I didn't watch President Bush's speech last night, but I did read a transcript, and after seeing a few positive reviews, I decided to watch a video.
Dude...who was that guy behind the microphone? He looked like Dubya...but he was actually speaking well! I'm impressed. Aside from the usual "nucular" issue, this was one of his best speeches. The message and the delivery were both very effective.
Unfortunately, our friends at the New York Times have decided that he didn't really say anything important, and that Iraq is still a QUAAAAAAAAGMIIIIIIIIRE!!!! Check out this asshatted editorial:
President Bush's Speech About Iraq
President Bush told the nation last night that the war in Iraq was difficult but winnable. Only the first is clearly true.
Of course, if your view of the world is clouded by irrational Bush hatred.
Despite buoyant cheerleading by administration officials...
I can almost taste the immaturity that inspired that statement.
...the military situation is at best unimproved.
Seriously, how can they get away with this level of asininity? Are they incapable of seeing any positive effects of the war? What is it going to take to please you people? I want answers!!!
The Iraqi Army, despite Mr. Bush's optimistic descriptions, shows no signs of being able to control the country without American help for years to come.
At the current level of training, that may be true. But as more of the country is secured and more time can be devoted to preparing them to defend themselves, the situation should improve. But in order to admit this, you'd have to accept the fact that the military is actually accomplishing something.
There are not enough American soldiers to carry out the job they have been sent to do...
Let's see here...who should I believe? An anonymous newspaper editor, or the military commanders who are actually in Iraq? It's such a tough decision.
...yet the strain of maintaining even this inadequate force is taking a terrible toll on the ability of the United States to defend its security on other fronts around the world.
Such as...? It's not like every single U.S. troop in the world is occupied right now.
We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war...
Since he wasn't responsible for that misinformation, I don't know why he should have to.
...or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation.
Once again, notice the complete lack of examples. They do this so people who already agree with them can insert some event that fits their perception of a "catastrophe," and people who disagree won't have any factual information to work with. It's brilliant in an illogical kind of way.
But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.
Unbelievable. You idiots still don't get it. The War on Terror is not about revenge. It's about preventing another 9/11 from happening. If war was just about retaliation, we wouldn't have fought Germany in WWII. If you had actually listened to Bush's speech, maybe you would understand how replacing totalitarian dictators with democratically elected leaders helps stop terrorism. But that would require you to think, and if you could do that, you wouldn't be liberal.
We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.
Let's go to the transcript and illustrate your mind-boggling ignorance:
A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition's goal in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend, a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government; we would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005; we would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation's infrastructure and economy; we would encourage more international support for Iraq's democratic transition; and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.
And a bit later:
The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.
Is that enough for you, you pretentious pricks?
Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking.
A "fact" that I just disproved, incidentally.
He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq.
They're doing a pretty good job so far. Unless you people actually take my "the war won't be a success until Iraq has a space program" joke seriously.
Given the way this war was planned and executed, the president does not have any good options available...
...and if American forces were withdrawn, Iraq would probably sink into a civil war that would create large stretches of no man's land where private militias and stateless terrorists could operate with impunity.
Which is why Bush specifically said that American forces won't be pulled out until they're no longer needed. What were you saying earlier about answering questions nobody asked?
But if Mr. Bush is intent on staying the course, it will take years before the Iraqi government and its military are able to stand on their own.
Oh, is that the problem? Well, then let's just tell Dubya to push the magical "make Iraq a successful democracy in an instant" button! All those mean insurgents will just disappear, and Iraq will be a land of fairies and butterflies and enchanted pink unicorns that crap out pieces of delicious candy.
...Do I really need to add the sarcasm tags?
Most important of all - despite his lofty assurance last night that in the end the insurgents "cannot stop the advance of freedom" - all those years of effort and suffering could still end with the Iraqis turning on each other, or deciding that the American troops were the ultimate enemy after all.
Yes, and it could also end with everyone suddenly bursting into song and dance, but that probably won't happen. Aren't hypothetical scenarios fun?
The critical challenge is to gauge, with a clear head, exactly when and if the tipping point arrives and the American presence is only making a terrible situation worse.
At this point, I'm almost convinced that the writer didn't even read a summary of Bush's speech, because I'm pretty sure he covered this.
Mr. Bush has been under pressure, even from some Republicans, to come up with a timeline for an exit.
And he explained why that would be a terrible idea.
It makes no sense to encourage the insurrectionists...
What happened? Is "insurgents" no longer P.C.?
...by telling them that if their suicide bombers continue to blow themselves up at the current rate, the Americans will be leaving in six months or a year. It is Iraq's elected officials, who desperately need an American presence, who have to be told that Washington's support isn't open-ended.
And this differs from current policy...how, exactly?
The elected government is the only hope, but its current performance is far from promising. While the support of the Shiite's powerful Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani for the democratic elections was heartening, the Shiite majority in Parliament is mainly composed of religious parties competing to demonstrate that they have the ayatollah's ear. The Kurds continue to put broader national interests behind their own goal of an autonomous ministate that would include the oil fields of Kirkuk. The Sunnis, who boycotted the election, are only now being brought into the constitution-writing effort and so far have made no real effort to mobilize against the terrorists in their midst.
Once again, we see the writer taking the position that just because something hasn't happened yet, it never will. I think the whole "Sunnis participating in the constitutional process" thing indicates that progress is being made. Once again, there is no magical button that will make this stuff happen instantly. Considering the fact that Iraq was a dictatorship for decades, it's amazing that they're moving forward this fast. But of course, if the eeeeeeevil Republicans are responsible for it, it can't be good.
Pressure from the Bush administration for the government to do better has increased since the State Department took control of Iraq policy from the Pentagon. But there is much more to do, and the president needed to show the American people that he is not giving the Iraqi politicians a blank check to fritter away their opportunities.
Once they have a working constitution, I'm sure they'll have a better idea of what they're supposed to do.
Listening to Mr. Bush offer the usual emotional rhetoric about the advance of freedom and the sacrifice of American soldiers, our thoughts went back to some of the letters we received in anticipation of the speech. One was from the brother of a fallen Marine, who said he did not want Mr. Bush to say the war should continue in order to keep faith with the men and women who have died fighting it. "We do not need more justifications for the war. We need an effective strategy to win it," he wrote.
Well, mission accomplished.
Another letter came from an opponent of the invasion who urged the American left to "get over its anger over President Bush's catastrophic blunder" and start trying to figure out how to win the conflict that exists.
What is this mysterious "catastrophe" they keep referring to? Man, I'm glad I don't live in that liberal fantasy world. It seems like a dark and scary place.
No one wants a disaster in Iraq...
...and Mr. Bush's critics can put aside, at least temporarily, their anger at the administration for its hubris...
I believe that in less touchy-feely circles, it's known as "confidence."
...its terrible planning...
"The troops actually had to fight! We're doooooooomed!!!"
...and its inept conduct of the war...
Yet another accusation that's only valid if you already agree with the person making it. Brilliant.
...in return for a frank discussion of where to go from here.
But unfortunately, they're too busy holding mock impeachment hearings and calling the troops Nazis.
The president, who is going to be in office for another three and a half years...
...cannot continue to obsess about self-justification and the need to color Iraq with the memory of 9/11.
Why should he, when he could just pretend 9/11 never happened like you morons?
The nation does not want it and cannot afford it.
If by "the nation," you mean "the editorial staff of a liberal paper," then you may be right. Otherwise, you need to stop acting like you speak for anyone but yourselves.
Man, it's been a long time since I did this. However, some of today's NYT letters need to be made fun of. Let's get started with letter #1:
To the Editor:
Re "Staying What Course?," by Paul Krugman (column, May 16):
The British and the American governments lied to their people and the world about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq.
Notice the subtle moving of the goalposts? Apparently, the "lies" were now about the reasons for going to war, rather than the existence of WMD. Interesting. And I have yet to see proof that there were any "lies" in either area. As usual, keep in mind that to liberals, lies = disagreement.
Because of these lies...
WHAT? FUCKING? LIES? I don't know about you, but where I come from, arguments need to be supported with proof. You vague son of a bitch.
...Have I mentioned how much I enjoy blogging uncensored?
...more than 1,600 American service members have died, thousands have been maimed or wounded, countless Iraqis have died, and a large portion of Iraq has been reduced to rubble.
Yes, bad things tend to happen in wars. I'm sure the 50 million people who have been freed thanks to Bush's so-called "lies" would appreciate your lack of vision.
Mr. Krugman asks, "So what's the plan?"
Because Mr. Kr
azyugman is willfully ignorant.
The answer is obvious: the people who started this war under what have been revealed as false pretenses...
I think there's some sort of "false pretenses" quota for these talking points they pass off as letters to the editor. Oh, and by the way...
