I am pissed at the AP article I read the other day covering the administration's response to Democrats' demands for an apology from Karl Rove. MOVEON NEVER OPPOSED MILITARY ACTION IN AFGHANISTAN yet the AP makes it seem as though Rove simply stated "the difference in philosophies" between conservatives and liberals as Scott Mclellan dismissed it. NO, HE LIED. Reducing slander to just more partisan bickering does not create balance but simply bad journalism, broadcasting lies. Thanks for the balance AP, thanks for protecting our tender hearts so sick with partisan fighting from the vile truth that would hurt so bad.

Below is the AP article, followed by Moveon's complete response to Rove's comments.

White House stands behind Rove over comments on liberals and terrorism

Democrats: Rove should apologize or resign

Friday, June 24, 2005; Posted: 12:49 p.m. EDT (16:49 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A White House official said Friday the administration finds it "somewhat puzzling" that Democrats are demanding presidential adviser Karl Rove's apology or resignation for implying that liberals are soft on terrorism.

"I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out," communications director Dan Bartlett said. "It's touched a chord with these Democrats. I'm not sure why."

Congressional Republicans earlier joined the White House in standing solidly behind Rove, saying he shouldn't apologize and that he was outlining a philosophical divide between a president who sought to win the war on terrorism by taking the fight to the enemy and Democrats who questioned that approach.

The controversy, fought out in hearings, floor speeches and news conferences Thursday on Capitol Hill, was the latest of several highly contentious battles that have soured the already highly partisan atmosphere.

Earlier this week Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, apologized after being hit with a chorus of attacks from Republicans about comments in which he compared detainee treatment at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the actions of Nazis and other repressive regimes.

Rove, the architect behind President Bush's election victories, on Wednesday night told a gathering of the New York Conservative Party that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

He added that groups linked to the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.

Bartlett, appearing on morning news shows Friday, said that Rove was referring in his talk to Moveon.org, a liberal group that has been identified with movie producer Michael Moore.

"It's somewhat puzzling why all these Democrats ... who responded forcefully after 9-11, who voted to support President Bush's pursuit of the war on terror, are now rallying to the defense of Moveon.org, this liberal organization who put out a petition in the days after 9/11 and said that we ought not use military force in responding to 9/11," Bartlett said on NBC's "Today" show. "That is who Karl Rove cited in that speech ... There is no need to apologize."

Appearing on CBS's "The Early Show," Bartlett said that Rove was "just pointing out that MoveOn.org is a liberal organization that didn't defend or accept the way that we prosecuted the war in the days after" the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on New York and Washington.

Bartlett told interviewers that he didn't understand why Democrats "are throwing up such a huff."

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, in a letter to Rove co-signed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Democratic senators from Connecticut and New Jersey, called the presidential adviser's speech "a slap in the face to the unity that America achieved after September 11, 2001."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday there was no reason for Rove to apologize because he was "simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."

"Of course not," McClellan said when asked by reporters whether Bush would ask Rove to apologize.

Democrats said Rove, and his Republican allies, were now trying to change the subject when Democrats, and many Americans, are becoming increasingly critical of the course of the war in Iraq.

For Rove "to try to exploit 9/11 for political purposes once again just shows you how desperate they are," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who in recent days has been the target of Republican attacks for saying that the Iraq war was a "grotesque mistake."

This is Moveon's response.

WASHINGTON, June 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement by Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn PAC, in response to Karl Rove's attempt to distract attention from the President's failed Iraq policy:

Karl Rove is trying to change the subject on the President's failed Iraq policy. Even members of his own party, like Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, has criticized the Administration as " ... completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're making it up as they go along. ... " Recent polls show growing majorities want an exit strategy. Lying about MoveOn won't solve Rove's problem. MoveOn did not oppose the U.S. military action in Afghanistan.

Finally, since when did moderation and restraint become synonymous with supporting terror. I pray that not everyone running this country gets sick at the thought of using as little military force as is needed.

You'll have to pardon me but I really couldn't give two fucks if Rove apologized 10 times over for making the comment. He's a manipulative little shit that needs to be fired and I think this atmosphere of officialized apologetics is just politicizing with no action.

The press is the press, they gotta sell their warez just like anyone and it is the bottom line that drives headlines. Stakes in advertising, market share, and other factors drive most of the press decisions to go easy on this administration in much the same way that they were easy on the last administration...if over half the nation likes the person why drive them to other networks?

I'm sure that most of the networks are corporate and it's pretty obvious that networks like FOX are peddling the White House line, the question that I want to know is what is driving this connection?

It takes direct exchange of something of high value to turn a journalists ethics into something slanted one way or other, the cases where this administration did that were ignored largely.

What's being traded here? Is it loosening FCC rules for market share ownership? Is it cash? Is it genetic super soldiers that look like Harvey Keitel? WTF is so worth sacrificing that honor of telling the truth to so many hungry minds?

The thing that bugs me is that there are these obvious holes in the integral fabric of our information machine that is popular media yet so many still buy, watch, and absorb information from such a polluted entity.

Why do people still use it?

You know they asked the Conservative voice on the News Hour what he thought about this he couldn't understand why the Democrats were all fired up. After all, he said, the majority of elected Democrats disavow being liberals so why should they care what anyone says about liberals?

This charge is so ridiculous it doesn't pass the sniff test. The more outraged we get the more about this, the more it stays in the news and when that happens we lose. So I think we need to laugh at it, remind the American people that the President has unanimous support (except for tiny Barbara Lee) to take the war on terrorism to al Queda and the Taliban, we just never bought it that Sadaam was anything more than a bit player in the War on Terrorism. Turns out we were right and now 1,700 American's have paid the ultimate sacrafice for Bush's Folly.

I for one do not support this label of War on Terrorism nor do I support the strategies of utilizing the war machine to fight terrorism.

In order for this to be a war there must be a nation we are fighting against. Terrorists exist in many forms on the soils of every nation and the oceans of this planet.

If we were bright we would have included physically abusive spouses as terrorists.

If we were bright we would have included corporations using death squads to secure oil or land rights as terrorists.

If we were bright we would have included ourselves as terrorists for all that we have done.

But we simply weren't that bright.

Initially most of us, myself included, wanted justice in spite of the surity of blood that would spill for the sake of feeling safe once more.

But times have changed and so has the information.

We are no longer dealing with a war on terror because it is clear there is no singular country responsible for supporting the brand of terrorism that involves utilizing jets as long range ballistic missiles to devastate symbols.

After countless manipulations of the truth, severe abuse of power, exposure of many conflicts of interest, and the absolute failure of the current strategy to negatively impact the target we were sold, it's time to call an end to the War on Terrorism + Iraq.

We are hunting individuals despite the borders of nations, respecting no law but vendetta at any cost with the spoils of war feeding the stokers of the cauldron we boil in.

We have given a blank check to the single largest police force ever created. Sure, they smashed the hell out of each nation they chose to crush but this was always a melee of slaughter by remote. But this is not a war for we have no army to fight but individuals across this planet who have taken up whatever arms they can to squash their understanding of a threat.

Titles are things given by humanity to classify information, but they do not exist as mere labels because they include the subtext of personal judgement.

Liberal is a phrase coined to describe democrats after World War II. Liberal is a word of governance that goes back to the study of humanism in the times of democracy borne by the Greeks. The attempt by Rove to make "liberal" an insult should be stopped to be sure but not because this slang usage applies to a handful of democrats who properly describe themselves as liberal.

It should be stopped because it is as inaccurate and confusing Michael Jackson's popularization of "Bad" as good. But then, there is free speech to think about isn't there...