How many times have we heard over the past six and-a-half years that the Iraq war was a “war of choice” that was distracting us from the real “war of necessity” in Afghanistan? And how many times have we heard that Bush isn’t serious about actually fighting terrorism because bin Laden hasn’t yet been captured?
The answer is quite a few. After Democrats voted in respectable numbers to authorize the war in Iraq because it was politically convenient at the time, they set about the daunting task of betraying their own votes and, in the process, their country. Ostensibly, they trotted out the “Bush lied about WMDs” canard ad nauseum to cover their pusillanimity. As they are wont to do, when that didn’t work, they defaulted to their factory setting by claiming that it wasn’t that they didn’t want to fight a war; they just wanted to focus on the war we weren’t quite as focused on at the moment. That would be Afghanistan, for those of you playing along at home.
While liberals acted like the war on terror would come to a swift conclusion if only we captured bin Laden, American service members were busy cleaning up after eight years of Clinton foreign policy failures. Liberals pretended that they would be sufficiently bellicose for the just the right war–that war being Afghanistan–if only we would concentrate on it. Now that the Commander-in-Chief has ostensibly made Afghanistan his focal point in the war on terror overseas contingency operations, liberals have once again defaulted to their factory setting, this time by claiming that the real problem isn’t the Taliban and is in Pakistan–or “Pock-is-stahn”, if you will. I can’t decide which is more cowardly: claiming that you’re itching to go to war with the right opponent only to abandon your own professed convictions a scant nine months after your man is elected, or creating intellectual cover fire for your man’s dithering response to his commanders in the field as it pertains that very same war. Worse, to claim that you are now itching to fight in yet some other place where we aren’t focusing our attention is unconscionable. You can rest assured that if we did allow troops over the Pockistahn-y border in any appreciable numbers, liberals would start claiming that they wanted to pursue the real threat in India. It will someday come to the point where liberals will claim to want to invade Greenland because “that’s where the real war is”.
While we ponder committing forces to Antarctica to find bin Laden and thus end the war on terror, let me help clear some things up really quickly.
Yes, President Obama is my Commander-in-Chief. I won’t second-guess his decisions publicly. I’m prepared to do what I’m told. But what I can do, however, is call out his base for their manifest cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.
So we’re all on the same page here–you know, the page that concerns America’s best interest–al Qaida, like any military or paramilitary organization, has something of a chain of command. Yes, finding bin Laden would be helpful to us, disruptive to al Qaida operations, and would be a huge blow to terrorist morale, but there is someone ready and willing to take his place. Capturing him won’t effectively, in and of itself, end anything. Second, you don’t get to call Republicans the “party of no” when you have plenty of examples on hand of decisions that would make us stand up and say “yes”. Republican support for a decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan would be overwhelming.
Finally, it isn’t precisely kosher to hold a major press conference claiming to have effectively studied an issue to the point where you claim you are promulgating a new strategy with a new commander, only to claim a few short months later that you need to reevaluate that strategy and that commander’s recommendations as though you had never made such an announcement to begin with. If ChimpyMcBushitler had ever made such an egregious and quick reversal of his own position, it would have been proffered as manifest proof that he was a gaffe-prone, intellectually incurious dullard. Since it’s President Obama, we get treated to column after column by left-wing scribblers claiming that this is evidence of the president’s commitment to the troops, to patient deliberation, and of his grasp of the gravity of his situation.
Whatever decision the president makes, you can bet dollars to donuts that some intellectual lightweight on the left will pen swooning odes to the great gravitas of the One. Oh, and it will be Bush’s fault.
File this under the category “absurd and insulting”:
This attempt to paint Prop 8 proponents as silly hypocrites is brought to you by a man twit named John Marcotte, who apparently is part of the minority of California voters who failed their attempt to foist gay marriage on the populace of one of the most liberal states in the Union.
The video plays on a very tired and very stupid argument that says that gay marriage can’t possibly diminish the standing of traditional marriage, because divorce already has. A four year-old could dissemble such an astonishingly idiotic attempt at a logical formulation.
Not only is Marcotte’s video insulting to Prop 8 proponents in general, but it really goes the extra mile in its effort to insult Christians specifically. I might point out that only a very tiny, negligible sliver of Christians don’t believe in divorce for any reason whatsoever. If Marcotte was proposing an end to no fault divorce, his argument might gain a little traction. The video isn’t about trying to make a valid point; it’s about insulting Christians and trying to trick the undecided into concluding that Prop 8 proponents are hypocritical if they don’t get behind an effort to ban divorce.