EXAMPLES, ASSHAT! WHERE ARE THEY?!
...should be held accountable for their actions...
They were re-elected, weren't they? That seems like a way to hold them accountable. Heh heh.
...and should not be permitted to bomb one more Iraqi village...
And once again, we get a glimpse of the scary liberal fantasy world, where all military actions involve indiscriminately dropping tons of bombs on poor, innocent foreigners. All those guys on the ground are there for a reason, dumbass.
...or send another American to his or her death.
Have you noticed the large guns most of them have, genius? They're being sent to kill terrorists, not sacrifice themselves. Yet another important aspect of the liberal fantasy world is the idea of American soldiers marching straight to their doom with no way to fight back. Except for when the soldiers are thoughtless rednecks who want to torture brown people. It changes depending on how heavily medicated the liberal in question is at the time. Or something.
An immediate pullout is the only way to achieve some semblance of respect for our disingenuous and increasingly dangerous foreign policy.
Yes, because leaving Iraq to the terrorists before we finish the job would really make us look good to the rest of the world. And it wouldn't embolden other terrorists, either *cough*Mogadishu*cough*.
There's more in the extended entry, if you're into that kind of thing...
To the Editor:
There seems to be a special kind of irrational fury that overwhelms the leaders of powerful countries when they find their militaries bogged down in foreign wars.
Is it anything like the irrational fury that overwhelms liberals when they don't get their way?
They become unable to accept the possibility that an indigenous resistance movement might have the determination and capacity to prevail against occupiers who have vastly superior weaponry.
When they're capable of killing dozens of the enemy while only suffering a couple casualties, it seems kind of logical to assume that victory is in sight.
Incidentally, I find it funny that the so-called "indigenous resistance movement" is composed largely of terrorists from outside Iraq.
This stubborn refusal to accept the obvious afflicted the French government in both Indochina and Algeria.
Dude...they're the French. Who gives a fuck?
It afflicted the Russians as they were bled year after year in Afghanistan.
Have you not noticed how well Afghanistan has gone?
It afflicted the United States in Vietnam.
No, what afflicted the United States in Vietnam was a government unwilling to take on the enemy with all its resources for fear of upsetting the other Communists.
And it may be what we see in the current administration as it confronts the chaos in Iraq.
You mean the "chaos" that has resulted in a successful election and the rebuilding of a country formerly controlled by a murderous dictator? You have awfully high standards of order.
History offers little comfort to those blinded by such stubborn arrogance.
Case in point: Your asinine letter.
To the Editor:
Paul Krugman gets it right in his explanation of how we got into the war in Iraq and how it is destroying the United States as well as the lives of the Iraqi people.
Uh, just a suggestion...never start any letter with the phrase "Paul Krugman gets it right." It immediately destroys what little credibility you may have had to begin with.
He even seems to understand the parallels between the war in Iraq and the Vietnam War...
Hmmm...both of them were wars...fought by the United States against a foreign enemy...holy crap! It's like they're the exact same thing!!!11!!
(Yes, I know that was a straw man argument. I don't care.)
...but then he goes on to make the same mistake that was made by pundits about Vietnam. He says, "I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself."
Have we not done that already? Even Rumsfeld has said that the "exit strategy" is to get the job done.
No matter when we get out of Iraq - tomorrow, or a year from tomorrow - terrible scenes will unfold.
Especially if it's tomorrow, since as soon as we're gone, a bunch of jihadis will take over and impose an Islamic dictatorship. But hey, at least they won't be eeeeeevil Americans, right?
What is the justification for staying one additional day? How can we permit one more soldier to die; how can we permit one more Iraqi to die?
If you have to ask that question, it's obviously not going to do any good to explain it.
Seriously...just...what is it with these idiots? Why are they incapable of seeing the positive side of the war? What happened to that famous empathy that liberals always claim to have? What happened to humanitarianism?
It's been two years, and I still don't get it. I don't think it's possible to understand without getting inside the mind of a liberal. And frankly, I think I would get crushed to death if I tried to fit into a space that small.
There's an interesting article/opinion piece in today's Daily Orange that illustrates the mindset of the liberal "activist" fairly well. Check it out:
Students protest inauguration with music, hope
The morning after the presidential election last November, I cried, screamed and finally became numb to the insane amount of disappointment, anger and sincere distraught of Bush's re-election.
I noticed a lot of this. All the liberals were acting like their parents had just died or something. This is the first characteristic common to them: Being way too emotional about politics. Seriously, if Kerry had won, I would've been upset, but I wouldn't have let it ruin my friggin' day. These people need to stop being so melodramatic (this is part of the Grand Theory of Leftism, which will be posted when I find the time to finish it).
Yes, he was re-elected fair and square - as far as I know. I admit it.
Planting tiny seeds of doubt won't change it, you know.
But on the eve of his inauguration last Thursday, I decided to join hundreds of other Bush foes from across the nation in Washington, D.C. We planned to gather and march in protest of his anti-environment, anti-reproductive rights, anti-gay, pro-war policies.
"Hundreds...from across the nation." Wow, sounds like quite a turnout...*stifled laughter*...
Anyway, we're about to see another problem: The belief that making noise and generally acting silly will lead to change. These morons actually thought they would make a difference by disrupting a formal event that was going to take place no matter what they did. I really don't understand it, but let's see if we can get some insight..
After some last minute scrambling, my friend and I bummed a ride at about 1:30 a.m. on Friday with a Syracuse University student who was headed down there. Our friends here told us it was pointless to go. Why bother protesting an elected president? What would it prove? And why risk getting stranded on the highway in the blinding snow?
Well, if you were inclined to make logical decisions, you wouldn't be a moonbat, so I guess those problems didn't factor into the final decision. Protesting Bushchimpler™ is worth it!!!
I recognized their points...
Could've fooled me.
...and almost decided to stay in Syracuse.
See my above comments.
But for a reason I couldn't pin down, I felt a burning need to go.
It's called "paranoid schizophrenia," and it can be treated by a qualified professional.
So we ignored our critics...
Hey, sounds a lot like what Bush did.
...and left. We arrived in the capital around 9:30 a.m., and we made our way to our meet-up point with a crowd of protestors. They milled around in an incredible jumble of color and anti-Bush paraphernalia, signs, shirts and stickers.
"It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
...Sorry. I was feeling very Shakespearean after reading that last part.
We couldn't stop craning our necks, pointing to the phrases that pleased us the most.
Now, we begin to see another problem: They're enjoying it. Looking for "phrases that [please them] the most." At one point in history, protesting was the only way oppressed people could bring their grievances before their leaders. Today, it has devolved into a way for stupid people to gather together with other stupid people and engage in a festival of self-congratulation and revelry. Ladies and gentlemen, the human race is doomed.
Some people took the makeshift stage set up on some rocks near the side of the park, and revved up the audience with their words. We found other Syracuse-area residents who had made their way down on two buses that were chartered from Binghamton.
Once again, note that they're talking not to Bush, but to each other. They're just doing this to feel good about themselves, because they know it won't change anything. Did it ever occur to them that if they need to seek constant validation of their beliefs, they might be wrong?
About half an hour later we joined the protestors' march as it passed by the park. A small crowd was pounding some homemade drums and shaking homemade maracas. People began chanting, clapping, whistling and dancing.
Oh yeah, that'll show the evil Chimperor what the people think. He's such a horrible president that he's caused them to break out in public displays of song and dance That b@stard.
In the middle of my hopping and shaking...
Once again: PROTESTS. AREN'T. SUPPOSED. TO. BE. FUN. You people are a huge joke, and you're too dumb to realize that we're all laughing at your expense.
...one woman thrust an empty water bottle filled with pebbles into my hands. "Do you need a shaker?" she asked. I took it and found an unreasonable amount of glee in joining the completely spontaneous, beautiful ruckus.
I don't think something planned in advance using buses and pre-determined meeting points really counts as "completely spontaneous," but once again, logic doesn't seem to matter to neolibs. If it felt spontaneous, it obviously must have been.
We marched, and the crowd stretched on and on. People in costumes, masks, bandannas, adorned with more and more signs, surrounded me.
Look, children, it's the circus!
I joined in the chants, "Welfare, not warfare..."
I guess they don't have a problem with class warfare.
...and "This is what democracy looks like."
If this was referring to the inauguration, then I guess it was true.
The sun emerged, bathing us all in the warm glow.
"...but we didn't need to cover our eyes, because we'd already been blinded by ideology."
For people who were so miserable about the president, his election and his policies, we were a happy crowd.
So...if Bush being president somehow makes you happy...shouldn't you be supporting him? Hey, it makes just as much sense as most of the crazy crap you believe.
