(Click title above)Deranged Bush Syndrome and Adolescents In Action: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31151_Raging_Moonbat_Theater#rss.
BUSH DERANGEMENT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhQ8xi312l8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOQn0wED88Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QMiVIx5HEo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCiUTpFYi7g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhQ8xi312l8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOQn0wED88Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QMiVIx5HEo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCiUTpFYi7g
****
16 comments:
The Left Lied, People Died:
Snippets from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8EF70EB2-F364-4CD6-ABE8-4E3A93AAE0A1:
The real question for critics like Michael Isikoff, who oppose the war, is this: Do they believe that if the United States withdrew its 150,000 troops from the Iraqi border in 2003 Saddam Hussein would not have proceeded to develop WMDs and use them? The Duelfer Report concluded that Saddam would have developed them as soon as sanctions were lifted. Does Isikoff believe the United States could have kept 150,000 troops on the Iraqi border indefinitely in order to use them when Saddam developed nuclear weapons? Does he think that invading a power that possessed nuclear weapons would be more prudent than invading a power that was planning to get them? Is this the case he wants to make? He should make it then, instead of throwing up red herrings like aluminum tubes and Niger uranium deals – which is precisely what we argued in our book.
The subject of which, to reiterate, was the opposition to the war by the leaders of the Democratic Party. When Isikoff discusses the intelligence debate that preceded the war he conveniently elides this issue and makes the irrelevant and inflammatory case that the public was not given access to the internal administration conflicts over the intelligence that underpinned the decision to go to war. The public was not told that there was opposition inside the intelligence and military communities to the views the administration finally adopted. Of course they weren’t. What nation in all history has operated its intelligence as an open book? When has any commander laid all his intelligence to any enemy who happens to be monitoring his national press? What can Isikoff be thinking?
The real issue is what the Democrats knew about the intelligence debate, not the public. The Democrats voted to use force, endorsed the war, and then within three months – three months! – turned against it and attacked it calling their own country an aggressor nation, their president a liar who sent American youth to die for no reason, and U.S. troops bloody occupiers and war criminals. In defense of this betrayal, the Democrats claim that Bush manipulated the intelligence and deceived them. But this is demonstrably false. It is itself the biggest lie of the war. As the major opposition party in a democratic nation, the Democrats had full access to the intelligence debate and participated in it. Isikoff’s confusion of “the public” with the Democratic leadership has the effect of amplifying the confusion that sustains the Democrats’ claim that they were duped.
But unlike the public, the Democrats had access to all the intelligence information the government had. The Senate Intelligence Committee oversees the CIA and America’s other intelligence agencies. In other words the Democrats knew, or if they didn’t know all they had to do was ask CIA chief George Tenet – a Clinton appointee -- and he would have been required by law to tell them.
....
In short, their opposition to the war was political, unprincipled, and unconscionable. With a war in progress, and American soldiers in harm’s way, they launched a psychological warfare campaign against their own commander-in-chief whose aim was to discredit their own country as an aggressor nation, violating international law. This is what we described as “the most disgraceful episode in American history” and this is the substance of the charge we made in our book. Michael Isikoff’s critique doesn’t begin to address it.
....
Isikoff takes us to task over the leak of Valerie Plame’s name to Robert Novak. Scooter Libby was not the source of this leak; rather antiwar Realist Richard Armitage was. He then told no one and let the president’s enemies in the Democratic Party and the media call him a liar for several years. Still, Isikoff’s co-author, David Corn, has tortured logic to somehow link Armitage’s inadvertent leak to the White House.
Far from ignoring Brent Scowcroft’s argument, as Isikoff suggests we refer to him on pages 158-9. His objections were discussed in detail in David Horowitz’s previous book, Unholy Alliance. In fact, we cite General Scowcroft as one of the few “isolated but conspicuous models of responsible dissent” on page 158 of Party of Defeat, because after the war began he did not call the president a liar or brand our soldiers as war criminals – or even falsely accuse them of flushing a Koran down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. This is an exceedingly low threshold to cross but one many leftists fail to meet.
