Democrat partisanship disguised as moral outrage
By Charles Bloomer
web posted July 18, 2005
Yes, I know, "Democrat partisanship" is redundant. Nonetheless, the Democrats are in high dungeon since investigators have released an email showing that Karl Rove possibly, might have, allegedly done something that, if the Democrats keep saying so, if they can stretch the law far enough, might, just might be a violation of the law. The rumor is that in 2003 Rove allegedly "leaked" the name of a "CIA operative" to some reporters, thereby maybe putting said "Operative", a "warrior on the front lines of the War on Terror" in danger. Consequently, Karl Rove must either resign, or the president must fire him. Of course, the email proves no such thing, but that is no impediment to the liberal Democrats who are out for blood.
"[T]he truth is Rove betrayed the identity of an undercover officer fighting on the front lines in the war on terror. These actions are particularly egregious in a time of war," said Howard Dean, DNC Chairman.
Since this appears to be a relatively easy, delicious attack against the president, the usual suspects have all jumped on the bandwagon. For example, CNSNews reports that a group called the "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a group with ties to Democrats, has sent a letter to President Bush, asking him to immediately suspend Karl Rove's security clearance, pending the outcome of the federal investigation into the leak…." "'The evidence uncovered so far raises serious questions about Mr. Rove's conduct and his ability to safeguard highly sensitive classified information,' Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said in a press release."
The liberal mainstream media (another redundant label) has produced a feeding frenzy. The White House press corps has insistently and persistently hammered Scott McClellan, the White House Press Secretary with the typical biased, leading questions. "Now that Karl Rove has been caught red-handed…." "Now that there is solid evidence…." "Now that Rove's credibility is in doubt…." "Will the president revoke Rove's security clearance?" "When will the president fire Rove?"
All that sounds pretty serious, doesn't it? Well, it isn't. This is a typical Democrat attack, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. First, the incident is being investigated. No one is sure yet whether or not a crime has been committed. Second, even if Rove did tell someone that the alleged "Operative" worked for the CIA, the "Operative" in question was not undercover and, according to a report in the New York Times, had given up any covert work nine years before her name was mentioned in the press. Third, she was married to a former ambassador (a liberal, anti-Bush, anti-war radical who lied and then went to work on John Kerry's campaign before going down in flames) and it was well known in social circles that she worked for the CIA.
Yet while engaging in all this hyperbole, the Democrats overlook, ignore, and dismiss as unimportant blatantly treasonous statements made by their own members. The hypocrisy here is thick enough to cut with a knife. If Dean thinks that the alleged non-crime committed by Karl Rove is "particularly egregious in a time of war", what does he think of statements by Democrat Dick Durbin – not just any Democrat, but the no.2 senator on the Democrat side of the aisle? When Durbin compared the behavior of our troops at Guantanamo Bay to the genocide and atrocities committed by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, and Pol Pot, how many Democrats called on Durbin to resign? How many Democrats called on the Justice Department for an investigation to see if prosecution for treason – providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war – was a proper course of action? Did any Democrat call Durbin's statement "particularly egregious in a time of war"? Did any Democrat even insist that Durbin give up his leadership position in the Senate?
What about Ted Kennedy? While the Democrats have managed to "move on" from the manslaughter at Chappaquiddick, they continue to ignore the egregious wartime statements of the Massachusetts senior bloviator. The left-wing senator has not been able to say the word "war" in a sentence without using the word "quagmire". Kennedy learned the word back during the Viet Nam war-quagmire. Nowadays, he just recycles old speeches to criticize what is, in his view, the current war-quagmire. It doesn't seem to matter to Kennedy or Dean or any other Democrat that that kind of speech demoralizes our troops and encourages the enemy. Does that rise to the level of providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war? I'll let the legal experts sort that out. But I will say that Senator Kennedy is not helping fight the war on terror, nor are his cohorts Durbin and Dean.
The advantage to being a Democrat is that all a loudmouth, overbearing, treasonous, insulting, lying Democrat needs to do to make things right is to apologize – and not even convincingly, at that. The liberal concept of taking personal responsibility for your own actions extends only as far as mouthing a few words. Former Attorney General Janet Reno said she took "personal responsibility" for killing scores of people at Waco. The consequences for her actions? She stayed on as Attorney General until Clinton left the White House.
Senator Durbin, after spewing his treasonous bilge, came out with a non-apology apology. Just come out and say you're sorry, and all is forgiven, you get to keep your leadership job in the party, you get treated as a media darling on the television propaganda shows where liberal talking heads will admire you, and you get to carry on as usual, as if nothing important happened. Once a Democrat apologizes, any more criticism is met with, "Hey, he apologized. Let's move on."
So I have a plan for Karl Rove. Rove should immediately take to the airwaves and issue a blanket apology. Something along the lines of:
"I apologize for any alleged release of any potentially or marginally or minutely incorrect information, even if legal. I apologize if I have offended anyone – anyone at all, ever in my entire life. I apologize for confusing simpleminded Liberal Democrats. In addition, I will submit my resignation to the president as soon as Howard Dean, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and every other Democrat that has taken any money from extreme radical, far-left, America hating anti-war groups (including, but not limited to moveon.org) resign from their elected or appointed positions. Until that time, I will put all this behind me, move on, and you can just get over it."
By ignoring egregious actions by their colleagues and viciously attacking Republicans, the Democrats' extreme partisanship shows through quite clearly. And that partisanship, that hypocrisy makes it hard to take their outrage seriously. It becomes hard to take seriously their moral outrage since all we see is manufactured fake outrage and no morals. 
Charles Bloomer is a Contributing Editor at Enter Stage Right and the creator of the website Liberty Call U.S. © 2005 Charles Bloomer
 Printer friendly version |
|