We marched not because we thought the election was rigged or inaccurate. The result of that democratic process we grudgingly accept. We marched because we have the right to peacefully gather and demonstrate our great discontent - a democratic process we passionately embrace.
If you were demonstrating your discontent, then WHY THE EVERLOVING F**K WERE YOU ACTING HAPPY?! "Let's melt their icy hearts with our smiles!"
We marched to remind Mr. Bush that almost half of America is not happy with his actions and his decisions, and that he represents our views as well.
Since the only "view" you seem to have is "Bush is bad," I kind of doubt he shares it.
And we marched to remind ourselves, and those who share our views, that...
"...we might be wrong, but at least we can have fun!"
...we still have the ability to hope and work for a better America - especially in the next four years.
Right. By dancing, wearing random costumes, making semi-literate signs, and shaking bottles full of rocks. Good luck with that.
I know I'm kind of mutilating a beaten horse here, but I really want to get back to the problem of protestors acting happy. What's the deal? I noticed the same thing with a lot of anti-war protests: Many of the participants in these things are smiling, dancing, and generally having a good time.
Take a look at some of these pictures. Do they look serious to you? It seems to me that the only reason they assemble is to be around people who share their views, and they really don't care if it accomplishes anything.
I guess that's more important to liberals than change. After all, making a difference might involve work.
I've been wanting to fisk an editorial in today's New York Times since last night/this morning, but I kept getting distracted by...well, everything. Stupid ADD.
Anyway, I finally decided to give it a shot. It's by Orlando Patterson, "a professor of sociology at Harvard," so you pretty much know that it's going to be full of moonbatty goodness. Let's take a look:
The Speech Misheard Round the World
Since 9/11, President Bush and his advisers have engaged in a series of arguments concerning the relation between freedom, tyranny and terrorism. The president's inaugural paean to freedom was the culmination of these arguments.
The stratagem began immediately after 9/11 with the president's claims that the terrorist attacks were a deliberate assault on America's freedom.
Last time I checked, killing someone counted as threatening their freedom.
The next stage of the argument came after no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq...
Other than sarin and mustard gas.
...thus eliminating the reason for the war...
Did you forget about violated U.N. resolutions, defiance of weapons inspectors, nuclear ambitions, aggression against other countries, support of terrorists and terrorist organizations, state-sanctioned rape and murder, and various other crimes against humanity, or are you just too lazy to build a decent straw man?
...and it took the form of a bogus syllogism: all terrorists are tyrants who hate freedom.
Oh, there's the straw man. Nice. Look, I'm sorry that your underdeveloped moonbat mind is too weak to comprehend anything more than a basic summary of any given idea, but at least try to make it sound like you're listening to Bush's speeches, okay?
It's not that all terrorists are "tyrants who hate freedom." The idea is that all terrorists are murderers who threaten the security of the U.S. and other countries, and therefore should be killed and/or brought to justice. However, as we'll see soon enough, many of them actually do hate freedom.
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who hates freedom.
Not anymore. Now he's a prisoner who stands accused of numerous crimes against the Iraqi people and the world. Heh heh.
Therefore Saddam Hussein is a terrorist whose downfall was a victory in the war against terrorism.
You don't get it, do you? The problem wasn't that Saddam was a terrorist himself (although that certainly is true). The problem was his ability to give financial aid and weapons to terrorists, who would then use them against us, as well as his influence on the continuing violence in the Middle East. I guess "nuance" isn't in style anymore, since it apparently all boils down to whether or not Saddam had stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
When this bogus syllogism began to lose public appeal...
I wonder how it did that, considering it was never made in the first place by anyone other than people like you.
...it was shored up with another flawed argument that was repeated during the campaign: tyranny breeds terrorism.
If you look at the countries the terrorists are coming from, I believe you'll find some truth in that "flawed argument."
Freedom is opposed to tyranny. Therefore the promotion of freedom is the best means of fighting terrorism.
Once again, compare the number of terrorists being supported by tyrannical regimes to the number being supported by democratic regimes. I think you'll notice quite a difference.
Promoting freedom, of course, is a noble and highly desirable pursuit. If America were to make the global diffusion of freedom a central pillar of its foreign policy, it would be cause for joy.
"If?" "IF?!" This should be good.
The way the present administration has gone about this task, however, is likely to have the opposite effect.
Tell that to all the people who voted in Afghanistan.
Moreover, what the president means by freedom may get lost in translation to the rest of the world.
Especially if it keeps getting filtered through and distorted by the MSM.
The administration's notion of freedom has been especially convenient, and its promotion of it especially cynical.
I'm always amazed at the use of the word "cynical" to describe Bush's policies. If anything, they're overly idealistic, which would be the opposite of cynicism. But I guess the heroic liberal elites don't want to associate idealism with Republicans. It might make it harder to pretend that they have ideas.
In the first place, there is no evidence to support, and no good reason to believe, that Al Qaeda's attack on America was primarily motivated by a hatred of freedom. Osama bin Laden is clearly no lover of freedom, but this is an irrelevance. The attack on America was motivated by religious and cultural fanaticism.
Let's think about this for a few seconds. Osama bin Laden is a Muslim extremist, as are most of the terrorists we're fighting right now. They believe that the entire world should be Muslim, and that all who refuse are infidels who should be killed in a jihad. "Islam" means "submission," which is the opposite of freedom. They hate us because we refuse to submit. Therefore, they do, in fact, hate freedom.
Second, while it may be implicitly true that all terrorists are tyrants, it does not follow that all tyrants are terrorists.
However, the ones who kill hundreds of thousands of their own people, pay off suicide bombers, and invade neighboring countries tend to fall into that category.
The United States, of all nations, should know this. Over the past century it has supported a succession of tyrannical states with murderous records of oppression against their own people, none of which were terrorist states - Argentina and Brazil under military rule, Augusto Pinochet's Chile, South Africa under apartheid, to list but a few.
Once again, nuance apparently doesn't matter anymore. I'm not an expert on any of the above situations, but I'm pretty sure they weren't the same as Iraq.
Today, one of America's closest allies in the fight against tyranny is tyrannical Pakistan, and one of its biggest trading partners is the authoritarian Communist regime of China.
It's called "foreign policy." Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, we're trying to set an example for others while taking action against those who create conditions under which change is impossible, and those who are the greatest threat to national security? Every country isn't the freakin' same.
Third, while the goal of promoting democracy is laudable, there is no evidence that free states are less likely to breed terrorists.
...No comment. It just wouldn't be worth it.
Sadly, the very freedoms guaranteed under the rule of law are likely to shelter terrorists, especially within states making the transition from authoritarian to democratic rule. Transitional democratic states, like Russia today, are more violent than the authoritarian ones they replaced.
The key word there is "transitional." Once they actually reach the state of freedom, terrorism declines. And keep in mind that a truly free state punishes terrorists, rather than rewarding them as Saddam and the Taliban did.
And even advanced democratic regimes have been known to breed terrorists, the best example being the United States itself. For more than half a century a terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, flourished in this country. According to the F.B.I., three of every four terrorist acts in the United States from 1980 to 2000 were committed by Americans.
You're still missing the freakin' point: Free states do not approve of terrorism. Nobody has claimed that freedom eliminates terrorism completely, but in a free country, terrorists are more likely to be brought to justice, and less likely to be part of a culture that believes in murder as a way to achieve a goal. And I'll also mention, once again, that none of those acts were financed or rewarded by the U.S. government.
The president speaks eloquently and no doubt sincerely of freedom both abroad and at home. But it is plain for the world to see that there is a discrepancy between his words and his actions.
Unless "the world" means "leftist sociology professors," I kind of doubt that.
He claims that freedom must be chosen and defended by citizens, yet his administration is in the process of imposing democracy at the point of a gun in Iraq.
See, the problem is that the citizens of Iraq couldn't "choose" freedom under Saddam, because they would end up in a mass grave. The Iraqis are having elections soon, and then they'll get to choose their own way. The U.S. simply eliminated the thing that was keeping them from choosing freedom in the first place. And you're forgetting that a key part of Bush's philosophy is the idea that most human beings would choose freedom if given the choice, but other human beings, like Saddam Hussein, deny them that opportunity.
At home, he seeks to "make our society more prosperous and just and equal," yet during his first term there has been a great redistribution of income from working people to the wealthy...
Actually, there was a "redistribution of income" from the government back to the people who gave some of their income to the government in the first place.
...as well as declining real income and job security for many Americans.
And I'm sure it's all Bush's fault, right? It couldn't have had anything to do with that "recession" thing.
Furthermore, he has presided over the erosion of civil liberties stemming from the Patriot Act.
WHAT F**KING EROSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES, YOU PARANOID F**K?!
