BCT Editorial – 8/17/07

This page was last updated on August 27, 2007.

Great divide; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 17, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Karl Rove’s leaving signifies nothing.”

[RWC] Make no mistake about it, this editorial is fueled by anger that Mr. Rove was successful most of the time promoting President Bush’s initiatives. As you know, however, I disagreed with some of those initiatives. Even so, I never viewed Mr. Rove with the awe displayed by liberals.

“The damage already is done.”

[RWC] Had Mr. Rove used exactly the same tactics in support of a liberal agenda, this editorial would be singing his praises and begging him to stay on.

“On Monday, President Bush’s friend and political mentor - some critics would say Svengali - announced he would be leaving the White House team and be returning to Texas.”

[RWC] “[S]ome critics?” Unless you haven’t guessed, this includes the Times.

Hmm, I hadn’t heard Mr. Rove referred to as Svengali before. According to the dictionary, a Svengali has “evil intentions.” I thought Mr. Rove was “Bush’s brain.” Maybe that’s VP Cheney. <g>

“Rove no doubt will go down as one of the most influential and important aides in U.S. presidential history. But in his case, history will judge him harshly, especially for the way in which he exploited the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, for blatant political gain. American politics has always been a blood sport, but Bush and Rove picked the wrong time to deepen the wounds that already existed.

“In the wake of that terrible day, the United States and the world stood united. (The French newspaper Le Monde famously carried the headline ‘We are all Americans now.’) Rove, Bush and others took that unity and good will and threw it away by exploiting the fear generated by the events of that day in the 2002 congressional elections and 2004 presidential election.”

[RWC] I guess the editorial author(s) forgot the pictures of people in the Middle and Far East cheering the destruction on 9/11, and the charges from domestic and foreign sources that asserted we brought the attacks on ourselves. Maybe it’s because I’m not in the newspaper business, but I give a lot more weight to acts than I do to meaningless headlines. People who were our enemies on 9/10/01 were still enemies after 9/11, and people who were our phony friends on 9/10 were still phony friends after 9/11.

“They used that fear to drum up a phony war against a second-rate dictator of a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and then questioned the loyalty and patriotism of anyone who doubted their march to war. (Rove is the master of what historian William W. Freehling calls ‘the lethal language of loyalty.’)

“They won the elections and they won the war, but they eventually lost the support of the nation (and the world) and they lost the peace in Iraq.

“It will now be up to the next president and the next influential presidential aide to undertake the monumental task of putting back together what Bush and Rove hath wrought upon the nation and the world. Jan. 20, 2009, can’t come soon enough for them to get started.”

[RWC] The editorial “Unfair burden” (6/22/07) stated, “We are at war. Let’s start acting like it.” I guess referring to a current war as “phony” is the Times way of helping the military men and women who sacrifice so much for our country. Remember, this divisive comment comes in the middle of an editorial throwing rocks at others for allegedly dividing the country “for blatant political gain.” Should we be surprised given the Times in its own words believes “American politics has always been a blood sport?”