ever Utters" Osama Bin Laden's Name. "The White House has sought to play down the significance of bin Laden to the global anti-terror battle…As a result, Bush hardly ever utters the name of the man he once declared wanted "dead or alive" and repeatedly promised would be caught."

Bush "Rarely Mentions" Osama Bin Laden. CBS News reported that "Three-and-a-half years after 9/11…Osama bin Laden remains at large and dangerous. President Bush rarely mentions him anymore…" ABC News reported on the President's comments that the US is keeping pressure on bin Laden, stating bluntly that "That's another way of saying the United States is not finding bin Laden."

Porter Goss Says He Knows Where Osama Is. In an interview Goss said, "I have an excellent idea of where he is."

But Goss Worried About Sovereignty, Not Osama. Asked when we would get Osama, Goss changed the focus to the sovereignty of sanctuary states, blaming international obligations for the U.S.'s failure to capture him. "In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice…when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play."

CIA: Iraq Is Insurgency's Most Effective Training Camp. A new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.

more...

[wallwriter]

20. Such a huge smoke screen

Support for war in Afghanistan to get Bin Laden had huge support. Now that there is diminishing support for this Iraq War based on lies, Rove has to come out and say that the Dems are a bunch of sissies for hating war. Unbelievable slime.

[jillan]

22. Maybe these comments are a way for the repukes to blame the dems for

the failure in IRAQ???

[Miss Chybil]

23. Keep diggin' that hole, boys! Keep diggin' that hole.

I guess you Bush Boys don't notice what's going on around you, huh? Keep diggin' that hole.

You're in shit about up to your eyeballs, boys. Keep diggin' that hole.

One day you can sit in Guantanamo, boys.

Oh, yeah... keep diggin' that hole....

[Canuckistanian]

44. Desperation time

[bvar22]

24. Never ask a sociopath for an apology!

Asking for apologies from a sociopath is SOOOOO much a waste of time.
Asking for apologies is weak & whiney!

ATTACK bush* for invading the WRONG COUNTRY.
ATTACK bush* because Bin Laden is still free!
ATTACK bush* for pissing away $300BILLION Dollars while schools are unfunded! (That's YOUR money!)
ATTACK bush* for WASTING 1700 American Lives for NOTHING!
ATTACK bush* for the senseless killing of 100,000 Iraqis!



Remember the DSM!

[Vinca]

25. These people are such assholes it boggles the mind. nt

[maddezmom]

26. Mehlman's Statement on the Democrat Attacks of Karl Rove

:puke:

WASHINGTON, June 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "It's outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbin's libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Rove's statement of historical fact. George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after 9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable comments." (RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman)

more if you can handle it: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050623/pl_usnw/rnc_chairman_ken_mehlman_statement_on_the_democrat_attacks_of_karl_rove208_xml

[mitchum]

38. Maybe Mehlman can't hear so well in his closet...

so I will speak a bit louder: MY OUTRAGE IS NOT FAUX!

[maddezmom]

40. LOL

:D

[cthrumatrix]

27. Bush's vision....hmmm...that would "blurred"...behind bars

[oxbow]

28. Don't let Rove Distract us

September 11 families will take him to task. Save your time and energy for the DSM and the new torture pics being released in the next week or so. Don't fall for their bait!

[jsamuel]

29. How about we take the bait and leave the mouse trap untouched

talk about both!

[oxbow]

30. Sounds good

rate this story up then. I just worry about spending too much energy on personal squabbling about Rove, Dean and others' comments. It completely avoids the real issues.

[jsamuel]

31. Absolutely!

glad we agree :)

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchum]

45. I WASN'T advocating his demise!

I just said I wouldn't be upset if it happened. Not a tiny bit.

[maddezmom]

37. Cheney's remarks on the Rove speech(he hasn't seen it)...transcipt

Q Let me read to you some comments that Karl Rove made in New York this week and get your reaction at a fundraiser of the Conservative Party of New York state: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks -- let me restart again: 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 to our attackers.