If Marcotte really wanted to lodge a complaint against anyone, he should start with the startling number of California voters who voted for President Obama and Proposition 8.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, recent Gallup polling has discovered that nearly two-thirds of Americans hate America. At least according to DNC standards they do:
The majority of Americans do not believe President Barack Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize (61%), but the public is split in its personal reaction to the announcement. Asked if they are “glad” Obama received the prize, 46% of Americans say yes and 47% say no.
After President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize awarding was announced, the DNC claimed that the Republican party and indeed, anyone who scoffed at the president’s peace prize was not only un-American, but was siding with terrorists:
“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize – an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride – unless of course you are the Republican Party.
“The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim,” Woodhouse said.
But if Gallup polling–usually considered definitive on questions of policy by liberals–is to be believed, nearly two-thirds of Americans are terrorist sympathizers. This must come as a huge shock to the 34% of Democrats who think President Obama’s Nobel is undeserved.
By a slim margin, more Americans admit to being unhappy with the award than the number who say they are happy (47-46%).
So it seems that not only is “Republican” not so embarrassing a label to claim after all, but dissent itself may not be so uncommon.
What the DNC and the left failed to grasp (and continue to have trouble understanding) is that opposition to the president isn’t predicated on racial animus, ignorance, or dissent for the sake of dissent.
No one blames the president for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Very few people think he should have refused the award outright; to do so would have been unnecessarily rude. But can we be permitted to question the validity of the award and the premise upon which it was awarded? The award to the president, beyond being wholly unsupported by an actual body of accomplishments, represents an insulting attempt by international “progressives” to insert themselves in American politics. It’s neither mean nor un-American to point out these inconvenient truths.
One wonders how long it will take the great Paragons of Civility to zero in on this one:
In case you’re wondering, that’s Mr. Leg Thrill himself wishing death upon Rush Limbaugh.
It’s always comforting when the great Protectors of a Civil Discourse expose themselves for the rank hypocrites that they are.
Of course, this could just be nothing more than jealousy speaking. After all, Limbaugh draws an audience of somewhere around twenty million listeners, whereas it takes a full array of ghost hunting gadgets to detect someone (other than conservative bloggers champing at the bit to ridicule the Leg Thrill) who is willing to admit they watch Hardball.
I would hope that no conservative out there holds their breath waiting for a denunciation from one of Matthew’s fellow liberals.
Remember the halcyon days of 2008’s presidential campaign? In case you forgot candidate Obama’s position on the Taliban and Afghanistan, here’s a short refresher:
In case your computer is negative contact on audio/video capabilities, that was candidate Obama, in the late stages of the presidential campaign, bashing Pervez Musharraf for signing a peace treaty with the Taliban.
As recently as August, the President could be heard referring to the war in Afghanistan as a “necessary war”:
‘This is not a war of choice,” Barack Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 17. “This is a war of necessity.
“Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”
This is, of course, supposed to be in contradistinction to the superfluous “just for fun” war in Iraq, I guess. The point is: until fairly recently, President Obama had a storied history of claiming that Afghanistan was a just and righteous war that he would prosecute with due diligence and vigor. Iraq was supposed to have drawn needed resources and troops from the “necessary war”.
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that President Obama isn’t the first or only liberal Democrat to take this stance. The practice of liberals trying to appear hawkish by claiming to want to use troops and resources withdrawn from Iraq in Afghanistan dates back at least to the presidential election of 2004. John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) used this strategy extensively.
At least candidate Obama was on record opposing the Iraq war from the very beginning. But that still doesn’t excuse the sudden waffling. The Obama administration’s sudden indecision is about far more than simple disagreements over what degree to increase engagement in Afghanistan; the enemy has itself been redefined.
In the first two of the sessions, which are taking place in the secure Situation Room in the White House basement, Obama kept returning to one question for his advisers: Who is our adversary, the official said.
The answer to Obama’s question was al-Qaida, as it was in March when Obama first announced an Afghanistan strategy.
But amid changing circumstances in Afghanistan, the implications of that renewed determination for the current war debate are many.
There now are no more than 100 al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Instead, the U.S. fight in Afghanistan is against the Taliban, now increasingly being defined by the Obama team as distinct from al-Qaida. While still dangerous, the Taliban is seen as an indigenous movement with almost entirely local and territorial aims, less of a threat to the U.S. than the terrorist network.
Obama’s team believes some elements in the Taliban are aligned with al-Qaida, with its transnational reach and aims of attacking the West, but probably not the majority and mostly for tactical rather than ideological reasons, the official said.
“They’re not the same type of group,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. “It’s certainly not backed up by any of the intelligence.”
