Brian, Brian, Brian

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on Rove's comments in the long run, but that doesn't mean we can't have ann intelligent debate about them.

Of course, I think our actual positions on Rove's comments may be closer than our posts so far have made them out to be. Personally, I hope Rove's comments were wrong, but I don't know that I can say that they are. Ultimately, they need to be proven wrong, not simply shouted down with claims of "He's questioning my patriotism!" This shouldn't be difficult to do. All it would take would be for a few prominent Democrats/liberals to come out and say "Michael Moore/Moveon.org/Jimmy Carter/whoever does not speak for me or for my party. Their views do not represent the views of Democrats/liberals, and we refuse to be lumped together with them. Furthermore, we find Karl Rove's comments repugnant and demand their retraction." However, the Democrats are so interested in presenting a united front that they are unwilling to show any sort of disunity for any reason whatsoever. As a result, the views of the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party are seen to be held throughout the party, making them seem week when it comes to national security issues, irrespective of whether or not you take Rove's comments to be a substantive policy criticism or an uncalled-for ad hominem attack on the patriotism of Democrats.

One thing that should be obvious, and I think you'll agree, is that the fact we're having this debate shows that the portion of Rove's statement you quoted is inaccurate. It is legitimate, I think, to read that statement as calling the patriotism of liberals/Democrats into question, but I don't see that it necessarily has to be read that way. It could very well be that Seantor Durbin and the like honestly feel that American involvement in Iraq is is a mistake and that anything that will bring that involvement to an end sooner rather than later is a good thing. It is also possible that certain leaders within the Democratic party equate the country's good with the success of their own party, and thus anything that advances their own political ends is good for the country. It could also be that they're motivated simply by a hatred of Bush and an overwhelming desire to undermine him, no matter what the cost. There are all sorts of motives that could be imputed to those who oppose what's going on in Iraq, Gitmo, etc., but it's foolish to go into them because when it's all said and done, results matter more than motives. Republicans forgot this when Clinton was president, and the Democrats seem to have forgotten this under Bush.