Classic obfuscations

The Wall St. Journal posts the most blantantly dishonest editorial I have ever read on their free opinion.com site. Here's one choice quote.

But everyone should understand that censure and impeachment are important--and so far the only--parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress. [...] And not just the loony left either, though it's getting harder to distinguish them from the mainstream variety.

Well it might be because they're speaking for a majority of Americans that would like to see this danger to society removed from office. If that's the only thing an 06 Democratically controlled Congress does for us, it will be enough.

The editorial goes on to repeat the false White House talking points that the NSA program was fully disclosed and legal -- conveniently ignoring a mountain of evidence to the contrary. But it gets worse.

...as a political matter, the Wisconsin Senator knows exactly what he's doing. He knows that anti-Bush pathology runs so deep among many Democrats that they really do think they're living in some new dictatorship. (...) One of our leading left-wing newspapers recently compared Mr. Bush to J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as if there were even a speck of evidence that this White House is wiretapping its political enemies.

Conveniently ignoring countless reports of FBI investigations of political protestors. But WSJ is just warming up to the big denouement.

Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America's enemies. And they want to do so not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he's abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he's been too energetic in using his powers to defend America.

WTF? It would take a week to describe the "smidgeon of proof" that Bush has abused his office. And didn't these same "fine minds" think it was aok to impeach a Democratic President for a freaking blow job? Oh, but he wasn't a "wartime" president. The editorialist conveniently forgets that our "war president" isn't leading us in a war, he's leading us into a war of choice that will never end as long as he's in charge of it. Feh.

I got this link from TMH Bacon Bits, (via Don Surber), who went on to make a clever little Moby Dick analogy. In reading it, it struck me how easily his words could be turned around to describe himself. Let's just try the opening paragraph.

The similarities between the liberal [neo-conservative] quest to dispose of President Bush [liberals] at all costs, and Captain Ahab’s hate-filled quest for vengeance against Moby Dick, are astounding. Let’s examine the text – keeping in mind that Bush [The Democratic Party] is Moby Dick (pure and white, of course) and the liberals [extreme right wingers] are but a clone of the venomous Ahab. The frenzied and toothy sharks, my friends, are the real [overstated] Islamofascist danger that has one purpose – to devour us all. Quotes (And comments) from Moby Dick:

I leave it to you to translate the rest. These guys like to talk about irrational Bush hate, as if wanting to protect the Bill of Rights, that has served us well for over 200 years, is an extreme position. The Bush supporters just hate us, is all. I get that. What I don't get is why they think their vicious and untenable support for the Bush administration is somehow rational?

Is it rational to spend a whole post making sweeping pronouncements about what liberals think instead of pointing to what he thinks are the specific accomplishments his president has made that make our complaints invalid? I don't know about you, but it sounds crazy to me.