...Sorry. I just get really angry when people accuse Bush of taking away civil liberties and then provide...let's see here...no examples whatsoever to prove it.
Is this pure hypocrisy - or is there another explanation for the discrepancy, and for Mr. Bush's perplexing sincerity?
It could be that you're criticizing him for things he hasn't done, but that's just my opinion.
There is no gainsaying an element of hypocrisy here. But it is perhaps no greater than usual in speeches of this nature. The problem is that what the president means by freedom, and what the world hears when he says it, are not the same.
Once again, I find it odd that a sociology professor presumes to speak for the world in general.
In the 20th century two versions of freedom emerged in America. The modern liberal version emphasizes civil liberties, political participation and social justice. It is the version formally extolled by the federal government, debated by philosophers and taught in schools; it still informs the American judicial system. And it is the version most treasured by foreigners who struggle for freedom in their own countries.
Sounds an awful lot like what Bush is promoting.
But most ordinary Americans view freedom in quite different terms. In their minds, freedom has been radically privatized. Its most striking feature is what is left out: politics, civic participation and the celebration of traditional rights, for instance.
What? I'm confused here. Is he saying that these things have been taken away, or that nobody cares about them, or that they're no longer being defended...or...all of the above...?
Freedom is largely a personal matter having to do with relations with others and success in the world.
Which is fine in a nation that gives people freedom under the first definition.
Freedom, in this conception, means doing what one wants and getting one's way. It is measured in terms of one's independence and autonomy, on the one hand, and one's influence and power, on the other. It is experienced most powerfully in mobility - both socioeconomic and geographic.
It sounds like you're describing things like voting, free choice of career and education, etc. I still don't see why the two definitions are somehow mutually exclusive.
In many ways this is the triumph of the classic 19th-century version of freedom, the version that philosophers and historians preached but society never quite achieved. This 19th-century freedom must now coexist with the more modern version of freedom. It does so by acknowledging the latter but not necessarily including it.
It is not that Americans have rejected the formal model of freedom - ask any American if he believes in democracy and a free press and he will genuinely endorse both. Rather it is that such abstract notions of freedom are far removed from their notion of what freedom means and how it is experienced.
I see what you're trying to do! You're using a bunch of big words in the hopes that people will read it and assume that you're right without trying to figure out if those words actually mean anything! I'd hate to see the essay questions on your exams.
I still don't understand why we can't promote the first kind of freedom and let people discover the second kind once they're no longer being raped and killed by despots.
The genius of President Bush is that he has acquired an exquisite grasp of this development in American political culture, and he can play both versions of freedom to his advantage. Because he so easily empathizes with the ordinary American's privatized view of freedom, the president was relatively immune from criticism that he disregarded more traditional measures of freedom like civil liberties.
The fact that he hasn't threatened civil liberties could have something to do with that as well.
In the privatized conception of freedom that he and his followers share, the abuses of the Patriot Act play little or no part.
Once again, no examples at all. Look, Bush may walk around arbitrarily imprisoning and torturing Arabs and liberals in your fantasy world, but in the real world, the PATRIOT Act really hasn't changed much.
(There are times, of course, when the president must voice support for the modern liberal version of freedom. The inaugural is such a day, "prescribed by law and marked by ceremony," as he ruefully noted.)
I love the implication that Bush doesn't actually believe in that version of freedom, despite the fact that he's promoting it in a couple countries right now.
Yet while these inconsistencies...
WHAT inconsistencies? Did I miss some of your big, scary inta-ma-lectual words a couple paragraphs back?
...may not bother the president's followers or harm his standing in America...
...Especially since they don't exist anywhere but in the minds of moonbats.
...they matter to the rest of the world. Few foreigners are even aware of America's hybrid conception of freedom, much less accepting of it. In most of the rest of the world, the president's inaugural address was heard merely as hypocrisy.
Let's review: Because Bush supposedly doesn't believe in classical liberal freedom, it's not possible to bring it or any other kind of freedom to other countries, even though the entire argument to prove that he doesn't believe in freedom is supported only by hyperbole, rumors, and outright lies.
...Is it any wonder Republicans control the government? Holy crap.
For any neolibs reading this, allow me to summarize my view of what Bush is doing in foreign policy:
The United States has become the most powerful and prosperous country in the world by being the most free country in the world. Therefore, it stands to reason that if other countries were more free, they would be more prosperous as well, and the world would be safer. However, since some countries are controlled by murderous dictators who crush all dissent, it's necessary to eliminate them, often by force, in order to promote the freedom that leads to prosperity. In addition, because we were attacked on 9/11, we realized that being free doesn't make a country safe unless enough other countries are free that it's impossible for terrorists to get the support they need to commit mass murder against their fellow human beings. Due to these circumstances, we're engaged in a war to eliminate dictators, promote freedom, and make the world safer.
But that's just the way I see it.
Holy crap, is there anything the Bush administration doesn't get blamed for? Check out this ridiculous letter:
Re "Diet Guidelines Aren't Enough" (letters, Jan. 18):
Yes, we need policies that curb increased junk food consumption.
Here's an idea: DON'T EAT TOO MUCH JUNK FOOD. In the spirit of my last question, is there anything these children trapped in adult bodies won't run to the government for?
To move in this direction, we need leaders who will stand up to the Big Food lobby.
Apparently, there's an entire group of people dedicated to making Americans obese. Who knew?
The secretary of health and human services, Tommy Thompson, has called for individual responsibility.
How dare he suggest that people can think for themselves!!!
(OT: Tommy Thompson is a hilarious name)
This does not address a major component of the problem: food corporations contribute to the obesity epidemic with irresponsible practices like the aggressive promotion of junk food.
Because those corporations force feed their evil, yet delicious, products to unsuspecting citizens! Give me a break. If this "blame the manufacturer and pity the user" strategy failed to stop the production and sale of cigarettes, how do you expect to use it with food???
The Bush administration's unwillingness to take on the food industry is not surprising.
You see, they're busy dealing with this thing called "terrorism" right now. If you think coerced overeating is a more urgent issue, you may have watched Se7en one too many times.
Altria, which owns Kraft Foods, contributed to the inauguration, and the chief executive of Cargill, the food processor, was a big donor to the Bush re-election campaign.
And there you have it, folks. The reason Bush isn't standing up to the "food lobby" has nothing to do with the fact that it's a WASTE OF F**KING TIME. It's all because of his evil corporate cronies.
And then, there's this nauseating irony at the end:
The writer is executive director of Corporate Accountability International.
It's a bit strange that the director of "Corporate Accountability International" doesn't seem to have any understanding of individual accountability. Because blaming people for their own unhealthy eating habits would be wrong.
On the other hand, maybe I can pay for this semester's books if I sue the "food lobby" for making me overweight. Hmmm...
This NYT Letter is just odd:
In "Exit, Snarling" (editorial, Jan. 9), you mention that "The Daily Show" is "especially popular with young people."
I am 83 and make sure to stay up to 11 p.m. to hear my buddy Jon Stewart and his talented friends.
First of all, I doubt that Jon Stewart is your "buddy," but I'll let that slide.
He not only is a breath of fresh air but also makes me laugh out loud.
That's kinda his job.
We surely need more of that in this "scary" world President Bush has dumped us in so he can stay in power.
Why the quotes around "scary?" Is this author making a mockery of her own beliefs? In any case, the second half of this sentence is a bit ridiculous. Does this woman seriously think Bush is some sort of power-hungry despot whose only concern is staying in the White House and oppressing The People™? It never seems to occur to some liberals that maybe, just maybe, a lot of Americans agree with the president.
It is sad that we have to go to this "fake news" show to get the truth.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the root of the problem. If you believe everything you see on The Daily Show to be "the truth," you have some freakin' issues. Although Jon Stewart is probably more credible than CBS.
You know, I just realized that a few Democrats made colossal idiots of themselves yesterday, and I didn't blog about it. I will now remedy that situation.
Invoking rules that sometimes seem as quaint as quill pens, the House and Senate yesterday certified President Bush's reelection despite a rare objection, which was intended to spotlight voting irregularities in Ohio and elsewhere.
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) interrupted the ritual roll call of each state's "certificate of electoral votes" in a joint session of Congress, contending that Ohio's results were not "regularly given." The presiding officer, Vice President Cheney, followed constitutional guidelines and sent lawmakers to their respective chambers so that each house could debate the matter for two hours.
They just don't get it. Kerry conceded, the recounts only reduced Bush's lead by a couple hundredths of a percent, there was no credible evidence of intimidation or tampering, and they still won't let the election end. Pathetic.
The outcome was never in doubt. With Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) having long ago conceded Ohio and the Nov. 2 election, Boxer and Tubbs Jones said their only goal was to highlight Ohio's Election Day problems, which included long voting lines in several minority neighborhoods compared with short lines in affluent areas.
