Hypocrisy Watch

NOTE: This post was written at approximately 11 AM

UPDATE: You might want to start some discussion on this post, because I'm going to be doing filmmaker-type things for most of the weekend.

Okay, for some reason, I can't get to my blog right now, so I'm writing this post with TextEdit. Because I'm dedicated to delivering semi-intelligent commentary as often as possible, even if I can't put it online right away.

Anyway, this is related to the letters I posted about earlier. It seems our friends at the New York Times, along with their sycophants readers, are engaging in blatant hypocrisy about the use of terror threats as a political tool. This is going to be a long post, but I don't have to be anywhere for the next 3 hours, so...why not?

First, we have this editorial from today's opinion page. It's anonymous, of course. Just like most of the media's sources:

Chiller Theater

As the election draws near, the Bush campaign grows ever more irresponsible in its effort to scare Americans into believing that voting for John Kerry will bring on another terrorist attack. In Ohio on Tuesday, Vice President Dick Cheney said Mr. Kerry was incapable of understanding, much less acting on, the specter of terrorists' creeping into our cities with nuclear bombs "to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans."

Is this not legitimate criticism? It seems pretty irresponsible to claim that questioning John Kerry's understanding of terrorism is the same as telling people that his election will lead to an attack, but in any case, why shouldn't Cheney say something like this? If Senator F**kup hasn't demonstrated that he can win the War on Terror, someone should point it out.

Attorney General John Ashcroft was back in Washington, meanwhile, suggesting that God had spared America from an attack since 9/11 because President Bush's team was assisting "the hand of Providence."

Way to use out-of-context half-quotes to support your stereotype of Ashcroft as a fundamentalist zealot. Very clever.

Politicians like to tell scary tales about their opponents; the Republicans have been complaining that Mr. Kerry keeps accusing Mr. Bush of secretly planning to reinstate the draft.

Probably because Kerry has done that, you idiot.

But what the Bush campaign is doing is far more serious and can't be dismissed as a particularly ridiculous bit of political theater.

"Mommy, the mean Republicans are fighting back! That's not fair!"

The Republicans' habit of suggesting that a vote for Mr. Kerry is a vote for the terrorists - a notion that drew an embarrassing endorsement from President Vladimir Putin this week - is a reminder of the reckless way this administration has squandered the public trust on public safety.

Show me one instance of anybody in the administration saying that "a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism," and maybe I'll take you seriously. But I already know you won't be able to.

Mr. Ashcroft and Tom Ridge, the secretary of Homeland Security, have turned the business of keeping Americans informed about the threat of terrorism into a politically scripted series of color-coded scare sessions.

Why don't you just come out and say "Republicans can't do anything right?" It's ridiculous and naïve to write off all terror warnings as political tools. As we'll see a little later, it's also hypocritical.

And Mr. Cheney is even more discredited.

NOTE: "Discredited" means "we don't agree with him." You have to keep in mind that liberals see their opinions as the truth, and all other opinions as lies.

The vice president hyped the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction long after it had been debunked within the government.

John Kerry "hyped" the same intelligence at the same time, but I don't see you tearing him apart for it.

He still draws a fictional link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda...

News flash: There was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Even the 9/11 Witch Hunt admitted as much.

...and he was the first major figure in Mr. Bush's campaign to turn the fearmongering about Mr. Kerry into a campaign staple.

NOTE #2: "Fearmongering" means "saying bad things about Democrats."

There is a real danger in having leaders so lacking in credibility on this vital issue: if they ever deliver a real warning, it could be discounted by a large segment of the population, and that could really put hundreds of thousands of lives at risk.

Here's a great example of hypocrisy: The author decides early on that any terror warning is just "fearmongering," then claims that a "real" warning would be discounted because of the administration's lack of credibility.

Here's something to think about, @sshat: If people don't believe a "real" warning to be genuine, maybe it's because of self-righteous pricks like you who refuse to accept anything a Republican says.

We don't need Mr. Cheney to tell us what everyone, including Mr. Kerry, already knows: the threat of terrorism is real, including from nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and defending against it is the government's gravest responsibility.

So why, exactly, is it wrong for Cheney to point out Kerry's weakness in that area? Oh, right, because it might make people vote for Bush, and Bush is t3h 3v1L.

Part of that responsibility lies in taking action.

Do I even need to point out the irony here?

Although Mr. Bush is running largely on this issue, his administration has not provided enough money for important security programs like safeguarding the nation's ports. And it has squandered resources on half-baked cases against people who posed no real threat and on a war in Iraq that has actually increased the risk of terrorism.

