Friday, September 27, 2002
Welcome to my new weekly item!
Right Wing Rant Watch.
I am a member of a number of political discussion groups. They cover numerous topics and points of view. However there are 2 that I am a member of that are full of rabid right wing conservatives who think every Democrat is scum and Clinton was responsible for 9/11, etc...
Why dio I subsciribe to such groups? Well 2 reasons. 1, I am fascinated at how their minds work. Seeing that kind of fevereshly blind bias and hatred up close is fascinating. and 2. they crack me up.
So every friday I will give you some choice selections of responses given to me by my friends at the Yahoo Rush Limbaugh mailing lists! First off is Mark (he's one of the best!) and his response to my posting of a salon article in May that urged the Bush White house to come clean and revael exactly what it knew before 9/11. Note that the article contained the following line:
Certainly, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, or simplistically insist the recent news means Bush could have prevented those 3,000 deaths on Sept. 11.
Here is Mark's response:
Ed you should be ashamed.
Accusing Bush of ignoring specific intelligence for personal gain is a serious
charge.
You have no proof,no morals and no honor.
You and your party are scum.
Cry all you want about my name calling.
"Hypocritical sissy"
You're implying the president is a traitor and complicit in mass murder.
My use of colorful adjectives will never compare to your left wing slander.
You sir are the traitor.
Mark M.
Next week I'll show how Mark's belief in the truth was tested when he revealed that Clinton was a murdering rapist!
It's about friggin time.
After gettiing rolled by Bush for almost 2 years, the Dem's are starting to grow some backbone.
Thursday, September 26, 2002
Will Rush apologize for the completly false and nasty lies he spread about Senator Tom Harkin now that they have proven to be completly false?
I'm sorry if I cant't let Bushs remark go, but It has been driving me crazy for days. The fact that he would say something so low and disgusting, the fact that no conservative will speak out against it. If Clinton had said that, Ollie North would be screaming from the rooftops, Bill Bennett would write a quckie book about it, Rush Limbaugh would dedicate a months wortth of shows to it. But since it was THEIR draft dodger who said it, they dissmiss it. I recently was in a debate with a conservative who not only defended it, but launched into a tirade about how Daschle should shut up ebcause he never served in uniform. He was of course unaware Tom Daschle was a first lieutenant in the United States Air Force from 1969-72. IT's like they just shut out any fact's that get in the way of their dogmatic thinking.
And know it seems that the President and his slimy Press Secretary will not apologize for it and will even refuse to answer questions about it. Here are excerpts from a recent press briefing transcript:
The President, whenever he talks about homeland defense on the stump, says something to the effect of the Senate is more interested in special interests than in the interests of the security of the American people. On Monday, and at least one other time this month, he has said instead that the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people. When he said that Monday, and he said it in Kentucky, did he misspeak? Or does he really believe that Democrats are not interested in the security of the American people?
MR. FLEISCHER: Ron, this is a policy debate, where people have said of the President, in terms of his positions on these flexibility measures that I just cited, they have differences with the President. And the President has differences, and he's working with the Democrats and Republicans to bring people together so that we can have a homeland security department. And that's where the President is on this.
Now, in terms of what the President said, I'm aware of the debate that is taking place on Capitol Hill, and the accusations that have been made about the President on this. And now is a time for everybody concerned to take a deep breath, to stop finger-pointing, and to work well together to protect our national security and our homeland defense.
[more Ari-babble]
Q I appreciate that. But the question wasn't about what Senator Daschle said; it's what the President said in that speech and in one in Kentucky, where he says -- I'm taking his words literally -- "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people." Did the President mean to say that the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people, or did he misspeak?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no doubt about it. If this does not pass into law because special interest provisions will have prevailed, the Senate will not have acted in the best interests of the American people. And the interests of the special interests will have been put ahead, and the result will be that the Senate will not have acted in that interest, for the national security.
Q Sorry, I don't want to be argumentative here, but you're not responding to the question, because that's not what the President said. The President said, "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people." Did he mean to say that the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people, or did he misspeak? It's one of the two.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President is stating the fact that unless and until this passes, the Senate will not have acted in the interests of the security of the American people. Homeland security is just that; it is the security of the American people.
