With all the noise liberals are making calling on White House political advisor Karl Rove to resign because of some "insensitive" comments he made, you'd think Democrats were unfamiliar with such tactics.
Rove, a powerless political advisor with no direct access to policymaking, is facing strong opposition by liberals with nothing better to do who took offense to comments he told the New York Conservative Party. That night he said, "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers…Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
Pretending such statements were untrue, liberals -- many of whom opposed any type of military conflict whatsoever -- are now crying foul for being labeled soft on Islamic terrorism.
Meanwhile, the leader of the Democratic National Committee who actually has influence over the direction of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, was entirely offensive when he labeled Republicans a "White, Christian party" whose members "all look alike" - much to the puzzlement of Janice Rogers Brown, a black conservative judge whose path to get on the federal bench was anything but an easy ride.
Then of course we have Dick Durbin, who unlike Karl Rove but much like Howard Dean, is a man with direct political influence. A senator from Illinois, Durbin spoke on the Senate floor -- unlike Rove who spoke to people of his own persuasion at an event that wasn't an official government gathering -- comparing the treatment of suspected terrorists at Gitmo to Jews in concentration camps in Nazi Germany, Soviet gulags and the regime of Pol Pot.
But that Karl Rove, how dare he say liberals rather understand Islam than defeat the terrorists it breeds.
The impact of Rove's comments is far-reaching on the Internet. The lead article at Democratic Underground on Saturday begins (as is without editing): "Are you wondering, like Karl Rove was lately, what the difference between liberals and conservatives is? Neither am I, but then you and I not as stupid as a Republican official."
And by "Republican official" Rove is nothing more than a civilian with close ties to the Bush administration as far as advice goes. Rove is not a senator like Dick Durbin who drafts legislation and directly impacts our laws. Rove is not a party chairman like Howard Dean who speaks behalf of everyone in his party on the national level, despite comments from detracting members who say Dean "doesn't speak for the majority of us."
Not only is Rove just an advisor the speech he made was before a group of likeminded individuals at the New York Conservative Party - not like Dick Durbin whose offensive comments were made on the public record during official government business. Not like Howard Dean who routinely insults Republicans in interviews that are broadcast nationwide.
Yet there's hardly a peep from the Left. To them such ranting is appropriate. Ah, but when someone says liberals are weak on terrorism they go for his throat. But is it not true that liberals have opposed most military action even in Afghanistan since the 9/11 attacks? And surely most liberals believe we should take a diplomatic approach to resolving the conflict before anything else.
Now you may disagree with my assessment. Surely there are some liberals who supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan and maybe even aggressive tactics to screen potential Islamic hijackers in the future at our nation's airports. Still though, to push for Rove's resignation is ridiculous.
And that's just what the New York City Council is mulling. Democratic Speaker Gifford Miller says the Council will introduce a resolution next week that calls on the president to fire Mr. Rove. Pathetic.
Simply put, anyone who believes action against Rove is necessary, but wasn't offended in the slightest by the comments of Durbin and Dean is a hypocrite. At least Rove didn't call anyone a Nazi.
Want to debate this issue and make your own aggressive voice heard? Head over to my blog, Aggressive-Voice Daily, and join in on the discussion.