Oh no! Long lines! The horror! THE HORROR!!!
Give me a break. Why would you hold up a Constitutional procedure because of freakin' lines? I have to wait in line to get food at school, but I don't assume that the dining hall is trying to starve me. It just so happens that some places operate less efficiently than others. Deal with it. People who feel threatened because they have to wait in line to vote really shouldn't be voting, in my opinion.
Boxer told colleagues that Americans have fought for social, economic and criminal justice, and she said, "Now we must . . . fight for electoral justice."
You could start by not screwing with the certification process, moron.
On the House floor, Tubbs Jones said the objection was "the only immediate avenue to bring these causes to light."
That's funny, because I remember hearing about this crap even before it happened. Aren't self-fulfilling prophecies great?
Skip a few paragraphs...Aha! Here's more fun:
Earlier in the day, more than 100 protesters rallied in front of the White House to demand and, ultimately, celebrate Boxer's decision to join Tubbs Jones in protesting the Ohio vote.
Why do I get the feeling that some of those protesters didn't actually vote?
They gathered in Lafayette Park, where speakers including Jesse L. Jackson, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and former Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb portrayed the November election as having been compromised by error and fraud, and demanded that the Senate do something about it.
Because when people think honesty, they think "Jesse Jackson." Seriously, I understand concerns about poll workers not knowing how to do their jobs, but this "fraud" BS just needs to stop. If the Republicans really did steal the election, why would they do it in the exact way the Democrats said they would? Wouldn't the VRWC come up with something more creative? The moonbats were complaining about this stuff last freakin' year. If there really was a huge conspiracy to commit election fraud, they wouldn't have done it the way they've been accused of doing it since 2000. That's just poor planning.
"Some senators . . . have gone to Ukraine to investigate that election," Jackson said. "They've gone to Iraq. But not one has gone to Columbus, Ohio."
I was going to try and come up with a witty response to this, but...why bother? It fisks itself.
We also have this little nugget from National Review:
...a friend watching e-mails: "I just watched [Rep. Jon] Conyers on c-span praising Michael Moore as a truth teller."
B-b-b-b-b-but I thought Michael Moore was an extremist who had no influence whatsoever on national politics! Isn't that what liberals say every time someone condemns him for making fake documentaries? Oh, I'm so confused!
These useless idiots won't be happy until Bush is impeached for being a poopy-head.
I used to think some people were living in a fantasy world, but now it's become clear to me that they actually inhabit an entirely separate universe in which many events are the exact opposite of what they are here. Take, for example, the following letter to the New York Times, which somehow found its way from their reality to ours:
Re "So What Happened in That Election, Anyhow?" (Week in Review, Jan. 2):
What happened in the election was that Democrats continue to play politics as if it were a gentleman's game.
See what I mean?
They are polite to the opposition and, despite a decade of vicious abuse, expect Republicans to be polite to them.
Unbelievable. Unbefrigginlievable. In the aftermath of an election where the former vice president compared Bush to Hitler, numerous politicians lied about their patriotism being questioned, a news anchor attacked the president's service to the country with forged documents, a Democratic group called for the death of Donald Rumsfeld, and the actual Democratic candidate called the Republican party crooked liars, people are trying to claim that Democrats are too nice.
The preceding rant was brought to you by the letters W, T, and F. Now, let's move on...dot org:
Democratic pundits booked onto news programs smile at their adversaries and make reasoned arguments;
Once again: Parallel freakin' universe. Why does the phrase "pack of lies" keep popping into my head when I read the above sentence? Hmmmm...
...their counterparts on the right smile back and then spew a torrent of lies and invective.
Such as...what? Unless you think that James Carville and Chris Matthews are hardcore conservatives, I really don't follow this line of reasoning at all.
(And before anyone mentions O'Reilly, remember that he's just a narcissistic douchebag, not a conservative)
John Kerry politely overlooked the distasteful facts of George W. Bush's first term...
Yep. That's exactly what I thought when he said, "This president doesn't have a record to run on, but a record to run from." Unless "overlooked the distasteful facts" means "didn't bother to cite any facts in the midst of his attacks," you're pretty much still living in another universe.
...starting with the bald lies about committing our troops to war.
Oh, you mean the "lies" he endorsed, repeated, and voted for? Those ones?
Why didn't Mr. Kerry pound on the administration's lies day after day?
Because, much like you, he chose to make up his own lies instead of criticizing things that had actually happened.
Why didn't he scream from the mountaintop about its hubris and unbelievable incompetence?
Because if people wanted that, they would've nominated Mad How. It was an election, not a frickin' movie.
It wouldn't have taken much to defeat George Bush, just the truth.
And, to further solidify my "parallel universe" argument, we have this last line. It seems to me that the truth was exactly what caused Bush to be re-elected. Truths like "Iraq and Afghanistan are free" and "the economy is recovering." You know, true truths.
On another note, I just realized that all my political posts are about the election, even though it's been over for two months. I can't seem to get interested in anything else that's happening. I strive on conflict (I am an aspiring screenwriter, after all), and without an election on the horizon, it just doesn't seem exciting enough sometimes. Hmm. Oh, well. The inauguration is coming up soon. There will be lots of ignorant protesters to ridicule.
I was scanning the Post-Gazette for editorials/letters to make fun of, and I happened to come across a column by E.J. Dionne Jr. that was pretty good fisk material. It's not on the PG site, but I tracked it down in its original location here. Check it out, and join me in wondering how some people find the doorknob in the morning:
Lessons for Democrats By E. J. Dionne Jr.
MIDDLETOWN, R.I. -- Except for the glorious victories of the Red Sox and the Patriots, 2004 was a disappointing year.
Hey, speak for yourself. I think it was a great year. The best of my life, in fact. Heh.
But bad years offer useful lessons. Here are a few:
• Relentlessness pays off. President Bush won reelection by ignoring the conventional wisdom that vicious attacks on your opponent don't work and turn off voters.
See, this is one of those instances where reality isn't as important as maintaining a leftist perspective. Those of us who inhabit the real world know that Bush had the more positive of the two campaigns, despite some of the most vicious attacks of recent years coming from the Democrats.
However, liberals believe that any criticism at all is an attack, since their world view defines anything they agree with as a fact, and anything they disagree with as a lie. Therefore, they all "know" that Bush ran a negative campaign of unprecedented meanness, etc. A bit of that "conventional wisdom" could've helped Kerry, though.
As soon as John Kerry won the Democratic nomination, Bush's campaign went on the attack and never stopped. It worked.
Notice, again, the assumption that people know all about this, eliminating the need to provide concrete examples of viciousness from Bush. Some ambiguous hints are included in the next part, but still...you'd think that if Bush ran such a hateful campaign, Dionne would be able to explain exactly what he did.
Kerry was painted as arrogant and privileged, compared with an arrogant president who was far more privileged.
This one sentence could be fisked from so many angles that I hardly even know where to start, but let's give it a try. First, we have the claim that "Kerry was painted as arrogant and privileged." That's a load of crap. There was no need to "paint" him as such, because he did all that himself. He was the richest presidential candidate in history, he wrapped himself rather arrogantly in his Vietnam service, he basically called the audience at the second debate a bunch of peasants...the Bush campaign hardly needed to do anything.
Second, Let's look at the claim that he was running against an "arrogant president who was far more privileged." We've already established that Kerry had more money than Bush, and if you look at his background, he certainly had a lot of privilege throughout his life, so...what exactly is causing the discrepancy here? As far as the "arrogance" meme, I believe that Bush has something known in most circles as "confidence."
Kerry was made out to be a flip-flopping liberal...
Once again, there was no need to portray him this way, as he pretty much did it all by himself.
...and never mind asking how someone can be a flip-flopper and an ideologue.
He ran a flip-flopping campaign in order to hide his liberal record. Again, that shouldn't require a lot of mental gymnastics to figure out.
Kerry, who shot people in battle and was wounded himself...
Wait, Kerry was in a war? Why didn't he mention this during the campaign? He could've won if he'd drawn more attention to it!
...was painted as weaker than Bush...
Due to his inability to take a solid position on any campaign issues, yes.
...the guy who said he supported the Vietnam War but was not willing to fight in it.
You know, it's really hard to believe that two months after the election, people are still clinging to this desperate fantasy that Kerry's Vietnam service would've made him a better president. Honestly, what difference does it make? The president doesn't do the killing during a war, does he?
The sheer negative genius of the Bush campaign is worthy of close study.
"But since I'm just pretending it exists, I'll have to make up a few ways we can study it."
Face it: Liberals and Democrats are way too sensitive to elite editorial page opinion that asks more responsibility from the side it supposedly supports than from the side it supposedly opposes.
