Bush bashing day at the NYT
By Libby
It only took eight years but the NYT is finally willing to call a lunatic, a nutcase. They have three slaps at the Commander Guy on the editorial pages today. This editorial calls him a criminal.
[cross-posted to The Reaction]
It only took eight years but the NYT is finally willing to call a lunatic, a nutcase. They have three slaps at the Commander Guy on the editorial pages today. This editorial calls him a criminal.
Mr. Bush wanted the House to approve the Senate’s version of the bill, which includes Mr. Bush’s amnesty and does not do nearly as good a job of preserving Americans’ rights. We were glad the House ignored his bluster. If the Senate cannot summon the courage and good sense to follow suit, there is no rush to pass a law.This one calls him a liar.
The president will continue to claim the country is in grave danger over this issue, but it is not. The real danger is for Mr. Bush. A good law — like the House bill — would allow Americans to finally see the breathtaking extent of his lawless behavior.
Mr. Bush went on to paint a false picture of the economy. He dismissed virtually every proposal Congress is working on to alleviate the mortgage crisis, sticking to his administration’s inadequate ideas. And despite the rush of serious problems — frozen credit markets, millions of impending mortgage defaults, solvency issues at banks, a plunging dollar — he said that a major source of uncertainty today is whether his tax cuts, scheduled to expire in 2010, would be extended.And even MoDo takes time out from trashing Democrats to note our president is alarmingly removed from reality.
Afghanistan is still roiling, as is Iraq, but W. is serene. “Removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency, it is the right decision now, and it will be the right decision ever,” he said, echoing that great American philosopher Dan Quayle, who once told Samoans, “Happy campers you are, happy campers you have been and, as far as I am concerned, happy campers you will always be.”As Avedon rightly notes, MoDo shouldn't consider this last link an absolution for her past sins, but still it's refreshing to see the Grey Lady finally showing some collective contempt for the contemptible.
W. bragged to Republicans about his “considered judgment” in sending more troops to Iraq and again presented himself as an untroubled instrument of divine will. “I believe there’s an Almighty,” he said, “and I believe a gift of that Almighty to every man, woman and child is freedom.”
[cross-posted to The Reaction]
posted by Libby Spencer at 3:42 PM
9 Comments:
NYT has been bashing Bush mercilessly and disingenuously for 7+ years. Only a radical leftists would think they've only started.
LOL Instigator. You've clearly never heard of Judith Miller...
Oh sure, I've heard of Judith Miller. I've also heard of Bill Clinton. Shall I connect you to youtube sites with him talking about WMD's? He is close friends with Bush 41, after all. Maybe it was just a vast Presidential-wing conspitacy. Oh, what about that 60 Minutes piece a few weeks back where the CIA undercover agent was told by Saddam that he (Saddam) was planning on starting up his weapons program again? Buried and ignored!
That Pentagon report showing absolutely no connection between Saddam and AQ has really ripped a big hole in the cognitive dissonance hasn't it?
I'm afraid the straw men won't protect you from the reality that you and the rest of the Bush apologists were simply wrong.
You folks fucked up royally. Live with and stop whining.
Are you suggesting that I'm using a former President of the USA, to wit, one Bill Clinton, as a "straw man?"
I am not a Bush apologist. The issue is not whether his administration, or the Clinton administration, got fucked with the wrong itelligence. The issue is whether you believe, as you and other left wing kooks do, that this was all a massive conspiracy theorey to raise the value of Cheney's Halliburton stock, and tons of other nonsensical stories.
OR, was this because a massive and out of control foreign policy bureacracy, particulalrly the CIA, simply screwed up big time. What about British intelligence? What about Tony Blair?
How is Bush both stupid and an evil conniver at the same time? Have you ever read some of the far right wing books about the Clintons as murderers and thieves? They were crazy B.S., right? So it's one thing to simply be anti-war, a pacifist - fine. It's one thing to simply have a different ideological philosophy from a given party - fine. I myself am a pro-choice Republican. Rudy came the closest to my views, and where is he today?
But the systematic and deranged effort to make up things about a president and direct inevective ad hominems at him serves no purpose other then to show YOUR anger.
Start focusing on the future and stop rehashing, absolutely ad nauseaum, the past. Work on electing Obama, if you choose, and stop slamming Bush. Meanwhile, I'll support John McCain and be glad the US military is just a stone's throw from Iran.
You almost had me there until you got to "systematic and deranged effort." I'm not making up anything, I'm reporting the news as I read it and it's my right as an American to call my president a liar and a criminal if he lies and breaks the law. It's only an ad hominem if it's not true.
And it's more than a little amusing to hear someone who is rehashing the past in order to excuse criminal conduct, tell me to look to the future.
I believe what I believe and you can believe whatever you want. But I assume as a proud prochoice Republican, you own a gun so if I were you I'd think about this.
Your revered president has illegally compiled a database of all your electronic communications and may have opened your mail. If he decided it was in the national security to disarm you, all he has to do is search his database and he will know every move you made in the last seven years. He'll know every email you exchanged about that gun. Every bullet you ever bought. Every place you ever gassed up your car. He'll know how to find you and take that gun.
Maybe you think you trust Bush not to do it, but do you want to leave that power in place for Hillary? Think about that before you write off the criminality of the crook you like as a conspiracy theory.
Radical Left has nothing to do with socialism - it's simply an all purpose catch all for anyone who offers contrary information. For the last 40 years or so, it usually has meant being against any war of dubious provenence. Ad Hominem is defined as any argument including information about someone too sacred to criticize. That's why hiring fiction writers to create scenarios about Clinton isn't ad hominem but using Bush own words and actions against him, is.
The "bad intelligence" argument is not particularly valid with all the evidence that Bush simply ignored the good intelligence and punished those who questioned it. A cruder person might call it a stinking crock of shit actually.
But of course you can only win an argument with an honest man and you're arguing with a Republican here.
OH GOD how I hate the self-serving, ignorant, draft-dodging, smug, chest-pounding.............you know, the words just escape, and I get a head-ache.
I had the honor of standing in line last fall to shake President Carter's hand and get his latest book signed. I got to thinking......we will NEVER see this puke in such a setting.....once this dirt-ball and his ilk leave office they are forever doomed to be behind the black glass. They wont have the cods to come among the people. Smedley Butler was right. WAR IS a RACKET.
Hey jarhead. It makes my head hurt too. Funny though, I have a photo of myself and Jimmy Carter. I should post that some day.
Post a Comment
<< Home