Why are so many reporters ignoring the worst thing that Karl Rove said?
During his speech to the New York Conservative Club, Rove attacked liberals for their response to 9/11. Most media coverage has focused on the following two passages:
But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. 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.
…Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation involved in a noble cause of self-defense. Liberals are concerned with what our enemies will think of us and whether every government approves of our actions.
Though Rove mentions MoveOn.org and Michael Moore and so forth, this is, of course, a smear that distorts the views expressed by the vast majority of liberals after 9/11, both among the public and elites.
The problem, however, is that the controversy has focused on these comments, rather than Rove’s most offensive remarks:
Has there ever been a more revealing moment than this year. when the Democratic senator, Democrat Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans have done to prisoners in our control in Guantanamo with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot — three of the most brutal and malevolent figures of the 20th century?
Let me put in this in really simple terms. Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Sen. Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
This is one of the worst examples to date in the long history of attacks on dissent since 9/11 (which includes egregious recent comments by Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh [MP3 audio], and Rep. Joe Wilson). Rove didn’t just say that liberals had the wrong response to 9/11; he used Durbin’s comments to suggest that liberals who criticize the government are intentionally endangering US troops. These are ugly words with dangerous implications in a free society.
However, a number of major media outlets reported the “offer therapy” passage but excluded the “motives” passage: The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Times, Reuters, New York Newsday, The Associated Press (6/23 AM story) and The New York Times (6/24 story). In fact, only a handful of major outlets covered the “motives” quote: The Boston Globe, The New York Times (6/23 story), The Washington Post and the Associated Press (6/23 mid-day and PM stories). And two of the four major outlets that initially covered the “motives” passage dropped it in later coverage (the Times and AP).
In addition, no one asked White House spokesperson Scott McClellan about Rove’s “motives” comment during press briefings on Thursday and Friday even though it would seem relevant when McClellan claimed that Rove “was talking about the different philosophies and our different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism” (my italics). Of course, Rove suggested precisely the opposite — that liberals are intentionally endangering US troops and hurting the country’s efforts in the war on terrorism. But no reporter saw fit to bring this up.
The lack of attention to the “motives” comment is partially the fault of Democrats, who primarily criticized Rove’s comments about “therapy” instead. But regardless of what the opposition does, journalists have a responsibility to report when the President’s top adviser says that liberals are intentionally putting troops in danger.