WHAT? I'd read that again to make sure it says what I think it does, but my head would probably explode from contemplating that much cognitive dissonance. When did editorial opinions start demanding more from the left than the right? I must have completely missed that.
Liberals worry themselves sick that if they fight Bush's cockamamie idea of borrowing billions for a shaky Social Security privatization scheme, those editorial writers will savage them.
...Despite the fact that those editorial writers oppose Bush's idea, and one of them just called it "cockamamie." Is anyone else confused?
A lead opinion is likely to demand that they enter into negotiations with the president, even if the very act of doing so is certain to give Bush the upper hand.
I can't recall any editorials being that supportive of the president. Most of them are calling for Democrats to oppose everything Bush does, since he's apparently destroying the country with his crazy Social Security scheme.
Memo to Democrats: Forget the editorial writers and ask yourselves: What Would Bush Do?
You shouldn't tell them that. They probably think Bush would throw them in a gulag for daring to question him, so they'd do the same. I've actually seen this logic used to justify vandalism against Republicans.
If you are not as tough as he is, he will crush you -- again.
It's not about toughness; It's about Democrats having unrealistic ideas. Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that Bush won because people agreed with him, not because they had been conditioned to foam at the mouth at any mention of Kerry's name?
Memo to liberal commentators: Why bend over backward to demand of your own side what you don't demand of the right, or of Bush?
I believe they already asked themselves that question a looooooooooooong time ago, which is why they rarely criticize Democrats. What editorials have you been reading, E.J.?
• Cultural hypocrisy should be exposed. I cannot understand why liberals who regularly criticize the excesses of the economic market let conservatives get away with being the advocates of "traditional values."
Maybe because the left is composed of a good number of people who think that morals are outdated, being pro-life is evil, gay marriage is a civil right, freedom from religion is more important than freedom of religion, and kids should start learning about sex at the same time they learn the alphabet. Maybe.
When television networks and Hollywood exploit sex to make money, why aren't liberals asking why the free market so revered by the right wing promotes values the very same right wing claims to despise?
I wasn't aware that conservatives were supposed to support censorship of any views they disagree with. That's more of a liberal thing. You see, we believe that it's possible to tolerate something while still believing that it's bad for people.
The coarsening of the culture that traditionalist conservatives denounce is abetted by the very media concentration that economic conservatives defend.
O...kay. I believe that it's actually public consumption of the stuff that causes it to appear in the media. That's the whole "supply and demand" principle in action. Some conservatives, like me, want to infiltrate the entertainment industry and bring some cleaner content to the masses, but unfortunately, our culture is making today's crappy media content profitable. In fact, a lot of people complain that our entertainment isn't explicit enough, and that we're still too sensitive. Remember the Janet Jackson fiasco?
Why are liberals so tongue-tied in exposing this contradiction?
Probably because they'll lose their control of the media if they upset the current system. But hey, I'm just a communications major, so what do I know?
• Class matters. Bush and the Republicans condemn "class warfare" -- and then play the class card with a vengeance.
Wait for it...wait for it...let's see what Dionne considers the "class card."
Bush has pushed through policies that, by any impartial reckoning, have transferred massive amounts of money to the wealthiest people in our country.
AHA! I see what's going on here! Bush supports policies that cause liberals to play the class card ("tax cuts for the rich"), but despite the fact that he does this for the benefit of all Americans who pay taxes, it's considered class warfare by our brilliant columnist friend here. That's not the class card, E.J. It's just misrepresentation on your part.
Yet it is conservatives, Bush supporters, who trash the "elites," especially when it comes to culture.
Well, when wealthy celebrities condemn "tax cuts for the rich," it is kinda funny.
Class warfare is evil -- unless a conservative is playing the class card.
Class warfare is an ugly thing. That's why conservatives believe that being rich does not automatically make one evil, and being poor does not automatically make one noble. Individualism is a staple of our philosophy.
Somebody has to call this bluff.
As soon as this so-called "bluff" actually happens, I'll be the first to join you. How's that?
Why is it taboo to talk about a Wall Street "elite" that has benefited from Bush's tax cuts and would win big-time from Social Security privatization?
It could have something to do with the fact that those "elites" worked hard to get where they are, and some actually think they deserve to benefit from their hard work.
Why is it just terrible to point out that pharmaceutical industry and HMO "elites" were paid off handsomely in the Medicare drug bill?
I'm sure they'd keep making as much of an effort if they weren't making as much money for it. You really need to put some cynicism into your life. It helps you to deal with human nature.
Why is it so dreadfully radical to denounce corporate "elites" when conservatives can denounce "the Hollywood elite" with impunity?
I think you're confused about the definition of "elite." You seem to think that "elite" refers to anyone successful. However, when conservatives refer to the "Hollywood elite," we're talking about people who pretend to represent the underdog or the "little guy" while making more money than most of the people on this planet. We're criticizing celebrities who act like they're being brave and putting themselves at risk for speaking out against Bush, when in reality, they actually gain publicity every time they pull one of their uninformed political stunts. We're denouncing people like Michael Moore who pretend to be part of the working class while riding around in a limousine. Do you see the difference? DO YOU?!
Why does the right wing get away, year after year, with this double standard on elitism and class warfare?
More importantly, why is the Washington Post letting you get away with fabricating a double standard in the first place? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Liberals need to start criticizing conservatives for things that conservatives have actually done at some point. Political discourse would be so much more logical.
• Stand for something. Bush won this year because of those attacks on Kerry.
Right. It couldn't have been because of the war, or the economy, or anything else even vaguely related to his record. It was that vicious "anyone but Kerry" crowd that put him over the edge. Does anyone take this guy seriously?
But he also won because swing voters who didn't like him very much were nonetheless quite certain that he knew what he wanted to do and would try to get it done.
So, near the end of the column, Dionne finally admits that people did, in fact, vote on the issues at some point. I'm shocked, I tell you.
One line of attack against Bush is to say that his certainties are mistaken and that he never, ever questions them. That's true.
How do you know he never questions them? He probably doubts himself a lot, since he's human and everything. The problem is that you liberals want him to admit to making numerous mistakes only because you've convinced yourselves that your opinions are truisms. Therefore, it's "true" that Bush's certainties are mistaken, and he should admit as much, even though he's come to the conclusion that he's right.
...That could've been a lot clearer than it was. Holy crap. Anyway...
It's also inadequate. Those who oppose the direction in which Bush is leading us need to propose an alternative.
It's about time you said something I agree with.
They need to demonstrate that we could be much safer -- and fight a more effective war on terrorism -- if so much of the world did not mistrust us.
Well, you lost me already. If the world mistrusts us for...GASP...acting in our own interests (not to mention those of a few million people halfway around the world), then I say "screw 'em." We're not the United States of Europe.
They must create a realistic narrative about a more just and prosperous society.
Once again, a statement on which we agree, although we probably differ on how to accomplish that goal.
Policies on jobs, health insurance, child care, education and taxes should be more than a list. They ought to form a coherent picture of how things could be better, for everyone.
Let's see here...could it be that Bush won because he's managed to do that already?
The long-term need for alternatives should not stop the loyal opposition from being tough.
It's sure stopped them from being rational.
But the short-term need to be tough should not stop the opposition's search for alternatives. For Bush's adversaries, 2005 will be a difficult year. It also could be exhilarating.
If Bush's adversaries really knew what they were doing, they'd admit that a lot of their ideas have been tried and abandoned because they don't freakin' work. As long as liberals continue to believe that they only lose elections because they "can't get their message out," they will continue to be in the minority of the U.S. government.
And that's the way it is.
As long as I'm severely warping my sleep schedule, I might as well blog. You see, a few of the New York Times letters for today are very, very fiskable. They're responding to a couple columns about the war. Let's check 'em out.
Letter Number One:
Thomas L. Friedman ("Worth a Thousand Words," column, Dec. 23) forcefully expresses his anger at the brutality of the insurgents in Iraq. He is right to do so, and we should be on the side of those supporting democracy in Iraq.
Someone should let Michael Moore know that.
That still does not mean that the United States will in the long run be able to create a democracy in Iraq.
Does the phrase "elections in January" mean nothing to you?
We are only delaying the inevitable struggle that will have to go on among the Iraqis themselves that will determine how Iraq is structured and governed in the future.
Better to leave them to get to this struggle now and stop the slaughter of America's brave young soldiers.
Uh...yeah...I think it would be better to kill the people who would add violence to that struggle, rather than leaving them there for the Iraqis to deal with. That's kind of the point of doing this by force instead of asking them nicely to stop.
