Carol Platt Liebau: What We're Up Against II

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

What We're Up Against II

The man who practically beheaded filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam, turned in court to his victim's mother and said:

"I don't feel your pain. I have to admit that I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because you're a non-believer."

He also announced that: "I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do the same, exactly the same."

Read it here. That's what we're up against. Compared to these guys, your garden variety gang-banger seems like Santa Claus.


Blogger Jesse Larner said...

First of all, who do you think you are lecturing the rest of us on "what we're up against"? Do you really believe that only conservatives recognize the threat of Islamic fundamentalism? Where do you get standing to lecture us on this? We all want to win the war on terror. Of course all liberals hate the London bombers more than Karl Rove or George Bush! I feel embarrassed that I've even responded to that slanderous question. How DARE you?

Secondly, if Wilson "lied" about the supposed Memorandum of Understanding between Niger and iraq to buy uranium--the basis of Bush's SOTU statement--then Powell, Tenet, Rice, and Rice's deputy Stephen Hadley all believed him -- they all admitted this was a mistake. Hadley offered to resign over this. I wrote you these facts in an email, yet you went merrily on your way with more propaganda. Your mind is made up. Sorry to confuse you with facts.

Thirdly, if Rove had nothing to hide and this is supposedly demonstrated by his release of the journalists from their confidentiality pledge--as that blindly partisan hack Byron York reported, and you approvingly pointed out--then why did Bush, Rove, McClellan and the entire white house staff continually deny that Rove had anything to do with the leak--right up until the point that Cooper gave up his source under court order?

Fourthly, for the sake of argument: suppose Wilson DID lie (he didn't, but just to address your point.) Would that justify Rove burning a CIA agent? In the process--and this is another point you've failed to address--possibly endangering the lives of CIA agents and forcing the shutdown of a CIA front company overseas, a company that served as cover for other operations besides Plame's, at a cost to the US taxpayer of hundreds of thousands of dollars?

And you DARE to imply that it's LIBERALS who aren't serious about fighting the war on terror? Here's a question for you, Carol: Who do you hate more? The terrorists, or democrats? If Rove is justified in disrupting a CIA operation in order to score a spiteful political point against the WIFE of someone who caused political problems for his patron--not even the person himself, but his WIFE--how could you... words fail me.

Fifthly, I really wish you would address my question of how you think you would have reacted to all this if the situation were exactly the same, but Rove was a democratic adviser working for Bill Clinton. Do you really -- do you REALLY claim that you wouldn't be making accusations of treason in the most outraged tones?

6:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home