In sum, we made a case in our book that Isikoff and other critics of the war have conducted a straw man argument – inventing their own reasons why America went to war in Iraq in order to refute them. But why muck up a partisan story line with inconvenient facts? Far easier to ignore the facts and make your case without them.
Repubs Not As In Touch With Dead People As Dems:
Snippets from http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/09/05/why_obamas_community_organizer_days_are_a_joke:
Michelle Malkin :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Obama's "Community Organizer" Days Are a Joke
by Michelle Malkin
....
What deserves derision is "community organizing" that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.
As I've reported previously, Obama's community organizing days involved training grievance-mongers from the far-left ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The ACORN mob is infamous for its bully tactics (which they dub "direct actions"); Obama supporters have recounted his role in organizing an ambush on a government planning meeting about a landfill project opposed by Chicago's minority lobbies.
With benefactors like Obama in office, ACORN has milked nearly four decades of government subsidies to prop up chapters that promote the welfare state and undermine the free market, as well as some that have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and voter fraud. Since I last detailed ACORN's illicit activities in this column in June (see "The ACORN Obama knows," June 19, 2008), the group continues to garner scrutiny from law enforcement:
Last week, Milwaukee's top election official announced plans to seek criminal investigations of 37 ACORN employees accused of offering gifts to sign up voters (including prepaid gas cards and restaurant cards) or falsifying driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers or other information on voter registration cards.
....
Last month, a New Mexico TV station reported on the child rapists, drug offenders and forgery convicts on ACORN's payroll. In July, Pennsylvania investigators asked the public for help in locating a fugitive named Luis R. Torres-Serrano, who is accused "of submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration forms he collected on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now to county election officials." Also in July, a massive, nearly $1 million embezzlement scheme by top ACORN officials was exposed.
ACORN's political arm endorsed Obama in February and has ramped up efforts to register voters across the country. In the meantime, completely ignored by the mainstream commentariat and clean-election crusaders, the Obama campaign admitted failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments to ACORN. They were disguised as payments to a front group called "Citizen Services, Inc." for "advance work."
....
Now, don't you dare challenge his commitment to following tax and election laws. And don't you even think of entertaining the possibility that The One exploited a nonprofit supposedly focused on helping low-income people for political gain.
He was just "organizing" his "community." Guffaw.
*****
NOTE:
Dems continue to feel your pain long after you're dead!
Now, that's transformational change you can believe in!
See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05fri2.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.
OK, college students:
Why do you hardly ever see a NYT article about voting concerns unless it's slanted against troops?
Why do you hardly ever see a NYT article about voting concerns on account of fraudulent ACORN registrations?
Why do you hardly ever see a NYT article about voting concerns on account of fraudulent mail-in ballots ballots when mailed by persons other than military?
Why do you hardly ever see a NYT article about voting concerns that fraud by Dems may be a problem?
Why do gulags tend to be run by Thug-Socialists?
Why do primarily Thug-Dems want to restrict your right to get news from the radio channel of your choice?
****
ASK:
What behind-the-scenes cabal of similarly interested international bank owners is running the international socialists at the NYT, while complaining loudest about non-transparency of the Bush administration (thereby impeding capacity of internationalists to shop, limit, and spread their choice of news for their choice of purposes)?
Who really is behind "Bush Derangement Syndrome?"
From Commenter at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/the_end_of_boomer_weirdness.html:
“After watching Sarah Palin's convention speech I couldn't help feeling that finally we had an adult in the room. Pelosi, Boxer et.al are adolescent girls playing dress up. Obama is a knight slaying dragons in the backyard with a cardboard sword and sheild. Thank God ......an adult in the room at last.
Posted by: Roy”
….
Sanity at last; sanity at last; thank God Almighty! Sanity at last!
See: http://www.jwfacts.com/index_files/cogdiss.htm
"That, of course, is one of the keys to survival of the organization Russell founded on soft mysticism, glorious visions and worldly disaffection. The Witnesses had nowhere else to go. Their investment in their religion was total; to leave it would have meant spiritual and emotional bankruptcy. They were not equipped to function in a world without certainty. It was their life. To leave it would be a death."
REGARDING RADICAL NARCISSISM (as discussed by John F. Kavanaugh, S.J., in his article on Autonomous Individualism, dated January 15-22, 2007):
"Before autonomous individualism, there is no objective truth or value which one’s will, one’s liberty, must yield in obedience."