Suddenly the man who denounced Musharraf for engaging the Taliban in diplomacy is himself uncertain about whether or not the Taliban are even really the enemy.
This, in and of itself, wouldn’t have had the potential to pique the public’s interest were it not for the continuing efforts of the Obama administration to effectively define the War on Terror and the enemy out of existence. Starting with “overseas contingency operations” and running right through the declaration of some Taliban as tolerable partners in Afghanistan’s reconstruction, there appears to have been a concerted effort to avoid actually fighting a war or an enemy by simply changing nomenclatures to the point that neither exist in any meaningful form.
Lest conservatives be branded with the idiotic and demonstrably false “party of no” imprecation on this issue, Gallup polling indicates that if President Obama were to follow General McChrystal’s advice and send a massive influx of troops to Afghanistan, 73% of Republicans would approve.
Also not helping the president in this matter is the ever-growing laundry list of issues he demagogued on the campaign trail but has waffled on since assuming office. During the campaign, deficits were bad, bad, BAD! Suddenly, once he was safely ensconced in office, deficit spending was just hunky-dorey, necessary, something to be tolerated because of Bush. Rendition was similarly awful, until he got into office and discovered that this whole terrorism thing wasn’t entirely a machination of the evil Bushitler, after all. The list goes on and on.
To be sure, Republicans have on occasion been elected only to break their promises once in office. The difference is that Democrats almost always break theirs once in office. Could it be that it is because liberal Democrats coopt the lofty rhetoric and image of conservatives (ahem, Reagan) only to conduct an about face once they don’t face the prospect of losing their election? Unfortunately, President Obama appears to be the most flagrant offender. After frequently coopting the Reagan brand, the president has flip-flopped in record time.
Either Afghanistan is a “war of necessity” and the Taliban are the enemy or the president probably lied at some point in time. Either he didn’t believe what he said on the trail and it was all a lie, or he believed it then and he’s fudging the truth some now to appease his base of craven cowards. It would be super helpful to know which one it is.
Every now and again, I truly appreciate Rosenbaum’s insights. I read him quite frequently at Pajamas Media. But his latest offering is frustrating in its banality.
Rosenbaum echoes the most patently absurd talking points of leftists here at home in attempting to prove his contention:
The worldwide web circulation of pictures of thuggish goons carrying guns (yes I know it’s legal, it’as also incredibly stupid), haters screaming down dissenters from their talking points at Townhalls, the kind of violence in the rhetoric of the anonymous cowards who spill their bile–behind their cowardly anonymity–in the comments section.Finally I think it was the Hitler mustaches on the Obama posters. Norway is a nation that was invaded by and lived under Hitler’s rule. Sweden was threatened into neutrality. I wouldn’t blame them for wanting to rebuke these hysterical whiners trivializing Nazism before they unleashed some nut with a gun who took their frothings seriously.
First of all, it’s been pretty thoroughly proven at this point that most of the gun-toting and mustache-drawing folks are LaRouche supporters–arguably not right-wingers except in a world where anyone to the right of Hugo Chavez is considered a “right-winger”. Second, if there is some great animus behind the conduct of town hall attendees expressing skepticism over ObamaCare, it isn’t immediately evident from audio/visual evidence, unless finger wagging admonitions by private citizens to government officials to stay out of the private sector are, in and of themselves, great proof of “virulent” anti-Obama sentiment. So, why the absurd talking point?
Lest liberals be tempted to make the (again) manifestly absurd argument that right-wingers kept their yaps shut for the duration of the Bush presidency, I humbly submit the great immigration debacle of ‘08. It was right-wing outrage that effectively squashed any possibility of “comprehensive immigration reform”. The myth that right-wingers quietly acquiesced to Bush era shenanigans, but are suddenly furious with similar Obama policy efforts, is just that–a myth. Conservatives were quite vocal in their criticism of deficit spending (where it didn’t appear in the form of emergency allocations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), Medicare part D, and amnesty–among other things. This notion that conservatives were just giddy with excitement over Bush’s all-too-frequent liberal leaning experimentations is easily disproved.
So no, Mr. Rosenbaum, the Nobel committee didn’t hand President Obama a Peace Prize because of the practically nonexistent phenomenon of Obama haters. They did it because 1) they hate Bush and the prize has become a de facto “f**k Bush” award, and 2) they want to geld him on the questions of Iraq, and Afghanistan.
By now, anyone not confined to the deep recesses of a dark cave are well aware that President Obama is this year’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. What people are less aware of are the reasons for President Obama’s award.