Q That's not what he said. He said, "the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people." He didn't say "if" or "whether" or "but."
MR. FLEISCHER: He made that --
Q He said, "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people." Did he mean to say that, or did he misspeak?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think there's no question that in the event that this does not pass because the special interests, who are fighting to take away the flexibility that every agency currently has in terms of the President's ability to act for national security -- if that is deprived and taken away from the President, and rolled back, then the President's conclusion will have been that the special interests prevailed over the security of the American people, and that in that Senate action, that the Senate action will have shown, by failure to pass it, that the special interests prevailed over the security interests of the country.
Q Will that show that special interests have prevailed over the interests of the American people? Or will it show that, again, in the President's own words, "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people"?
MR. FLEISCHER: We won't know until the vote takes place.
Q But does he stand by that remark or not? He didn't --
MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's clear --
Q -- he didn't qualify it. He said --
MR. FLEISCHER: What the President wants to --
Q -- "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people." Does he stand by that comment, or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: What the President is trying to do is bring the Democrats and Republicans together, as he said in the rest of his remarks, when he said that this is not a partisan issue, it is an issue vital to our future. It will determine how secure we will be. And there's no getting around the fact that if the Senate does not pass it --
Q That's why I'm wondering if he misspoke --
MR. FLEISCHER: -- that the security of our country will not have been protected.
Q That's why I'm wondering if he misspoke, because it doesn't jibe with what he said a couple sentences later.
MR. FLEISCHER: I can only interpret it for you as I have.
After reading that, I need a shower.
THis is the kind of person, according to Bush who doesn't care about the security of the American People. Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Democratic Senator from the State of Hawaii;
Inouye was leading a platoon of the 2nd Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, near the town of San Terenzo, Italy in April, 1945, when it came under fire from a bunker manned by die-hard Italian Fascists fighting for the Germans. There was no cover on the hill, so Inouye crawled up alone to reconnoiter. As he was taking out a hand grenade, he was hit in the stomach by machine-gun fire. He was knocked down but managed to get up, pull the pin, run to within five yards of the nearest of three machine guns, and throw the grenade inside the position. As the gunners struggled to their feet, he raked them with his Tommy gun. While his men were pinned down by enemy fire, Inouye, bleeding from the stomach, staggered farther up the hill and threw two more grenades into the second enemy position. He fell again. Dragging himself toward the third machine-gun position, he stood up and pulled the pin from another grenade. Just as he was about to throw it, an enemy rifle grenade smashed his right elbow. His men ran to help him, but Inouye ordered them back. With his good left hand, he tossed the grenade and destroyed the position. With his right arm flapping at his side, he started finishing off the enemy survivors with his Tommy gun. Then he was hit in the right leg and fell down the hill. He refused to be evacuated until his men were deployed in defensive positions. Twenty-five enemy troops were killed and eight captured in the action.
For this action Lt. Inouye was awarded the Bronze Star, Purple Heart with cluster and the Congressional Medal of Honor, The highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States.
Stay tuned for more people who are not interested in the security of the United States.
I've always bee amused at the conservative pundits propensity to paint Gore as a liberal. I understand that in an election year all objectivity drains from their minds and they will do whatever it takes to win, but still, this one always infuriated me.
Clinton was not a liberal. He was a moderate. And Gore is even more conservative than Clinton.
Lets look at Gore's record on some of the issues:
Opposes partial birth abortion
Believes in fiscal responsilility and paying down the debt as well as a 500 billion dollar tax cut
Opposes gay marraige
Favors a victims rights law
Suports Faith-based crime prevention via clergy outreach
Supports the death penalty
supports mandatory three strikes laws
Supported huge increases in defense spending
Advocates mandatory teacher testing and removing tenured teachers who fail
Supports the teaching of abstinence education as part of a sex education class
His "holding the entertainment industry accountable" phase.