WAIT JUST A FOTHERMUCKING MINUTE, YOU SON OF A BIRCH!

You just spent several paragraphs claiming that Vice President Cheney isn't allowed to suggest that a Kerry presidency will make us less safe, then you claimed that President Bush has made us less safe (using the standard Kerry talking points, no less).

...How can they not see the hypocrisy? How can they be so ignorant? HOW?!

But another big part of the government's role is to maintain the highest possible level of credibility. Turning our fears about a terrorist attack into just another campaign commercial undermines this trust and make us all more vulnerable.

There it is again! "Telling people that Kerry would make us more vulnerable to terrorism is wrong, because it makes us more vulnerable to terrorism." What a load of crap.

There's even more where that came from. Click the extended entry...

Like I said earlier, the letters contain this same idea. Allow me to quote a few:

Letter #1

With heightened security alerts at calculated intervals that render ordinary citizens powerless, and the Bush administration's suggestion that there might be another, deadlier terrorist attack, many people will vote for Mr. Bush out of sheer panic.

There's that "pre-set terror warnings" meme again. I'm starting to think that all liberals share a single brain located somewhere in California. On another note, how do the warnings "render ordinary citizens powerless" if ordinary citizens are constantly writing asinine letters complaining about them? I guess our intellectual superiors on the left don't consider themselves "ordinary citizens."

Letter #2

The Bush-Cheney campaign has offered nothing but fearmongering for this entire election season.

Whereas their critics have offered nothing but hyperbole.

Letter #3

William Safire was correct to point out that the Kerry campaign is using scare tactics to sway voters. But he was only half right, because the Bush campaign is doing exactly the same thing.

For example, the day before Mr. Safire's column was published, Dick Cheney once again conjured the specter of nuclear terrorism to frighten people out of voting for John Kerry. The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not that one candidate engages in more fearmongering than the other. Sadly, terrorists have successfully terrorized us, and we are therefore not winning the struggle against them.

Notice, again, the fact that they see no problem claiming that we're less safe. It's only bad when people suggest that Kerry wouldn't help.

Letter #4

Since 9/11, Mr. Bush and company have used scare tactics to remind Americans of the terrible times we live in, presumably not because we've all forgotten, but because Mr. Bush believes that this is the way to win votes on Election Day.

Remember the continuous heightening and lowering of the terror alert? What about Tom Ridge's news conferences, from which Americans learned nothing besides the message: Be scared, but not too scared because President Bush will protect you?

Once again, we have an example of someone who doesn't believe the warnings to be real, but still thinks they're scaring people into voting for Bush. This is ridiculous.

Now, I want to address one more topic: The fearless liberal crusaders for truth have been strangely silent when people on their side have made claims that go beyond anything Cheney or the rest of the administration have said. You want examples? Keep reading.

John Kerry, in the first presidential debate:

Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he's been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea's gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide. The world is more dangerous. I'd have made a better choice.

Where were these useful idiots when Kerry was blaming Bush for terrorist threats? He hasn't just questioned Bush's ability to lead; He flat-out suggested that Bush has caused terrorism to prosper. Is that not a more serious offense?

What else can Google come up with? Oh, here's a good one: Kerry in the second debate:

This president rushed to war, pushed our allies aside. And Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin Laden.

Once again, Senator F**kup said that Bush has actually put us at risk, and the media said nothing.

Kerry's running mate isn't much better. Take, for example, a quote from the vice-presidential debate:

The vice president just said that we should focus on state sponsors of terrorism. Iran has moved forward with its nuclear weapons program. They're more dangerous today than they were four years ago. North Korea has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program, gone from one to two nuclear weapons to six to eight nuclear weapons. This vice president has been an advocate for over a decade for lifting sanctions against Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet.

Hmmm...not only does he claim that Iran is more dangerous; He blames Cheney for it. And yet, it's still wrong for Cheney to say that Kerry would make us less secure. Interesting...

What's that? You say there's more? How about Senator Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy (the conservative senator from Massachusetts) in his speech to the DNC:

Instead of making America more secure, they have made us less so. They have made it harder to win the real war on terrorism, the war against Al Qaeda.

Yet again, a Democrat accused Bush of making us less safe, and the left was silent. Aren't double standards fun?

But wait a minute, there's even more! Ladies and gentlemen, presenting Al Gore:

...instead of making it better, [Bush] has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies...The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States.

That seems like the most forceful quote yet. But...the left said nothing.

I think I have a perfect idea for the new Democratic Party slogan:

Democrats: We have no problem with fearmongering, as long as it helps our guy win.

F**king morons.

Posted by CD on October 21, 2004 09:58 PM
Category: Fiskings