Professor Kavanaugh hits a nail — sometimes dead on, sometimes not. He seems dead-on regarding the struggle our present society is in common losing, in terms of respecting, establishing, or preserving any specific moral boundaries whatsoever. But, he seems to reinforce cognitive confusion insofar as he supposes mortals may know which behavior in any context is "objectively" moral.
I would generally agree to a phrasing as follows: The conviction that "there is no rule higher than one’s self and that there is no other source than oneself to consult," while often disguised under various cynical pretenses, may be more pervasive now — across all parties, tribes, and cultures — than at any time in recorded human history.
EVOLUTIONARY COMPETITION AMONG MORAL BELIEF SYSTEMS:
In the main, present brands of globalized media and trade seem not to have moderated such conviction, but to have spread its contagion. To my intuition, we presently occupy a world niche that sets to cynical competition three main moral belief systems:
(1) conditioned belief in a god who orders savagery as meriting eternal rewards (Spiritual, Radical Islam);
(2) reinforcement of intuitive empathy (Spiritual, Non-Islam); and
(3) know-it-all empirical secularism (Non-Spiritual).
Within those three competing moral pretenses or spiritual models, which will manifest as being favored by "evolutionary" pressures; among civilized minds, which will best resonate, replicate, and endure?
That seems to depend upon the will of each of us, as we seek relief from cognitive dissonance, to avail a holistic source of Empathy that I believe is available to every not-thoroughly-corrupt individual. I incline towards the second model. I hope, but can hardly predict, that all civilized leaders will also wish so to incline — eventually. While I believe the second model, I do not wish to force it, nor do I wish to surrender to the first or third.
While I doubt there is any empirically objective moral truth to which our disparate wills must yield, I do believe there is a balancing Source of Empathy to which our intuitions should yield. The particular Name one ascribes to such Source may not be of great import, but the underlying presence or concept is. We do not find such concept in political slogans, nor in mathematical, scientific, or objective truths; rather, we "find" it in reasoning together — in good faith, empathetically.
DEFINITION OF JUST STRUGGLE:
With regard to competition among moral belief systems: such competitive pressures are always fluxing and building. So, I do not necessarily agree with Professor Kavanaugh that the struggle in Iraq is a "disaster of a war of choice." My agreement may depend, in Clinton’esque fashion, upon how one defines "disaster" or "war." Regardless, to some extent, it is unavoidable that we will, for the foreseeable future, be in an "ongoing disaster" or "undeclared war" (or struggle) in our relations among Islamic cultures.
Hindsight suggests to many, myself included, that our President’s administration’s plan of engagement was quite unskilled in its lack of appreciation of data, history, culture, and humanity. Still, who is the pundit who can explain what would have happened had we altogether declined to have engaged in Iraq? Neither I nor Professor Kavanaugh should pretend to have God’s holistic hindsight or foresight. Nor should we take it as "given" that there is no worthwhile purpose to the ongoing struggle.
Among Islamic domains, resentments against Israel, Western cultures, and "infidels" in general have been at or near the boiling point for a long time. In the West’s excessive reliance upon Islamic oil, it has blithely enriched and strengthened many of the very forces that wish its demise.
If nothing else, the present situation should at least raise consciousness about hatreds against the West, which heretofore have often been heating at or just below the boiling point. We will not resolve such hatreds merely by disengaging or by declining to engage in an "unjust struggle." The problem before us is not whether to adapt and forcibly engage, but how to adapt and effectively engage.
WAKE UP CALL FOR TIME TO ADAPT:
At a minimum, we of a Western moral mind set should lose our complacency, adapt as best we are able, and learn to appreciate:
(1) Why do Islamists see the West as being so corrupt, weak, and primed for falling to jihad?
(2) If the West is not collapsing into complete corruption and weakness, then what common, specific moral lines or values, if any, do we yet defend or retain?
(3) How do we restore backbone enough in our culture to actually believe in, stand for, and be willing to defend any moral values whatsoever?
