Atrios making it up as he goes along

Confederate Yankee answers a post over at Atrios with direct, irrefutable statements.

::::::::

Duncan Black, better know as Atrios of Eschaton mewls: Ken Mehlman Says Liberals Want Our Troops to Die So this is the nice quiet RNC chief who is so unlike that nasty Howard Dean: Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking in Puerto Rico, said there was no need to apologize because “what Karl Rove said is true.” I’m with you, Duncan. I feel your pain… Though Mehlman never made that comment, did he, Duncan? You made it up….

::::::::

Quite correct. Mehlmen never even mentioned such a claim as that Liberals want our troops to die. Although, if you keep reading over at C.Y., you’ll see that such a sentiment has some basis.

Troubleshooting continues

Well, the change in this blog’s skin isn’t intentional. It’s part of the troubleshooting. Something tells me that the “Bluebird” template here at Blogger (the one I like) is the problem. I’m still tinkering.

RNC Chairman highlights Dems’ hypocrisy on Rove’s comments Updated

Karl Rove spoke up in New York on the topic of the differences between the conservative and liberal responses to being attacked on 9/11 and the war on terror. Now, after Dick Durbin’s remarks and the complete and utter lack of condemnation of his remarks from the Democratic leadership, those same Dems are demanding an apology and resignation from Rove. Now, in case you haven’t seen it yet, here’s Rove’s comments:

::::::::

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.

::::::::

You can see why the Dems are screaming. Rove was blunt, direct, and entirely accurate. And lest any of my more liberal readers take umbrage with that assessment, feel free to go have a look at RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman’s note on the topic wherein he quotes a variety of the louder liberal elements’ own words.

::::::::

“It’s outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbin’s libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Rove’s statement of historical fact. George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after 9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable comments.” - RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman

::::::::

The post there has all the quotes and the links to the comments as reported so I’ll simply direct you there rather than replicate them. As for an apology – you don’t apologize for telling the truth.

Update: I’ve been returning to this topic in my head all day and I’ve reconsidered. I personally know liberals who are quite supportive of the war, though perhaps not to the extent that I am. Certainly there are some who don’t think of this as a law enforcement action at all and that therapy isn’t something the attackers are due nor would it be effective. So Rove’s comments are overly inclusive. They are not inaccurate, however, for a sizeable chunk of the Left. Based on my readings, it seems a majority of the Left, in fact. I honestly believe that’s what Rove meant, but that’s not what he said. He should probably clarify that

All that now said, my earlier reference to Ken Mahlman’s comments remains untouched. The liberals in this country have certainly given enough cause to think that Rove’s take on their positions is dead on and they don’t have a lot of standing to be demanding apologies and resignations considering their silence – or vocal support – of Durbin’s accusations. So, while I think Rove over-included, don’t be expecting me to condemn him. This is the environment that’s been made by some poisonous accusations over the last 5 years. To now blame conservatives for the tone is disingenuous.

Flag burning

It’s been brought to my attention that I didn’t say anything about the House recently approving a Constitutional amendment making it illegal to burn a flag in protest. Given the other news that’s been in front of us, it simply slipped past. Succinctly put, I don’t support this. I don’t approve of the act or, usually, the people doing it, but it’s clearly political speech. As such it should be protected.

Yes, I know, the concept that political speech can be banned has already been borne out by the BCRA. I’m against that horrid piece of trash, too, and anything that depends on it as precedent is already suspect. I honestly think this won’t get throught the Senate. Even if it does, it’s a long way through two-thirds of the States.