My Challenge to Bloomberg and Pataki
This is my followup letter to the editor on the Karl Rove exploitation of dead New Yorkers. My previous letters were the basis of an earlier diary. My current letter is below:
Karl Rove's comments the other day was a desecration of the memories of our brothers and sisters who died on 9/11. I am outraged that Karl Rove, a member of the party that refused to support Bill Clinton when he wanted to go after bin Laden and al Qaeda BEFORE 9/11, would stoop so low.
But what is worse is that Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki have failed to stand up for NYC against Karl Rove's attack. Bloomberg and Pataki should be banging down the doors of the White House DEMANDING that Bush apologize to NYC and fire Rove for being so disrespectful to our dead as to use thier memories for partisan politics.
Bloomberg and Pataki have betrayed NYC. They are supposed to represent us, but instead they are mere apologists for the administration that failed to protect us in the first place and that has failed to catch the man who planned the attack on NYC. I demand Bloomberg and Pataki finally show some spine and stand up to Bush and his administration's exploitation of dead New Yorkers. If they don't, I swear I will fight as hard as I can to get them voted out of office and replaced by REAL New Yorkers who will stand up for New York City.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
9/11 | Politics | New York City
Disagree
Submitted by mole333 on 26 June 2005 - 10:11pm.
Durbin's statements--and I haven't defended or disagreed with them yet...I remain neutral--were fundamentally based in facts. And they were not cynically exploiting the memory of dead Americans. Rove was using those who died in NYC on 9/11 to bolster a pack of lies that the Bush administration has been using since they first set up the invasion of Iraq. Those lies have led to the death of yet more Americans. Your comparison of the two is way off base.
I don't think so.
Submitted by Yasha on 27 June 2005 - 2:30am.
I don't think they were off base at all. Durbin's statements were reprehensible. But it is unlikely we will agree on this. All I wish is that the rhetoric on both sides were a lot more substantive and didn't continue being so much of the race to the bottom we get these days.
------------
J.Kende
Lower The Vote
Eye Dream Awake
Largely agree
Submitted by mole333 on 27 June 2005 - 7:56am.
But I draw a sharp distinction between statements that are fundamentally based on facts and statements that are cynical lies. ANother example--Michael Moore puts out propaganda. I don't deny that. BUT, and I have paid close attention to F9/11, his propaganda is based almost 100% on truth. He doesn't lie. By contrast, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly are also propagandists. But their propaganda is based very largely on lies. To me this makes Rush and Bill completely disgusting and reprehensible while Michael Moore I might criticize certain things he does to make his point, but fundamentally he is truthful. Same with Durbin and Rove. Rove is basically lying to America while he exploits 9/11. Durbin is, at worst, exaggerating real facts.
Depends on Perspective
Submitted by Yasha on 27 June 2005 - 3:17pm.
Which 'lies' and 'facts' are those exactly?
I find far more common that many heavily uncertain and disputed findings are assumed to be 'lies' if put forward by one side and assumed to be 'facts' if backed by the other. Which is which depends on one's own political persuasion.
------------
J.Kende
Lower The Vote
Eye Dream Awake
No
Submitted by mole333 on 28 June 2005 - 8:19am.
This is the Fox News attitude. I know because I met a Fox News analyst at a party. No matter who you are, there ARE facts. FOr example, there WERE no WMD in Iraq. That is a fact. So administration claims that "we have definite evidence of WMD in Iraq" were lies. It is a fact that al Qaeda and Hussein NEVER were friendly with eachother and. in fact, anyone with a passing knowlege of the Mid East would and did know that. The administration's attempts to connect them were lies. Political persuasion does not change the facts. Bill Clinton DID try to go after bin Laden (in fact almost killed him!) and Bush did not until after 9/11. Those are facts. The Republican claims that Clinton did nothing are lies.
There has been a trend to see all things as relative and to deny facts. So Creationism is given equal credence with Evolution and the 10% of climatologists who doubt global warming are given equal time with the 90% who say global warming is an existing reality. This is the Fox News view of the world. Simply put, Karl ROve's claims were outright lies. Liberals did not have one mass response to 9/11. In fact many, like myself, supported the war on al Qaeda. We object to the illegal war in Iraq, and he is trying to link the two.
Misunderestimating Again
First off, Rove's comments weren't all that bad. More importantly, they seem to be having the desired effect, as Glenn Reynolds has been pointing out.
But even overlooking all of that, weren't Durbin's comments much worse? Haven't the overzealous comments from the Left side been just as bad if not much worse than the overzealous comments from the Right side these last few years? If Democrats are going to be succesful in upcoming elections, it would help to start reacting strongly against statements that are outrageous on both sides, not just those by Rove and co.
------------
J.Kende
Lower The Vote
Eye Dream Awake