(4) Assuming we do restore any backbone, then how must we identify and defend against unassimilable cultures or beliefs that incline mainly to exploit weaknesses that impair our ability to sustain ourselves?
(I am assuming, of course, that there yet remain in our country enough who believe anything about it is worth preserving or adapting.)
"UN-LEARN" UNREALISTIC STANDARDS:
There seems little worthwhile virtue in pretending an "objective" rule for declining to use efficacy or force until one is absolutely certain such is necessary to one’s preservation. The ongoing struggle to survive, propagate, find fulfilling enlightenment, and to make a moral difference has little respect for unenlightened self-surrender. Apart from narcissistic self promotion, no mortal, not even Professor Kavanaugh, should pretend to have enough holistic hindsight to be qualified to "objectively" condemn any other mortal’s attempt to have applied his best foresight, judgment, and intuition to address a difficult situation.
By taking his assumptions as givens, Professor Kavanaugh only defines a circular truism (Bush chose to war, so it was unnecessary, so it was unjust) and then pretends it somehow constitutes more than an assumed proof of a triviality. Had Professor Kavanaugh based his method for resolving his cognitive dissonance more on intuitive or empathetic grounds, I would likely agree that our President’s leadership has been regrettably unskilled.
In Professor Kavanaugh’s presuming under a cloak of "circular objectivity," he needs to guard against crossing into strident, wilful, self-exalting narcism. He may share his best intuitive belief that the struggle in Iraq is a "war of choice." But, he ought not pretend to know, objectively, that it is a war of choice or an unjust war. He ought not presumed to be implying that his analysis, on account of his position, must be infallibly, "objectively" correct.
I would not agree that the struggle in Iraq is "objectively provable" as one of whim or choice. As Islamists spread among us, if we wish not to be ruled by mind control freaks, we have no choice but to engage. Sometimes, that seems to necessitate force or one variety or another. In any event, I am unaware of any mathematical formula by which "just preservation" should "objectify" when we should use force to preserve or to defend appropriate lines for our own beliefs, lives, properties, countries, or cultural interests.
So long as one person’s "unjust war" will be another person’s "just jihad," I fail to appreciate how a notion of "just war" "objectifies" any moral rule for avoiding force. If there is a "solution," I believe it is in being receptive in common to a higher source of Empathy, not in some pretended notion of "objective morality." We may have objective rules in respect of a sense of higher morality, but I do not see how we can have objectively specific rules for morality, per se. That is, the Ten Commandments may be rational in derivative respect of a notion of an Empathetic God, but not merely in "objective" respect of themselves.
For all the more reason, I believe "third model" attempts of purely empirical secularists to espouse objective ethics are no less cognitively circular, morally blind, and, ultimately, self defeating (as if there were some sort of ultimate, objectively material "should-particle.") That is, we need and, I believe, have intuitive access to a higher Source of common Empathy — call It what you will. Ultimately, it is in respect of such Empathy that we may in good faith seek common moral ground. But, each of us needs to find It, not to be dictated to pretend about It as the price for keeping one’s head.
Simply put, copping to "just war" avails no opting out of a war that is unrelentingly waged among (1) fascist-mind-control-savagery versus (2) tough-love versus (3) blind-to-intuition-materialism. Insofar as Bush suggested "you’re either for us or against us," I would not say he was altogether inaccurate.
Snippets from http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09
/the_end_of_boomer_weirdness.html:
"Abbie Hoffman, H Rap Brown, William Ayers, Jane Fonda, Timothy Leary - none of the lefty leaders of the 60s were boomers. Us boomers then were just young impressionable kids."
Well, human beings are just human beings --- we know that!!!
The point is not to disparage folks for being human. The point it to disparage the goofball philosophy the "young impressionable kids" bought in to!
I was in the Army at Fort Belvoir on June 5, 1968. Not long after that, I was shipped overseas. When I got back, it was a different country. I suspect the cumulative horror of what happened to JFK, MLK, and RFK pushed the country over the edge. In any event, when I got back, the insults I saw hurled at troops were coming from a lot of your "young impressionable kids."
Of course they should be forgiven, because, as you suggest, we are all just human and, after all, they were just being misled. However, that said, isn't it about time for that generation to stop being so impressionable?
