(A modified version of this can be found on
my site)
While running his mouth, Karl Rove made mention of a MoveOn.org petition to demonstrate how bad liberals were. Here's a refresher:
In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to... submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the... terrorist attacks against the United States."
Pretty damning, right? I mean, heck, it sounds bad. But then you need to remember what "moderation and restraint" meant immediately following 9/11. Here's a refresher from The Onion September 26, 2001:
Point-Counterpoint: America's Response (link thanks to the Wayback Machine)
POINT: WE MUST RETALIATE WITH BLIND RAGE
On Sept.11, 2001, America was hit by an unprecedented attack on its shores. The devastation and loss of life is incalculable. It is clear to me, as it should be to all Americans, what our nation must do: Retaliate with blind, violent rage, striking back with a fury and vengeance the likes of which modern man has never seen.
We must launch every available missile at any nation in which the terrorists are rumored to be hiding. We must bomb every square inch of any country that may be harboring them. Then, when the thick, black smoke has finally cleared, we must bomb them all over again, reducing the rubble to its component atoms. If, in the midst of carpet-bombing a country, we find that it had no involvement in the Sept. 11 attack, so be it. Apologies can come later, but vengeance must be immediate.
Erik's note: Hey, it's like Iraq!After pummeling the holy living hell out of those fuckers with bombs, we should send in ground troops, armed to the teeth, to sweep through and exterminate anyone still alive who might have been involved. America's soldiers must be under orders to pump round after round into their bodies, pausing only to replace their clips. Only then will closure to this horrible event be possible. If we do not strike back fast and with as much military might as humanly possible, America will never be able to heal.
Some people argue that if we capture Osama bin Laden and his co-conspirators, we should bring them to justice before a U.N. tribunal. I say that to bring them before a civilized court is to raise them up to the level of humans. Terrible acts must be punished with terrible retribution. Are we going to humanely execute by lethal injection men who wantonly killed thousands of innocents? Instead, all of those who are guilty must be dipped in boiling fat and fed to dogs.
Erik's note: Hey! Woah! This is EERIE! I thought it would be more outlandish than this, not so accurate. Many say that using a nuclear weapon on the nations that harbor such sub-human filth would be rash and irresponsible. To which I say, "Why use a nuclear weapon when we have hundreds in our nation's silos?" Should nuclear weapons be used? The question, really, is how many should be used, and can I push the buttons?
COUNTER-POINT: WE MUST RETALIATE WITH MEASURED, FOCUSED RAGE (fuck it, I'm going to post this whole thing)
In this time of national tragedy, many people are letting their anger get the best of them. If I've learned anything in my life, it's that when you're dealing with a crisis, the worst thing you can do is let your emotions run wild. To react rashly will only exacerbate the problem in the long run.
Rather than be blinded by our collective anger, we must keep a cool head and, after careful consideration of the many complex social and geopolitical factors at work here, annihilate the pieces of shit who did this with measured, focused rage.
While leveling Afghanistan, Iraq, the Sudan, and Libya with bombs might seem like a justifiable move, we must first ponder the consequences of such a hasty, hotheaded decision. Have we explored all other options? Have we made sure we have the support of other key powers in the region, so that further problems don't develop after we bomb them back into the Stone Age?
Let's also keep in mind that we still don't know with absolute certainty who is responsible for the attacks. Believe me, no one wants to assume Osama bin Laden is behind these heinous acts more than I do. However, basing a military response on conjecture would only weaken our international position and undermine any retaliatory measures we take. What we need is rock-solid, convincing rumors before we can move forward with vaporizing the bastards.
I agree that the perpetrators must be punished severely. But, contrary to what so many knee-jerk, blood-lusting Americans would like to believe, merely capturing and punishing them will not prevent this sort of thing from happening again in the future. No, they must be tried and convicted in a U.S. court of law, so that President Bush can, on live TV, pump bullet after bullet into their bodies, starting with their feet and slowly working his way up. Then, after a great deal of soul-searching and consultation with his top advisors, the president must toss their lifeless, bullet-riddled bodies into a shark tank.
I must also respond to the many voices in this country who have been calling for the use of nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction are not to be used lightly. Much thought and caution must be exercised before making the country that gave safe haven to the perpetrators an unlivable radioactive wasteland. Vigorous debate and discussion must precede any inevitable decision regarding target locations and the number of weapons. This is one area where you absolutely don't want to make a mistake.
We must remember that impulsively lashing out is never the best course of action. True justice can only be achieved through cool, calm, levelheaded armageddon.
The second guy? That was us, the liberals. Well, okay, we were a little more pussified than that. For example, most of the time I was against all nuclear weapon use. I'd say I was against nuclear weapon use on at least 3/4ths of September, 2001 (I can say with certainty that I was against nuke use all day for at least a third of the days September). But I can say I probably would have watched that TV show, and I wanted a retaliation (sanctioned by the UN and as part of a multilateral ass-kicking to those who deserved it, and not to random civilians; also, recall, at this point we (the public) really didn't know for sure it was Osama), and if I had known about it, I might well have signed that MoveOn.org petition, because I didn't want us to get the wrong guys. In New York, a liberal haven, I am certain the response was far more bloodthirsty than mine was.
And yeah, the first guy really existed. There were people who seriously thought it would be a good idea to nuke the fuck out of the Middle East, and people who wanted to round up anyone who looked vaguely arabian or persian and put them in camps/interrogate them. People beat up Indians (Elephants, not Buffalo) and defaced their homes and places of business, for fuck's sake. And the people who wanted this? Conservatives. You're not going to find a good liberal who has enough balls and empty space in their cranial cavity to say "Let's go kill the dark-skinned towel-heads" without serious irony. Not to say all conservatives were that way, obviously not, but they weren't a marginal group, ESPECIALLY right after 9/11. That wasn't steel, that was a giant fucking cave-man club.
So fuck Karl Rove, and fuck taking things out of context like that. And The Onion rocks.