Does Karl Rove Hate our Liberties and Way of Life?

' At a Manhattan fund-raiser Wednesday night, the flamboyant architect of Bush's two presidential campaigns and now White House deputy chief of staff told members of the Conservative Party of New York State: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in 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." '

Now we know where the Bearded Lady of the Carnival Right, Ann Coulter, actually gets her material. She is just channeling Karl Rove, who believes that "liberals" wanted to put terrorists on the psychiatrist's couch or wanted to put them on trial rather than declaring them "enemy combatants" (i.e. persons with whom Bush and Rove could do as they pleased, without reference to any law). And, he implies that Conservatives knew what to do instead. Why, they got out their shotguns and went hunting for the varmints. Rove must not have heard that the Senate just apologized for not objecting to the practice of lynching in the old days.

So Rove is saying this about the "Conservatives" (and I apologize to the real conservatives for bringing him up in this context, but he is the one who used these words). He is saying that they don't indict terrorists or consider them mentally ill. Right?

But wait. Is Rove saying that the Bush administration didn't prepare any indictments as a reaction to 9/11?

What about this, from former Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom--I believe--George W. Bush appointed?

"This morning, a federal grand jury indictment charging Nuradin M. Abdi, a 32-year-old Somali national, was unsealed in Columbus, Ohio. Abdi was arrested on immigration charges and has been held by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since November 28, 2003. I note that an indictment is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The charges against Abdi are:

* Conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists;
* Conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda; and,
* Two counts of fraud and misuse of documents."

Gee, Rove must have been just furious at Ashcroft. Not only did he deal with Abdi with a mere indictment rather than personally taking him out and putting two bullets behind his ear, but he openly announced that he was presumed innocent!! What a wimp. What a marshmallow. And he calls himself a "Conservative"!

But surely Ashcroft wimped out here because he was just accusing someone of planning a bombing. He'd deal someone who pulled one off differently, right?

Nope. This from 2003:

Attorney General John Ashcroft announced May 15 that a federal grand jury in Manhattan has indicted two Yemeni fugitives for the October 2000 bombing attack on the USS Cole in the harbor of Aden, Yemen, that killed seventeen Americans and wounded more than 40 others.

It is worse. He had to indict them in absentia because the Conservatives hadn't got them in custody, despite all that rooting around with their shotguns. Hmmm. So Rove all along seethed because he considered Ashcroft a goddamned Liberal.

So the "Conservatives" might have indicted some terrorists instead of just blowing their brains against the Oval Office walls. But surely they didn't excuse them by saying that they are mentally ill, right? Terrorists like Saddam and Bin Laden are just evil, not insane. Isn't that the implication?

Oooops. Bush slipped up and said this about his decision to go after Saddam, to the Republican National Committee:

"Do I forget the lessons of Sept. 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

But he just slipped up once, right? Nope.

Bush liked the line. Put "the word of a madman" and "Bush" into google and see how often it comes up.

George! Say it isn't so. First the indictments. Now putting Saddam on the couch and calling him a madman. Could it be W. is a closet Liberal?

But then the "Liberals" are unconcerned with terrorism, right? Isn't that what Rove is saying?

But here is what Ted Kennedy said about his position on the Iraq War:

" I voted against that resolution and war with Iraq because I was not persuaded that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our national security, and because of my belief that war with Iraq, especially without broad international support, would undermine our ability to meet the gravest threat to our national security - terrorism against the United States by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups."

But, the Rove "Conservatives" would say, Kennedy is just a partisan Liberal who won't give Bush the benefit of the doubt and doesn't understand the American values that are key to taking on the terrorist threat. Right?

Nope.

"Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. And let me say with the same plainness: Those who agree with that course have an equal obligation – to resist any temptation to convert patriotism into politics. It is possible to love America while concluding that is not now wise to go to war. The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line: We must ask what is right for country and not party. That is the true spirit of September 11th — not unthinking unanimity, but a clear-minded unity in our determination to defeat terrorism — to defend our values and the value of life itself."

The little things standing between Karl Rove's "Conservative" approach to "terrorists" are numbered 4-7. Rove has worked for decades to erase them from the American Constitution. What do you call an American who despises the Constitution?

"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Rove and his un-p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act want to declare some US citizens "enemy combatants" and to get rid of the Bill of Rights in their regard the way the John Travolta character got rid of dead bodies in a vat of acid in Pulp Fiction. As for non-citizens, Rove has declared the Geneva Accords "quaint" and wants an end to international law.

But remember, Rove is neither insane nor a mere criminal. You figure out what he is. But remember that he seems to hate our liberties and way of life.