I still work with a good number of folks of that generation. Frankly, the old "impressions" seem to remain with a lot of them. In fact, I find it hard to imagine where lays the bottom to the well of social depravity many among them seem prepared to tolerate.
Indeed, if leaders among the Left are capable of defining and enforcing any limits to social depravity, I would like to hear what they are. Some good questions for Obama might be: (1) Have you thought about whether society should draw and enforce any limits at all against social depravities, and if so, in what respect? (2) Is it your position that government should enforce against any efforts to enforce limits to social depravities? (Here use your own imagination: Starvation of babies who somehow survive attempts to induce abortion; polygamy; requiring that the Boy Scouts must consent to camping trips led by actively-homosexual troop leaders; lesbian teachers' rights to "educate" kindergartners about all manner of sexual orientations; whatever ....)
It is insulting that I now pay good money to finance my daughters at first rate colleges only to see their literature courses being so heavily slanted against any appreciation for defining limits of decency.
I suspect folks skilled with pretty words can plausibly justify just about anything they want to. Maybe that's why most communication depends so much on body language and delivery, more so than pretty words. But, there is no shortage of snake charmers with natural skills in body-language delivery.
After awhile, evaluation from an Adult Perspective should come to rely much more on actual experience. And that is my problem with any so called "educated elitist" who deems his/her insights superior based on little more than having been "educated" in pretty words. Absent defining experience, pretty words are mainly good for girly men and European self-deluded sophisticates. (Were it not for American "cowboys," what sort of freedom would Europe have?)
Why should I take Obama seriously, insofar as he has never served in the military, never ran a business, never gone without adequate food or shelter, and seems to have few enduring relationships except with derelicts?
It is not the Boomers themselves that I despise (after all, some of them are Independents), but the Leftist philosophy that seems still to infect many of their apparently Still-Impressionable-Minds. (BTW, I also despise much of Republican philosophy. McCain, however, is no girly man, is Independent, and no one can say his life is without defining experience.)
Obama and the coastal elites are toast insofar as the Presidential election.
True, they, like many Boomers, got themselves righteously saved in the deceptive word of the Secular Religion, International Socialism.
But real education comes in experience, and many of them never got that. A lot of the formerly misled Boomers did, however. And now they are armed to crush the coastal "sophisticates."
Just another morning in America.
House of Turmoil:
Snippet from http://townhall.com/columnists/KenConnor/2008/09/07/the_politics_of_personal_destruction?page=2:
The Politics of Personal Destruction
by Ken Connor
Congressman Barney Frank joined in the mud slinging by commenting that Governor Palin's home is "in great turmoil." That's the same Barney Frank who claims he didn't know that a homosexual brothel was being run out of his Georgetown townhouse some years ago.
From http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/post_118.html:
September 09, 2008
No wonder Air America went bankrupt
Jerome J. Schmitt
One of the loudest voice in denouncing “torture at Gitmo”, the deranged leftist / Obama-supporting radio “personality”, Randi Rhodes -- Senate Candidate Al Franken’s erstwhile Air America Radio colleague -- now denies that John McCain suffered any discomfort at the Hanoi Hilton. Speaking of McCain’s 5-years of imprisonment and torture at the hands of the Vietnamese, she said last Friday as chronicled by Brian Maloney at the Radio Equalizer:
“He was well treated actually. And he was well treated because he traded these propaganda interviews for good treatment.”
Remember this the next time left-wing radio complains about the “Fairness Doctrine”.
From http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=6DD89034-49E9-4C00-B5F6-7716B3AE8578:
.... For a decade Saddam had flouted the resolutions of the United Nations. It was important to enforce them. Saddam Hussein, bristling with macho, terrorizing his own people, flouting UN resolutions could use the money to be gained from Iraq’s vast oil reserves to finance building weapons of mass destruction. There was every reason to believe that given sufficient time, he had the money and scientific and technical resources to acquire such an arsenal. Horowitz and Johnson’s case fortunately does not rest on trying to tie Saddam closely to 9/11. Yet given the presence of radical Islamists, allowing such a regime to develop such weapons would indeed entail enormous risks in the future.
