The New York Times letters to the editor continue to amaze me with their sheer stupidity. Don't believe me? Then check out a few from this section, entitled "Bush vs. Kerry: The Security Front." First, we have this brilliant analysis:
Paul Krugman is right...
By using that phrase, the author has already undermined his credibility, but I'll continue anyway...
...that the Kerry campaign must shed its timidity.
This is what I was talking about in my last post. For some reason, Democrats seem to see themselves as a bunch of scared little sheep who can't stand up to the evil Right Wing Attack Squad.
Many of us Democrats are becoming dismayed. The Kerry campaign seems timid, unable to address the wreckage that Bush & Company have made of our standing and respect in the world, and consequently of our security both as citizens and as a nation.
Maybe because you can't fully address something that can't be proven, i.e. an opinion. Which is what you just gave. In case you weren't aware of that. You were aware of that, right? Anyway...
That John Kerry and his advisers don't recognize the immense opportunity to rally citizens from all walks of life - both liberal and conservative - to salvage an increasingly disastrous and irreversible situation is itself evidence that politics in our democracy has lost its footing.
First of all, some of us don't see an "increasingly disastrous and irreversible situation." Second, Kerry's lack of substance is evidence that Kerry is an idiot, not that politics has lost its footing.
I'm just getting warmed up, by the way. The good stuff is in the extended entry.
The next 2 letters I want to cover contain blatant lies, but since they sound so good to leftists, I guess the NYT decided they were worthy of inclusion. Check it out:
The Kerry campaign should heed Paul Krugman's sound advice and jump all over George W. Bush's self-proclaimed progress on national security.
What? How dare you suggest that Kerry question Bush's patriotism! What kind of monster are you?
Karl Rove demonstrates the effectiveness of attacking an opponent's strength rather than his weakness, most recently in the disgraceful assault on John Kerry's Vietnam War record.
What? Where? Did I miss something? Bueller?
Maybe I've just been brainwashed by the VRWC, but I do believe that Bush and his party have consistently expressed appreciation for Kerry's service, and Bush himself said that Kerry was more heroic for going to Vietnam. When did the "assault on John Kerry's Vietnam War record" take place? The only thing I can think of is Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an independent group that Bush has avoided associating himself with. That would be like me claiming that Kerry compared Bush to Hitler because MoveOn.org did.
Why not expose George Bush's supposed strength, his leadership in the "war on terror,'' for the sham that it is?
Why do people not realize that opinions and facts are different things? You can't "expose" something just because you happen to see it a certain way. You have to provide evidence.
The perception that this administration's domestic and foreign policies have made America safer is a carefully constructed delusion.
There it is again! They're always saying that Bush has gained support through trickery. It couldn't be because some people, you know, agree with his policies. That wouldn't fit the enlightened liberal perspective.
John Kerry should use the facts to discredit it - forcefully.
"The facts." So you're saying there are some? Interesting how you didn't include any in your letter.
One more, and then I have stuff and things to do in the real world...
I strongly agree with Paul Krugman that John Kerry should counterattack George W. Bush on national security and is justified in doing so.
Yeah, too bad "I was in Vietnam" isn't a counterattack.
Nothing that has occurred since this administration ordered the pre-emptive strikes in Iraq has made our country safer.
Oh, I completely agree with you. We were a lot safer with Saddam in power. And all those dead terrorists? They had nothing against us. In fact, they might come back from the grave and haunt our dreams! How dare you, Dubya! How dare you!
On the contrary, hundreds of young men and women have died since President Bush's "Mission Accomplished'' announcement;
Except Bush never announced "mission accomplished." And if you know a way to fight a war with no casualties, you really shouldn't be keeping it to yourself like this.
...no enemy has been defeated;
I can't make sense of that statement unless this is one of the people who view Bush as the only real enemy.
...and many more threats to American lives, both in this country and abroad, have been identified.
Such as...?
These conclusions have the virtue of being self-evident.
We're certainly sure of ourselves, aren't we? That must be some good Kool-Aid.
This is not the time to fear the truth in the political context. Real lives are at stake, as is the way of life in more than one country.
Which is why we should re-elect Bush.
Okay, back to work.
Posted by CD on September 16, 2004 11:15 AM