A lot of Democrats are pretty irate about those comments. They want him to retract them.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen Karl's speech. But I think there was a distinction made -- I made it several times in my own speech that the traditional way of dealing with terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 was to treat them as law enforcement matters, to issue subpoenas, to go arrest the individual perpetrators, to put them on trial and lock them, and never look behind the individual perpetrators and never consider it a wartime situation.

After 9/11, we changed all that, and we altered our entire strategy because we began to look on it as a war, that, in fact, the al Qaeda was bound and determined to kill as many Americans as possible, demonstrated that on 9/11, and that we had to not only go after al Qaeda, we also had to go after states that sponsored terror, those who might share weapons of mass destruction with them, et cetera. In other words, one is sort of a crime-solving approach, a law enforcement approach, and the other is a national strategy, military intelligence wartime approach. And I think that's -- that the history clearly demonstrates that they were different approaches prior to 9/11 and after 9/11. Our predecessors, for example --

Q I think the point that many Democrats, the liberals are making is they supported going to war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda right after 9/11 --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, not --

Q -- but they didn't necessarily call for --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Not everybody. There were some who opposed what we did in Afghanistan.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050623-8.html

[jsamuel]

41. back peddle back peddle back peddle... BAAAAMMMM, hit something nt

[Mythsaje]

42. Everyone seems to be missing the point

ROVE said "Democrats wanted to understand our enemies."

NO SHIT, SHERLOCK.

You can't fight 'em if you don't understand 'em.

That's why we're in such a fucking mess right now!

These assholes are so stupid they're telling us WHY they're failing.

[stickdog]

46. David Sirota on Rove's Comments

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/06/letter-democrats-should-send-to-karl.html

Here is a draft letter that all congressional Democrats should sign and send to Karl Rove, with a military enlistment form attached.

Dear Mr. Rove,

Your comments yesterday about the War on Terror seemed to suggest that you feel very passionately about defending America, and sending others into combat. As you know, America is facing a serious enlistment crisis right now, at the very same time more casualties mount in the Iraq War. Therefore, since you have said you are so committed to this war, I have attached this enlistment form from the U.S. Army for you to fill out and submit. You are still young enough to contribute to the military and to the frontline war effort you say you care so deeply about.

Clearly, if you support forcing others to risk their lives for your ideological beliefs (without even providing them proper armor and weapons), you will no doubt be willing to risk your own. And I am sure you would not argue that your responsibilities as a partisan political adviser to the president is more important than fighting in combat for your country.

Please let me know when you fill out the enlistment form, and drop me a line when you get to Iraq to let me know if your still believe we should be sending troops to die for a war you lied about.

Sincerely,
Member of Congress

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/06/note-to-chickenhawks-enlist-or-shut-up.html

A Note to the Chickenhawks: Enlist, or Shut Up

There are a lot of pathetic political hacks running around these days talking tough about fighting wars - and most of them have never fought in a war, avoided fighting when they had the chance, and have no family members fighting in our current war. When ultra-hawk Vice President Dick Cheney had the chance to fight in a war, he said he had "other priorities." When George W. Bush had the chance, he used his dad's name to get out of combat service. While Peter Beinart and the New Republic claim they truly believe in more hawkish policies, I don't see him or the magazine's writers lining up to enlist. And last I checked, the same Karl Rove who is attacking Democrats for questioning the management of the Iraq War, is the Karl Rove who has never served in the military in his life.

Now, as I wrote in a cover piece for the Nation magazine a while back, we shouldn't be surprised that these chickenhawks have no problem talking tough about war, while running away from it in their own personal lives. Tough talk about war, and criticism of those who oppose it, makes these pathetic souls feel stronger than they actually are - and they have used it quite effectively in the political arena.

But Steve Gilliard today really puts these chickenhawks in their place:

"If you will not serve in Iraq, and no one you know will serve, stop expecting someone else to do what you will not. Therefore, it is time to stop calling for more troops, or the US to make Iraq safe. We cannot do this and even Americans are refusing to join the fight. It is time to look at your actions and realize, that despite your ideals, you oppose continuing this war. In practical terms, you have decided that this war is not worth your life or anyone you know. And million of Americans have joined you in this decision. So, with this fact evident, it is time to call for US troops to withdraw from Iraq. Not save it, not add more boots on the ground. You have already voted by your actions. It is time that you match it with your words."