Don't worry; It gets better. Check out Letter Number Two:
Thomas L. Friedman can say what he wants about the "insurgents." He must still defend his defense of the invasion of Iraq.
The point, however, is that it was our invasion that released the enmity that Mr. Friedman excoriates.
Yep. It's always the fault of the U.S. It couldn't be that whole culture that makes people believe blowing yourself up is the only way to please God. No, it's America's fault.
Until we admit that the initial decision to invade was wrong, no exit from this terrible and engulfing mess is even remotely possible.
I love the self-righteousness here. Apparently, it's more important for leftists to have their moral victory ("The war was wrong! They admitted it!") than for the troops to finish the job they started. And I bet they were thinking of Vietnam when they wrote that "terrible and engulfing mess" line. Speaking of which, pulling out and leaving people to fend for themselves sure worked well in 'Nam, right? RIGHT?
Letter Number Three:
Thomas L. Friedman writes that this is what the war in Iraq is about: "People who want to hold a free and fair election to determine their own future, opposed by a virulent nihilistic minority that wants to prevent that. That is all that the insurgents stand for."
This strikes me as a narrow view of what the violence in Iraq is about.
Based on that statement, I'm guessing it makes a rather hollow sound as it strikes you.
Let's say Iraq has its free and fair election on Jan. 30. Once the first insurgent attack takes place on Jan. 31, what will the war be about then?
Obviously, it will be about people who want to live in a free and democratic country, opposed by a virulent nihilistic minority that wants to prevent that. It's not like an election is a magical event that makes the opposition disappear. After all, you're still here.
Letter Number Four:
In "Worth a Thousand Words," Thomas L. Friedman does not make a crucial distinction between the Iraqi "right of self-determination," which he believes is at the heart of the titanic pre-election struggle racking the country, and the Palestinian "right of self-determination."
This should be good. Relativism ahoy!
The Iraqis have not chosen to exercise their right of self-determination; the choice was made for them by the United States when it invaded and occupied Iraq.
And I'm sure they would've preferred being raped, tortured, starved, etc. Plenty of them would've asked for this if it hadn't been for that whole "speaking out against Saddam = death" policy.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, want to exercise their right of self-determination and have been struggling for it alone for decades.
NOTE: "Struggling for it alone" is a nice way of saying "murdering Israelis."
Should we ask why the United States is willing to help one but not the other achieve this basic goal?
I really shouldn't have to answer that question. Really. But again, I don't remember the Iraqis blowing up busloads of innocent people. That might have something to do with it.
Letter Number Five:
William Safire concludes that the Iraq war is just and "freedom is the wave of the future."
But what kind of example is the United States setting by holding enemy combatants secretly and indefinitely at Guantánamo in defiance and disregard of the Geneva Conventions?
Excuse me for a second...
*Bashes head against wall*
...Okay. Now, let me get this straight...you think that we would set a good example...by giving terrorists...TERRORISTS...the same rights we give uniformed combatants? You know, the people who don't purposely kill civilians?
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR F**KING MIND?
Holy crap, what is wrong with these people? Honestly. You'd think they'd be sucked into a black hole of stupidity or something.
The NYT letters are just as asinine as usual, particularly this one. Let's take a look:
That the Republican-controlled Congress may overturn abortion rights...
First of all, until you can explain how abortion is a "right," keep this ridiculous regurgitated talking point to yourself.
...under the label of being "pro-life" (Political Memo, Dec. 2) is offensive.
How dare they express their opposition to murder by calling themselves pro-life! What is this horrible world coming to?
These conservatives stop being "pro-life" as soon as the baby takes its first breath.
So you admit that it is a baby? Interesting...
Then their support shifts to those who pollute our air and water...
And I'm sure they do it for the specific purpose of destroying the environment. After all, if they had good intentions, they wouldn't be Republicans, right?
...start ill-conceived wars...
As opposed to staying isolated and hoping the terrorists can't find us, yes.
...supply assault rifles to criminals...
All right, this is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I have read in the last week. Can anyone explain how it's possible to believe that Republicans want to "supply assault rifles to criminals?"
No, really. Someone tell me how this can happen. I've heard the "lifting the assault weapons ban would make criminals more dangerous" meme, but this is the first time I've heard that Republicans believe in actually giving assault weapons to criminals. And I thought conservatives took criticism for being too tough on crime. Was I ever wrong about that...
...and limit lifesaving stem-cell research.
When? There's no limit on researching the kinds of stem cells that have actually saved lives.
I long for the day when "pro-life" is defined as what happens after that first breath.
And I long for the day when "logic" is a requirement for getting a letter to the editor published.
How can these people exist? I don't think it'll ever make sense...
Hey, remember when I used to fisk the letters in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette? I think I'll do that today. One of the letters is too hilariously ignorant to ignore. Check it out:
Render unto Caesar
The Republicans did a good job keeping the radical, flat-Earth, born-again people under wraps until after the election, meanwhile accepting their votes and money. But it is sad that now these extreme, zealous, narrow-minded "born agains" have come out of the woodwork after the November election was safely won.
Well, douchebag, now that you've killed an innocent straw man and demonstrated your hypocrisy and intolerance, would you care to make an actual argument?
The Religious Right is now bitterly attacking Sen. Rick Santorum for his support of Sen. Arlen Specter over Rep. Patrick Toomey in the Republican primary last spring. Mr. Toomey is a fervent supporter of laws which deny a woman's right to evacuate the inside of her own uterus!
I've mentioned that I have no faith in humanity, right? "Evacuate the inside of her own uterus?" What a roundabout way to describe infanticide. Let's extend your logic to other times in life. For example, if a mother kills her children after they're born, she shouldn't be prosecuted, because she's just evacuating the contents of her own house! Andrea Yates and Susan Smith are victims of the anti-choice religious right! Those woman hating bigots!!!11!!oneone!!!!
The religious fanatics...
The tolerance is so beautiful!
...have forgotten that Mr. Bush himself campaigned for and supported Sen. Specter in that primary.
And your point would be...what? Bush does a lot of dumb things. Is that news to you? I guess it just doesn't fit your image of the brainwashed fundies blindly following Bush to the ends of the flat Earth.
Politicians should not legislate morality.
In that case, let's legalize theft. After all, "Thou shalt not steal" is one of the Ten Commandments.
They should "render unto Caesar" those things which are Caesar's.
You are aware that Christ was talking about taxation when He said that, right?
Only issues in the political sphere are properly addressed by the political structure.
Roe v. Wade, anyone?
Personal morality belongs in the province of religious faith. It is not the appropriate concern of the U.S. president, the Congress or the Supreme Court.
Abortion is not an issue of "personal morality." It's an issue of whether a woman should be allowed to have her own child killed. Until you can prove that murder is a moral issue, but not a legal one, just keep your ignorant pseudo-opinions to yourself.
It says a lot about the kind of society we live in when people who are against abortion are considered extremists.
I just received the following comment from some
thingone calling itherself "Smart Liberal":
HAHAHAHA.. u guys are such dumb losers... look you're so excited that you can change a number on the Daily Mirror headline that you failed to get the point... THE REST OF THE WORLD THINKS YOU'RE DUMB FUCKS!!! Oh my god, you're the most stupidest people on the face of this planet... A. You voted for George Bush, a mysoginistic, racist, paranoid stupid dumb fuck and B. you don't even get it when the world is flipping you off... You're such a bunch of losers!
Now, I could just change this to a Ralph Wiggum quote, but I think it's much funnier to point out why this person is hilariously ignorant. Let's break the comment down:
HAHAHAHA.. u guys are such dumb losers...
Mistake #1: If you're going to use 12 year-old AOLspeak instead of English, you have to stay consistent. Therefore, either change "u" to "you," or change "HAHAHAHA" to "LOL." And ellipses are made of three periods, not two.
I know grammar doesn't necessarily determine intelligence, but it sure doesn't hurt to have some skills in the area.
look you're so excited that you can change a number on the Daily Mirror headline that you failed to get the point...
Look you forgot a comma your sentences are kind of confusing when you don't punctuate them properly they end up like this one isn't that weird?
THE REST OF THE WORLD THINKS YOU'RE DUMB FUCKS!!!
Good thing we don't care what the rest of the world thinks. What is it with you liberals and the need to be popular, anyway? It's just like John Kerry and his "People agree with me, so I don't need to explain why I'm right" strategy.
Oh my god, you're the most stupidest people on the face of this planet...
And you've got the most worstest grammar on this blog.
A. You voted for George Bush...
Brilliant deduction. I tremble in awe at your mighty intellect. Please don't kill me with knowledge.
That word doesn't exist, but if you meant to say misogynistic, please explain.
So Bush is a racist, even though he opposes racial discrimination and appointed two of the most powerful African-Americans in the history of the country? He must be in denial about his bigotry.
