Monday, July 11, 2005


For four years the MSM have done nothing but attack President Bush, and the democrats in congress have gone against him at every turn even on things like CAFTA which they know is a win-win deal. NAFTA was fine and dandy, but free-trade is too good for the poor people of Costa Rica and Honduras. Hypocrites. They, the democrats, will not allow any kind of victory for Bush no matter what. That is why they undermine the war effort and compare our military to Nazis. They have become the party of NO. Do you think for a second that the democrats would be demanding an exit strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan if AlGore or JFKerry were in office? How about an exit strategy for Kosovo already? It's a freakin' quagmire! And why did we bomb Kosovo, anyway? What did it have to do with national security? Not a thing, but so long as a democrat is president, whether it's Kosovo or Somalia or Vietnam or Hiroshima, it's all good. The second we have a Republican president, it's an unethical war and extremist judges and class warfare, elitist media squawks about "courage" and "speaking truth to power," and everybody's rights are being trampled, etc.

Well, they've thrown everything in their arsenal at this President yet the established media and the DNC, the legions of the left including ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBCNYTLATPBSBBCNPR, and let's not forget Hollywood which has produced nothing but anti-conservative propaganda (with the notable exceptions of the Passion, the Incredibles, and maybe Team America) since 9-11, have all failed. Their ratings are down, their readership diminishing, revenue plummeting but they are a stubborn lot. In entertainment/media circles, and academe as well, open hatred for Bush is a prerequisite for promotion and has become so transparent as to be implicit in nearly everything we see in the newspaper, on tv, and not just the news shows, on the big screen, and in the classroom. If you cannot see this then you are blind, and don't even tell me they did it to Clinton too because that's bull; they defended Clinton to the hilt and demonized special prosecutor Ken Star. Mark Felt, who was violating the the contractual constructs of his lofty position in the FBI and was most definately breaking the law, is celebrated as a hero in the liberal press. Linda Tripp, who broke no laws, is vilified and was called fat and ugly on national tv a thousand times.

Bush has not broken any law. Even if "there were no WMDs," saying something that isn't true but that you believe to be true is not lying, otherwise we would all be liars. Bush did not lie, and you cannot point to a case where he did lie. It's all huff and puff. Like Jayson Blair, established professionals in the media, journalists, politicians have and continue to make stuff up in the hopes that something, anything, will stick. They all have fallen for fictional reports backed by anonymous sources. They bought into lie after lie after lie after lie, willingly, eagerly, hungrily. They need to believe those lies. They need to believe that Bush is evil to support their world view, because to believe otherwise would mean that they are insane and/or stupid.


Blogger Aaron said...

So Kosovo is a "freakin quagmire"? Question for you, dw: How many US troops have been killed in Kosovo since the multi-national mission was established there several years ago? Answer: precisely 0.

Question: how many US troops have been killed in Iraq since major combat operations were declared to be over? Answer: about 1,500

Further, the Downing Street Memo clearly lays to rest for all time that W didn't really give a hoot whether there were WMD to be found in Iraq or not. It's not that the president lied about WMD - indeed, as you pointed out, believing something to be true that isn't true does not constitute a lie. The point is that W was intent on invading Iraq regardless of WMD, and the intel was being cherry-picked to support the push for invasion. You should at least be big enough to own up to that, dw.

Or are you going to debate the precise meaning of "fixed"? Couple that with Cheney's quibbling about the meaning of "throes", and I'd say you republicans are being a lot like... well, Clinton.

1:47 PM  
Blogger Aaron said...

The Downing Street Memo was confirmed by the head of MI-6 - how much more official do you want it? Neither the White House, nor Downing Street has disputed their authenticity. If they were fake, the White House would certainly just say so and be done with it. Instead, the WH has disputed the significance of what was said in the memo - but not its authenticity.

It is your choice to delete my posts and bar me. But wouldn't doing so demonstrate a certain insecurity on your part? I would hope instead that you welcome debate, and might not be so set in your world view. Choose to debate me, or choose to ignore me - but censorship would just be lazy and fearful.

btw, I do you have any comments on the Iran post?

9:19 AM  
Blogger dw said...

Yes Aaron. Did you see this post?

12:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home