This is the way Democrats need to be talking about these issues – not cautiously asking for an "apology" from Rove. We don't want "apologies" – we want a real debate about this. That means it is time for Democrats to finally go for the throat and make clear that if you are going to vehemently advocate sending more and more innocent Americans to die in Iraq, you better be prepared to back up that rhetoric with some sacrifice of your own. And that goes especially for the inside-the-Beltway neocon crowd who makes decisions and spouts off opinions from the confines of the well-guarded cocktail party circuit, and thus never has to deal with the blood-and-guts ramifications of what they're talking about. If you are willing to ask others for sacrifice but evaded such sacrifice when you had the chance, and aren't willing to make any sacrifice yourself now - then sit down and shut up.

[driver8]

47. I am a pretty easy going guy, but I would love to slap the shit out

of Puffy McMoonface!

[Guaranteed]

48. BRILLIANT IDEA TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY FOR NEOCONS,

who seem to just be at their wits end.

Alright, here it is:

Get Osama bin Laden.

It's so crazy, it just might work!

[JRob]

49. Did anyone catch the audio? McClellan's little psycho-spike?

Just heard it on Malloy. The first thing out of his mouth as he began his response to the "apology" question, something like:

"of course we all know that the Democrats are not offer any vision to the American people..."

Does anyone have a link to it?

[Coastie for Truth]

50. McClellan and Rove are driving the "Volunteer Fireman" (and

Red Cross and Ham Radio and Civil Air Patrol and Coast Guard Auxiliary) community away.

His own Department of reports

After September 11, 2001, America witnessed a wellspring of selflessness and heroism. People in every corner of the country asked, "What can I do?" and "How can I help?" Citizen Corps was created to help all Americans answer these questions through public education and outreach, training, and volunteer service.

in describing

The Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program educates people about disaster preparedness and trains them in basic disaster response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, and disaster medical operations. Using their training, CERT members can assist others in their neighborhood or workplace following an event and can take a more active role in preparing their community. The program is administered by DHS.

.

Ham Radio's and - which are frequently interlocking and overlapping at the local level - reported major jumps in training,membership, and participation.

Meanwhile, governmental programs such as and both reported jumps in training, membership, and retention of new members.

And, of course, the stalwart of the Emergency Response NGO's the reported a massive jump in training, membership, and most important, retention of new responders.

One can only ask - where does Mr. Rove get his numbers and facts --- maybe from his medicinal marijuana.

Rove is losing it in the non-partisan, bi-partican, apartisan volunteer emergency responder community. This is an "older" and more openly "Red State Type" Patriotic, church going constituency - who altruistically put themselves in harm's way for their community. And Rove is pissing them (us) off.

[Bravo411]

51. "talking about the different philosophies and different approaches ..."

That's pure BULLSHIT. It was an insult directed at the Democratic party.

If that was really the case, then why did they bitch about Durbin's comments (which they first took out of context and twisted).

These people would skin a live puppy, then defend their actions with whatever spin they could think of. - well, we captured the puppy on the battle fields of Afghanistan.

It's revolting politicians like this that cause revolutions.

[B Calm]

52. This should be a wake up call to those Bush supporting democrats!

[Catfight]

53. Then the WH condones and encourages a divided America. It's

time Republicians stop hating Democrats and remember 9/12 when we were all one America with one goal, to heal, to fight back and to remember 9/11. Now we are two America's, the hateful right wing republicians blaming and spewing awful things every day about democrats. If you ask me, it's the right wing pundits that are destroying this country by utilizing the same irrational fears and hyperbole to brainwash the weak of mind that listen to their rhetoric all day on AM radio.

[Catfight]

54. Let's get someone to do a poll on Scott McClellan, I think everyone

knows he's a big liar.