Pot, kettle, etc., etc. I'd include the "black" part of that cliche, but you might call me a racist.
I've got two words for you: "Harvard" and "Yale."
Unless you're saying that he's physically incapable of speaking, you basically just called him stupid again. That must make him twice as stupid!!1!!1!!
Such creative insults. How do you do it?
...and B. you don't even get it when the world is flipping you off...
Actually, I do get it, and I think it's freaking hilarious. If everyone loves you, you're not being honest.
You're such a bunch of losers!
Tell that to Senators John Kerry and John Edwards.
Anyway, thanks for the comment, but you're seriously out of your league here. Why don't you go play with these guys?
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:
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:
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."
The Bush-Cheney campaign has offered nothing but fearmongering for this entire election season.
Whereas their critics have offered nothing but hyperbole.
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.
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.
I have a few rare moments of free time, so I figured I'd fisk a couple letters from the New York Times. I realize that this is like shooting fish in a barrel...or, more accurately, shooting dead whales in an empty swimming pool...but it's fun, and that's all that matters. Also, these are about Kedwards' use of the "Dick Cheney's daughter is gay" technique, which I haven't really covered yet. Let's begin:
In his Oct. 18 column, "The Lowest Blow," William Safire misses the mark.
Pot, kettle, etc. etc.
He correctly decries the use of someone's personal life for political advantage but overlooks the complete hypocrisy of the Republican reaction to Senator John Kerry's comments about Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary during the last presidential debate.
Well, it's pretty easy to miss something when it doesn't exist. I might as well call you an idiot for not noticing the rabid unicorns in your basement.
A party that pushes state amendments banning gay marriage in an effort to get homophobic voters to the polls on Election Day is in no position to complain when another candidate makes a similar appeal to prejudice.
Non-sequiturs ahoy! I'm glad that you're so skilled at getting into the heads of Republicans, since you've apparently decided that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is "homophobia." After all, everyone knows that two men or two women should be able to marry, and anyone who disagrees is a bigot! The constant denial that opposing viewpoints can be valid is one of my main problems with modern liberalism.
Seriously, just look at that last paragraph for a second. This person refuses to believe that principled opposition to same-sex marriage exists. It can only be the result of "homophobia" or "appeals to prejudice." I do. not. understand. how people can think like this. It just doesn't make sense.
I'll skip the rest of that one and move on to letter #2:
The Kerry campaign may indeed have made Mary Cheney's private life the centerpiece of its answer to the question of same-sex marriage, as William Safire suggests.
It may have, yes. Brilliant deduction.
Yet surely the assault on the private lives of gay Americans was begun by none other than President Bush, who has made his support for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage part of his re-election effort.
Are you seeing a pattern here?
Look, moron, nobody is making an "assault on the private lives of gay Americans." In fact, the "private lives" of gays aren't being targeted at all. People are free to form whatever private relationships they want, but government marriage is a public institution, and same-sex marriage would constitute a federal endorsement of their personal behavior. Can you see the difference? The only "assault" is the one coming from the courts when they pretend to be part of the legislative branch.
John Kerry and John Edwards have simply given the target of that assault a human face.
Hmmm...let's look, for example, at what Kerry said:
I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.
That's not "giving the target a human face." It's called "putting words in someone's mouth." Has Kerry talked to Mary Cheney? No. But he presumes to speak for her, which reveals a callous elitism on the part of Senator F**kup.
He could've easily said, "...if you were to talk to any homosexual," rather than specifically mentioning Dick Cheney's daughter. Or, he could've spoken to a homosexual and gotten a genuine quote. But instead, he chose to specifically mention Mary Cheney, whom he has never talked to.
Let's compare, just for the sake of clarity.
Bush opposes same-sex marriage for a variety of reasons he has outlined several times, but insists that he still believes in tolerance and respect.
Kerry/Edwards, without being prompted to do so, bring up Cheney's daughter in a discussion of same-sex marriage, then claim to know how she thinks.
Which of these do you consider an "assault," SIT readers?
Holy crap, that was a long day. I need to unwind with some semi-fisking. Our lucky
victim contestant today is none other than Senator John F**k-Up Kerry. Come on down, John!
Kerry appeals for end to election advertising war
Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry appealed for an end to the TV advertising war that has marked his election battle against President George W. Bush.
What happened to "bring it on?" How do you expect to be president if you can't even handle legitimate criticism of your beliefs (or lack thereof)? This guy's skin is thinner than the frickin' Olsen twins.
Kerry said the avalanche of negative television spots and attacks being shown on US screens was scaring off voters.
"Americans need a real conversation over our future," Kerry said in a speech at a school in Spring Green, Wisconsin.
What a blatantly hypocritical statement. This is the guy who spent most of the campaign running on the fact that he fought in a war 30+ years ago, and now he wants a conversation over our future? Maybe he should've thought of that before he reported for duty.
"What they don't need is all these trumped up advertisements, they just make people curl up and walk away," added the Massachusetts senator.
If by "people," you mean "John Kerry," you're probably right. You seem fairly unprepared to answer questions about...well, anything other than Vietnam.
"I'm calling them 'misleadisments,'" Kerry said of the adverts.
At this point, I'm convinced that Bush is much more intelligent than Kerry. I mean..."misleadisments?" He could've at least come up with something that sounds similar. Like "adverLIESments." It took me less than a minute to come up with that. Where's that famed nuance, John?
"It's all scare tactics ... because (Bush) has no record to run on."
Oh, yeah, except for liberating 2 countries, deposing a dictator, persuading another dictator to give up his WMD program, lowering taxes, and updating our national security policies, he has no record at all.
The Democrats have complained bitterly about a new advertisement that shows Osama bin Laden, September 11 hijack leader Mohamed Atta, Saddam Hussein and the ruins of the World Trade Center, and questioned whether Kerry was up to dealing with them.
Well, is he? Don't complain about the ads; Explain why they're not true. Some people haven't chugged gallons of Kool-Aid, and they're actually interested in how you plan to fight the War on Terror, if you plan to fight at all.
A statement called the spot, run by the Republican group Progress for America Voter Fund, the latest in a series of "desperate and despicable attack ads" aimed at diverting attention from Bush's record.
...So what you're saying is that the Bush campaign didn't actually create this ad. Hear that flushing sound? That's your credibility. Moron.
The Democrats have rolled out a new advert of their own, titled "Despicable," in which they accused the Bush administration of "playing politics with terror" and dividing the country to win a second term at the White House.
Did I already call you a hypocrite? Because if I didn't...YOU ARE A F**KING HYPOCRITE. How can you say, with a straight face, that it's wrong to question the abilities of a candidate to fight terrorism, but it's perfectly okay to accuse the president of being "despicable" and "playing politics" with the war? Grow up.
A group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has also been at the center of the television advertising battle with controversial spots aimed at discrediting Kerry's Vietnam War record. The adverts accused the decorated Vietnam War veteran of exaggerating or lying about his exploits.
If the so-called "war hero" would just release his fargin' records, maybe they would go away. They've stated as much several times.
In Wisconsin, Kerry also made a personality attack against the president, saying that he and his rival are both children of privilege, but Bush considers his comfortable position an entitlement.
Kerry said "he and I, we went to the same university, we're both very privileged." Both men attended Yale University.
The Democrat added that from his education "came a sense of fairness and responsibility" while Bush "thinks it's entitlement."
Okay, I'm trying to make sense of that statement, but it's just not happening. I'm going to move on.
Kerry said America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy.
"He doesn't care, he's out of touch," said Kerry.
Do I even need to explain why it's hilarious for Kerry to call anybody "out of touch?" I didn't think so.
The Democratic contender has been in Wisconsin since Sunday preparing for the first of the presidential debates against Bush on Thursday.
He sought to highlight his own campaign commitments ahead of the November 2 election against Bush's "broken promise after broken promise".
...Such as? If you do win, it'll be fun watching you try to keep your own promises, considering you've pretty much promised everything to everyone.
Kerry also launched a new attack Bush's campaign in Iraq, a topic where Republicans have accused him of continually changing position.
You know, there is a reason for that...
"I've been right on Iraq all along," said Kerry.
"I said yes, we ought to hold him (Saddam Hussein) accountable, but let's do it the right way, and I showed what it was, step by step. And step-by-step the president chose the wrong way."
...Right. Which is why you voted to give President Bush authority to go to war, then voted for the $87 billion...before you voted against it. And now you're claiming you can make us "respected in the world" while insulting not only our allies, but the prime minister of Iraq.
As I said earlier, I am now convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kerry is less intelligent than Bush. It took a while, but I just can't believe that anyone with a properly functioning mind could say these things.
(Hat tip: Ace of Spades HQ)