Today in right-wing stupidity
I'm consistently baffled by some of the nonsense that appears on right-wing blogs. And it's shaping up to be a very "good" week for triumphalist announcements from reactionaries that are hopelessly inept. And I've always had a special hatred for those who exclaim "A-HA! Take that!" And smugly close their ears, certain that they've just dealt the death blow to the opposing side. Only they make no sense at all.
Item! National Review blog headline: But There Is No al Qaeda Connection in Iraq
"A family of 13 was killed on the road leading to Falluja, about 12 miles northwest of Baghdad, because its members were from a tribe known to oppose Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, witnesses said."
Take that, you naysaying lefties! The only problem is that absolutely everyone is fully aware that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. Criticism of the White House was for falsely claiming that they were there before we invaded. Which they weren't-- that was one of the lies they used to sell this disaster. So the author is an imbecile, or he's depending on the fact that National Review readers are. Or both.
Item! Harry Reid says Republicans are Nazis! Well, OK, he didn't. But he WILL! Probably soon, too!
Harry Reid has declared Iraq the "worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country." . . . The point here is that Democrat rhetoric has gone from "Iraq is Vietnam" to "Iraq is Vietnam times two!" So how long until hyperbole increases to the point that the war in Iraq becomes worse than the Holocaust?
Do the readers of these blogs just eat this crap up with a spoon? Without even addressing Reid's statement, the author is suddenly moving on to Holocaust rhetoric-- only he's putting it in the mouth of his foe. This is as pathetic as demagoguery gets. "You know what? Bush says he loves children. How long will it be before he's using his power to rape them at will? Or is it already too late?" Granted, his retarded argument is a bit more subtle than my example, but it's the same thing.
And while I wouldn't say Iraq is the worst (yet), it certainly stands to become the worst. Now that word is spreading about Bush's desire to invade a third country in spite of having utterly failed in the first two, we're looking at the very real possibility of a destabilized, militant and America-hating Middle East (and I mean the entire Middle East) to go along with the enmity of our long-standing allies. That will be both a first and a worst in US history.
Item! You just know you're going to be served a big crap sandwich at a site called 'Blogs for Bush.' I mean, not even Fox News puts an admission of total bias in their name.
Poll: 66% Think Victory in Iraq is Important
Wazzat? Huh? But, but, but...the American people have spoken and they voted to withdraw...which is why the Democrats are standing tall with....non-binding resolutions and slowly knifing the troops in the back. The poll is from Investors Business Daily and it asks the actual question: do you want to win?
Wazzat? Huh? The endless polls showing that 70% of Americans are against the current war plan are a big media conspiracy? They must be, because it's obvious to anyone that you can't both harbor a desire for victory and have no confidence in this administration to salvage it after five years of complete failure! Oh, wait. I guess you can. Which is why this effort to "blog for Bush" is utterly stupefying. As a matter of fact, even this liberal wants to see us win. And yet, back in 2002, I was expressing my grave concerns that the initial deployment figures for Iraq would mean an inability to control the country after we inevitably kicked the crap out of their "army." All this poll suggests is that the vast majority of Americans have reached that same conclusion.
And "knifing the troops in the back?" That's a seriously odd charge to lay against people trying to get our troops out of a war zone. And I'm sure the author of that particular post would have a slightly different opinion of what was good for the troops if he was in Baghdad right now working on "Blogs for Get Me The Hell Out Of Here."
Item! National Review blog headline: But There Is No al Qaeda Connection in Iraq
"A family of 13 was killed on the road leading to Falluja, about 12 miles northwest of Baghdad, because its members were from a tribe known to oppose Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, witnesses said."
Take that, you naysaying lefties! The only problem is that absolutely everyone is fully aware that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. Criticism of the White House was for falsely claiming that they were there before we invaded. Which they weren't-- that was one of the lies they used to sell this disaster. So the author is an imbecile, or he's depending on the fact that National Review readers are. Or both.
Item! Harry Reid says Republicans are Nazis! Well, OK, he didn't. But he WILL! Probably soon, too!
Harry Reid has declared Iraq the "worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country." . . . The point here is that Democrat rhetoric has gone from "Iraq is Vietnam" to "Iraq is Vietnam times two!" So how long until hyperbole increases to the point that the war in Iraq becomes worse than the Holocaust?
Do the readers of these blogs just eat this crap up with a spoon? Without even addressing Reid's statement, the author is suddenly moving on to Holocaust rhetoric-- only he's putting it in the mouth of his foe. This is as pathetic as demagoguery gets. "You know what? Bush says he loves children. How long will it be before he's using his power to rape them at will? Or is it already too late?" Granted, his retarded argument is a bit more subtle than my example, but it's the same thing.
And while I wouldn't say Iraq is the worst (yet), it certainly stands to become the worst. Now that word is spreading about Bush's desire to invade a third country in spite of having utterly failed in the first two, we're looking at the very real possibility of a destabilized, militant and America-hating Middle East (and I mean the entire Middle East) to go along with the enmity of our long-standing allies. That will be both a first and a worst in US history.
Item! You just know you're going to be served a big crap sandwich at a site called 'Blogs for Bush.' I mean, not even Fox News puts an admission of total bias in their name.
Poll: 66% Think Victory in Iraq is Important
Wazzat? Huh? But, but, but...the American people have spoken and they voted to withdraw...which is why the Democrats are standing tall with....non-binding resolutions and slowly knifing the troops in the back. The poll is from Investors Business Daily and it asks the actual question: do you want to win?
Wazzat? Huh? The endless polls showing that 70% of Americans are against the current war plan are a big media conspiracy? They must be, because it's obvious to anyone that you can't both harbor a desire for victory and have no confidence in this administration to salvage it after five years of complete failure! Oh, wait. I guess you can. Which is why this effort to "blog for Bush" is utterly stupefying. As a matter of fact, even this liberal wants to see us win. And yet, back in 2002, I was expressing my grave concerns that the initial deployment figures for Iraq would mean an inability to control the country after we inevitably kicked the crap out of their "army." All this poll suggests is that the vast majority of Americans have reached that same conclusion.
And "knifing the troops in the back?" That's a seriously odd charge to lay against people trying to get our troops out of a war zone. And I'm sure the author of that particular post would have a slightly different opinion of what was good for the troops if he was in Baghdad right now working on "Blogs for Get Me The Hell Out Of Here."
posted by Matt Sandwich | 6:25 PM
<< Home