Putting aside for a moment that this award has been handed out to such champions of “peace” as Yasser Arafat and Le Duc Tho, what exactly has the president done in the way of promoting peace–ostensibly the reason for the award in the first place? Hell, what has he done at all that has borne any fruit whatsoever?
Criticism of the committee’s decision is already widespread:
Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.
Even that great bastion of liberal idiocy itself, the Huffington Post, is aghast at the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama:
The Nobel Peace Committee has been accused in the past of trying to make a political statement, and perhaps, because they admire Obama and his groundbreaking presidency, in addition to his earlier anti-war statements and recent speech to the Muslim world, they are, by this action, hoping to jump start his ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why else give him the honor now? Whatever one might feel about Obama, he has not earned this singular award.
The prize was already a joke, but this really cements the N.P.P. as nothing more than a fanciful way for leftists world-wide to dress up the phrase, “f–k Bush”. After all, the award was given to the astronomically inept Jimmy Carter in 2002 for his “efforts” to negotiate peace in the middle east, which mostly consist of abandoning the Shah in Iran, and his anti-Semetic ranting in his laughably moronic book, Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. Recall that in 2007, the award was given to Al Gore for tireless work in stopping global warming and unicorn poaching, and also for his relentless criticism of the evil Chimperor.
But with this awarding to President Obama–apparently for his tranformative Hopey-Changeyness, the Nobel Peace Prize has become the ultimate participation ribbon. Merely demagoguing an unpopular predecessor and apologizing for the imaginary transgressions of your own country are now sufficient for an award that was created to honor achievement by individuals working toward the ultimate goal of peace. Arguably, merely tossing around the words ‘hope’ and ‘change’ approximately a thousand times a day for two years leading up to a presidential election isn’t what the creators of the Nobel Peace Prize had in mind.
N.J. Principal of Obama Praising Students Unapologetic. After All, Educators Know Better Than Parents!
The principal of a N.J. school where children were captured on camera singing hymns to the president is unapologetic and says that given the chance, she’d do it again.
I was more disgusted than I was outraged when first I saw this video of schoolchildren praising President Obama for his “equal pay for equal work” policy efforts.
First of all, we never needed President Obama to make our country “strong again”; the last time I checked, we were the still the world’s lone superpower the day before Barack Obama got elected, and we remain so after his election. Secondly, isn’t the phrase, “all are equal in his sight” a little messianic?
It turns out there is another song praising President Obama’s “great accomplishments”:
Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”Hooray, Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country’s economy number one again!Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!So continue —- Mr. President we know you’ll do the trick
So here’s a hearty hip-hooray —-Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
I’m assuming that by “great accomplishments” the author of the song must mean, “getting elected in a feverishly anti-Republican election cycle, against an ineptly run campaign, over a lugubrious candidate, with a pliant media’s dedicated assistance”. If there’s some other “great accomplishment” out there, it isn’t immediately obvious to anyone who hasn’t sworn utter fealty to the liberal catechism.
As off-putting as the songs themselves were, the declaration of the principal in the face of parental outrage is far more disturbing. Implicit in her declaration–that she would do it again if given the change–is the underlying belief that the parents are all know-nothings and her and her teaching staff are uniquely qualified to determine what is best for the children they are charged with educating.
As a matter of fact, and needless to say, parents are the primary educators of children. We pay teacher’s salaries in the form of something called “taxes”, and as their employers we ought to have a little say in their education. This is what burns me about liberals and education: they treat education as some sort of abstract, and teachers and administrators as some sort of clergy who arbitrarily ought to be able to decide what is and isn’t okay to teach children. The community has spoken rather firmly against the Obama songs, and the teachers and administration ought to act sufficiently contrite. As I said previously, I initially found the songs far more creepy than alarming, but they are unacceptable nonetheless. I don’t think the teacher or principal ought to have necessarily been fired for the song, but is it too much to ask for them to admit that their song crossed a line?
Liberals to Conservatives: Racism Is Whatever the Hell We Say It Is
It’s pretty much official: the words ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ have effectively been stripped of meaning by modern liberals.
Having first labeled Tea Party participants “racist”, liberals set about referring to town hall protesters as racist thugs as well. With the addition of Joe Wilson to the dreaded ranks of racist opposition, it has literally come to the point where all opposition to the liberal agenda, no matter how slight or innocuous, is said to be predicated wholly in racial animus.
It was during campaign ‘08 that the first whispered accusations of latent racism appeared whenever someone dared to challenge then President-Elect Obama’s views as “socialistic”. Those wimpered accusations increased in both frequency and urgency with the aforementioned Tea Party movement, and by the time the Great Town Hall Backlash of ‘09 was in full swing, conservatives were accused of being everything from racist thugs, to “political terrorists”, to Nazis.