With the debate over the war in Iraq the old ideological frameworks that had been shaken in the wake of 9/11 returned. A minority current of centrist and centrist liberals supported the war including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Senator Joe Lieberman, some writers in The New Republic, some columnists for The Washington Post, and some of the authors and signers of The Euston Manifesto and American Liberalism and the Euston Manifesto. But we remained a minority and were soon swamped by the more numerous chorus coming form Moveon.org, The Nation, The New York Review of Books, the editorial page and some of the reporting of The New York Times, not to mention the left-liberal blogosphere.
....
In my view, George Bush’s key “strategic blunder” to borrow a phrase from Barack Obama, was not to have governed from the political center in the aftermath of 9/11. A centrist government would have raised, not lowered taxes. It would have called on young Americans from all economic backgrounds to join the military. Instead, President Bush combined a conservative domestic agenda that aroused anger in half of the electorate after a bitter and close election in which he lost the popular vote with a bold offensive against “the Axis of evil” as well as “the war on terror” against the radical Islamists. As a result all those who despised him and the Republican Party for its stance on abortion, tax cuts for the wealthy, global warming, gay marriage, gun ownership, and other domestic issues found it easy to avoid thinking hard about how free societies needed to fight a war for their survival against those determined to destroy them.
....
The most famous case of preemption that did not take place illustrates the point. The historian Williamson Murray has argued that Britain and France had the capability to invade and defeat Nazi Germany in 1938, that is, at a time before Hitler’ military reached its subsequent strength.
Had they done so, he argued, there would have been a war but not a “World” war and certainly no Holocaust. Murray’s case, however compelling, remains a hypothetical one. However, if such as war had been a smashing success leading to victory in a short time there would have been scant evidence that Hitler intended to start a war to dominate the entire continent and no evidence at all that he planned to attempt to murder all of European Jewry. Rather, critics might have denounced it as another example of British and French imperialism and unprovoked aggression. George W. Bush drew, in my view, the right conclusion that the combination of potential billions of dollars in oil revenue combined with the nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime was a danger that was too great to tolerate. But the evidence of the war’s success lay partly in what it had prevented and that is an outcome that cannot be definitively proven.
SNL skit: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/saturday-night-live-sketch-actually-bashed-nyt
Bush Derangement Syndrome:
Cynthia McKinney says 5000 executed Katrina used as cover.
Tue Sep 30, 2008
Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney announced for the first time on Sunday that she has received information that some 5000, mostly male, possibly prisoners were killed execution style, by single gunshot to the head, using the tragic events of hurricane Katrina as a cover.
Candidate McKinney made the announcement at a conference in Oakland, Ca, for the Critical Resistance 10 on Sunday. While speaking she informed the audience that she has received information from a sources that were involved in the clean-up and disposal of the thousands of bodies. According to the source; who wishes to remain nameless at this time, he was charged by the Department of Defense with the task of processing the personal information into DOD computers and then dumping the bodies into a Louisiana swamp. McKinney also claims she has spoken to unnamed members of the Red Cross that this event did in fact take place.
Presidential candidate McKinney reminds members of the audience that we need to continue to be diligent in our investigations of the “Prison Industrial Complex”.
We have long realized that Ms. McKinney is mentally unstable.
What is far more unsettling is the reaction of her audience. From the sound of their gasps, it would seem they actually believe her.
We are having a whole generation of our citizens being poisoned worse than the British ever did to the Chinese during the “Opium Wars.”
****
BUDGET SURPLUS:
No Clinton Surplus was handed to Bush: http://www.letxa.com/articles/16.
Bush Derangement Syndrome
Re: Bush’s Methodism --- see comment by Dlanor, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/the_united_methodist_church_vs.html.
Thanks! I wish "fairness doctrine" meant academia would better promote such consideration. Both MSM and Academia have become unfair and unreliable. Nowadays, one must navigate the Internet to find reasoned perspective.
It may be well to keep this article in one's quiver, to let fly when ignorance rears its head.
BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME:
See: http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2008/11/20/time_to_reassess_the_iraq_war;
http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/11/19/genius,_thy_name_is_obama;
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022112.php.
Bush Derangement: See http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/iraq_war_right_time_right_plac.html.
Post a Comment