Supported V-chip
Hard liner on Castro
Huge supporter of free trade and helped pass NAFTA
Opposes tariffs
Supports Voluntary school prayer
Now sure you can come back and say "what about this" on any number of liberal positions he's taken, but noone can advocate the preceding positions and be considered a liberal.
He is and was a moderate.
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
The perfectly named Dick Armey:
"I always see two Jewish communities in America. One of deep intellect and one of shallow, superficial intellect. Conservatives have a deeper intellect and tend to have 'occupations of the brain' in fields like engineering, science and economics. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to flock to 'occupations of the heart,'"
Wait, it gets better. Here is Dick responding to attacks in what he must have considered "damage control":
"Liberals are in my estimation just not bright people. They don't think deeply; they don't comprehend; they don't understand...They have a narrow educational base, as opposed to the hard scientists,"
Armey is a former Economics Professor at the, get this, University of North Texas. Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure its a nice little school. I'm sure when he called Barney Frank "Barney Fag" his broadly educated buddies at UNT thought it was hilarious. But give me a choice of a scholarship at and one at the nonthinking, non understanding, and narrow educationally based MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc., and the UNT, guess where I am going?
My guess is since he's retiring he's in his "I don't give a flying f*&k" mode and saying whatever belligerent bone headed thing that pops into his oh so broadly educated and deep thinking mind.
At least I hope thats true.
The so called liberal media is STILL covering Bush's ass.
From MSNBC:
As Democratic congressional leaders negotiated Wednesday with President Bush on a resolution that would authorize him to use military force against Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle angrily accused Bush of seeking to reap pre-election advantage from the debate over Iraq and demanded that he apologize for implying that Democrats were not interested in the security of the American people.
Implying? Here is, once again, exactly what Bush said:
"The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."
He didn't imply anything. He flat out said it. And I cheered Daschle's speech. To read it is not enough. He was truly pissed, as he should be. See it here (choose play video link).
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
This week Gore gave a speech where he took the Administration to task on its obsession with a war in Iraq. It was quite good. Here are some excerpts:
The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than was predicted.
Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism.
Moreover, President Bush is demanding, in this high political season, that Congress speedily affirm that he has the necessary authority to proceed immediately against Iraq and, for that matter, under the language of his resolution, against any other nation in the region regardless of subsequent developments or emerging circumstances.
We are proposing to cross an international border. And, however justified it may be, we have to recognize that this profound difference in the circumstances now compared to what existed in 1991 has profound implications for the way the rest of the world views what we are doing, and that in turn will have implications for our ability to succeed in our war against terrorism.
To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq is the first point of application it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states--Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran--none of them very popular in the United States, of course, but the implication is that wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction, together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations, the doctrine will apply.
Meanwhile, Bush was at an elementary school:
(thanks to Bartcop for that)
George W. Bush June 8th, 2000 a month before he kicked off his "Change The Tone Tour"
"Above all else, we must call a truce to the "politics as combat," where differences of principles give rise to the unprincipled attacks on character."
Bush in a speech September 5th:
"The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and
not interested in the security of the American people."
All Hail!
Buffy is back and all is right with the world again.
It is quite simply, the best show on TV right now.
Like I always say, If Brent Bozell hates it, it must be good! (Imagine if 7th Heaven started using the word "piss". The funny thing is Brent doesn't realize how subversive that show really is)
Monday, September 23, 2002
Now that we have declared we have a new "Hitler", lets try and analyze exactly how he got to be who he is.
For a refresher course in History, look here.
"They need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions that have been made by some today that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11. Such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war,"
Dick Cheney, May 16th, 2001 (Keep in mind that at the time NO prominnt Democrat ever said Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing. The aptly named Dick was engaging in good old fashioned Mcarthyite smear tactics)
From today's NYT:
Senior Republican Party officials say the prospect of at least two more weeks of Congressional debate on Iraq is allowing their party to run out the clock on the fall election, blocking Democrats as they try to seize on the faltering economy and other domestic concerns as campaign issues.
So saying that Democrats who suggest that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen for political gain is a bad thing (keep in mind other than the loony Mckinney, NOONE made the suggestion), yet trying to create a war for the express purposes of winning a reelection is OK?
