That's just one more example of what has become, unfortunately, typically loathsome Republican rhetoric. If you can stand it, maybe you should take a look at the comments by serving military members about Karl Rove at Taking the Fight to Karl to see how some liberal Americans who are putting their lives on the line for us are responding to that comment by Bush's amoral advisor. A sample:

"To hear a man like Karl insinuate that only conservatives are really patriotic is a knife in the back to every man and woman in Iraq who serves here. At least a third of us voted against Bush and pals. The number increases every day that we stay here, forced to make bricks without straw for months on end.

"We've been here for 6 months. We're going to be here for at least 6 more. And next week we're moving to a more 'active' sector because the unit there is rotating home and the are is still too hot to entrust to the IA or IP, most of whom are still not fit to guard a traffic light, despite two years of efforts on our part. For some of us, this is our second tour through Iraq. My unit, [Withheld] was the tip of the spear in OIF I. At least half of us are combat veterans of a major battle and liberals. Can any of your gang say that, Karl?

"Never insult me and my fellow liberals again, Karl. Watching a fat, hateful thing like you that has never faced any greater danger in your life than a long golf shot denigrate every liberal who has put on a uniform is more demoralizing than ten thousand speeches that uphold America's highest ideals from Sen. Biden or Byrd."

[I assume you meant to comment on the Karl Rove speech post above, not Hitchins on smoking. Easy mistake to make.]

Since right after 9/11, to the present, there's been a dialog, repeated a thousand times, that goes something like this:

A (Probably a Liberal) : We mustn't overreact. We must tread softly and try to understand how other people feel and not lash out at them....
B: I think that's a stupid policy. That's the kind of thinking that got us into this mess.
A: HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM!
B: I never mentioned your patriotism, I'm criticizing your policy.
A: You conservative bullies think nobody has the right to free speech but yourselves!
B: I never said you shouldn't speak. But I have the right to criticize what you say.
A: YOU JUST WRAP YOURSELF IN THE FLAG, AND CLAIM NOBODY'S PATRIOTIC BUT YOU!
B: Uh, could we get back to specific policies, and discuss them?
A: You think you're the only patriots, but the real patriots are those who criticize American Imperialism!
B: Well, fine, but could you mention some specifics, and maybe even let me respond?
A: You're trying to create a one-party state!
B: But the voters decide that. Why don't you come up with a better plan, with some things that you are for, not just against? So people will have a reason to vote for you...
A: HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM!

This is all so stupid. What did Rove say? 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 and 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; 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.”

This is a criticism of policies, both specific and general. If you don't like it, answer with logic and facts. Don't give me this patriotism guff. You are just accusing yourself. Sort of like someone who sees a cop and immediately cries "I'm innocent. I have the right to a lawyer!"

"If you can stand it." I'm perfectly at ease reading your quote. Because I've read hundreds of reports from American Servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that your person is in the minority. Here's a good one. Concluding lines:

....If the daily bad-news bombardment from networks and newspapers starts to erode your confidence in the effort, remember the confidence shown by the troops, the Terps, and the Iraqis who stood in line for hours to cast a vote--even after a murderer struck.

Just as you are counting on us out here in Iraq, we are counting on you back home. Thank you for your support and prayers. Things are going much better out here than some who sell news--or pathologically despise a certain Commander-in-Chief--would like you to believe.

1) Weidner: I think you couldn't keep your "A" and "B" lines straight...We've wanted to talk policy with Bush all along, but all we get is "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, Saddam, 9/11, 9/11". Sorry, that ain't policy! Policy is listening to your senior military advisors when they tell you it'll take at least 250,000 to depose Saddam AND successfully occupy for the minimum time. Arrogance is dismissing that advice and trying to do it "on the cheap". Policy is ensuring our soldiers are fully equipped. Arrogance is forcing hundreds of them to beg families back home to buy equipment on Ebay and mail it to them. Policy is planning for a post-war Iraq, with civil engineers, city planners, etc. Arrogance is staffing the CPA with Heritage Foundation job hunters while handing out tens of billions in contracts to your best friends, qualified or not.
You see, we've always been talking policy...you guys just haven't got a clue what the word even means!
2) No, moveon.org did NOT submit a petition (a petition, FYI, which only encouraged Bush to not just start attacking willy-nilly, but which urged him to actually locate the real enemy...quite prescient actually, since Bush let Osama get away to go after someone who had nothing to do with 9/11!). A petition was run by people having nothing to do with moveon.org, and several months later one of the organizers went to work at moveon.org. But they never had anything to do with petition.
As you say, and as Rove's words make clear, your claim is right after 9/11 liberals wanted no war, no action against al-Quida. So questions:
true or false - 534 Congressmen/women voted to authorize a war on terror, including the invasion of Afghanistan? true or false - two weeks after 9/11, polls consistently found 85% of liberals supportive of war against terrorists, and 75% of liberals saying we were at war. If you admit the truth of these statements, then you are lying when you say liberals did NOT support war after 9/11.
3) You ignore Rove's other paragraph in which he claims that "...the motives" of liberals are clear - to get America's servicemen and women killed! That is the talk of a piece of pondscum! Roughly half of all enlisted men are Democrats, at about half of them consider themselves liberals. Indeed, the state that has lost the most men in Iraq is California, perhaps the most liberal of states. Also in the top 10 are Massachusetts and New York, and Illinois. Are they all just suicidal? Rove is typical of todays chickenhawk conservative - attack the patriotism and Americanism of even American servicemen if its gets your base fired up to give you another Stepford "Amen"!

Zoomie, there's this thing called the "paragraph break." You do it in comments in blogs like these by hitting the "enter" key twice. It's easy if you try.