This wouldn’t seem like news to conservatives, who have been accused of being Nazis and facists for–oh, let’s just say at least the past forty years–everytime they offer even the most tepid rebuke of liberals or the mildest critique of the liberal agenda, except this time, liberals have gone well above and beyond their usual efforts to bastardize the English language. First, “socialism” was said to be the n-word in disguise. Then “death panels” was interpreted as racial code, followed closely by the phrases “take our country back” and “you lie”, and finally anything that comes out of the mouth of a conservative to include ‘a’, ‘and’, and ‘the’. Simply put the standard has become: racism is whatever the hell liberals say it is. They’ve even taken to putting words in conservatives’ mouths to advance their odd “dissent is motivated by racism” formulation.
It’s easy to imagine opposition to socialized medicine being predicated on racial animus–Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton notwithstanding. Actually, it’s hard to see how conservative objections to health care “insurance reform” in its present incarnation (which is essentially the same as its previous incarnations) are motivated by racism when conservatives have opposed such efforts to bastardize the health care industry for well over half a century. Unless Bill Clinton was an albino black man, conservative opposition to HillaryCare just doesn’t seem to support the “racism” narrative.
Ah, but wily liberals aren’t impeded by this pesky “reality” of which I speak!
For the record, it’s difficult to understand how anything but raw prejudice and an unapologetic will to power could explain why liberals endlessly harp about President Obama being “the first black president” when his genetic makeup is equally condusive to calling him the 44th white president. Memo to liberals: Obama is as much white as he is black.
But in liberal land, blackness and whiteness is–much like racism–whatever the hell they say it is. This is why President Obama, who is half black and half white, is considered “black”, while Michael Steele, who is decided more black in terms of genetic makeup, is seemingly white in the eyes of liberals. It is why Colin Powell’s blackness warranted cries of “Uncle Tom!” when he was a member of ChimpyMcBushitler’s administration, but suddenly redeemed himself when he endorsed Obama. Liberalism–or the lack thereof–is what, to liberals’ minds, determines intelligence, worthiness, and racial background.
So liberals show no signs of slowing on their determined efforts to double down on stupid. For a group of people constantly demeaning the religious zealousness of their opponents, liberals sure have childlike faith in the flawed premise that simply calling the opposition racists and Nazis will make the people buy into their preposterous policy ideas.
Sometimes I wonder if being a liberal isn’t a perpetual exercise in cognitive dissonance.
Every time one turns around, liberals are exposed for their rank hypocrisy. Curiously, they’re doubling down on crazy.
No matter how many times the charge of racism (the “last refuge of the liberal scoudrel”) slides off the backs of conservatives conditioned to treat such an accusation as proof of intellectual triumph, many modern liberals never tire of hurling the epithet. Their ideas are pathetic, their thinking misguided, and their mythology has been completely discredited by history–but at least they know how to pander! It’s a strange tactic: by attempting to treat everyone who is not a white evangelical male as though they are mentally handicapped invalids completely incapable of caring for themselves, they somehow manage to insulate themselves from ever being called out as the outrageous bigots that they are.
Partially born from this phenomenon is the Joe Wilson controversy. Joe Wilson calls the president a liar during an address of Congress, during a portion of the speech devoted to mendaciously claiming that illegal immigrants will not be covered by ObamaCare, and all some liberals can think is… “racism!”.
Likewise, the astronomically stupid Mike Lupica observes a substantial gathering of ObamaCare opponents and concludes that it’s because they couldn’t scream loud enough to keep the “black guy” from getting elected. Conversely, they also couldn’t scream loud enough to keep the “white guy” from getting elected, either. Lest we forget, Obama is half white. Shhhhh… don’t tell liberals! This is the problem with identity politics: sometimes, liberals are just too stupid to realize they’ve chosen a poor target to bear the burden of acting as a racial pinata.
What really chafes is the manifestly absurd accusation from the left that somehow angry, angry, angry white folks on the right are “coursening” our political discourse.
This, from the group who used election 2000 to slander, libel, and otherwise beat down George W. Bush from day one.
This, from the people who gladly endorsed the Iraq War when it seemed popular to do so and then proceeded to turn around and claim Bush “lied” by using the same intelligence Clinton had used to justify military action years before.
This, from the people who treated the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina as “proof” that Bush was incompetent and uncaring–as opposed to the colossally malfeasant Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco. The poor dead of Katrina left their blood on Nagin and Blanco’s hands, not George W. Bush and FEMA. For more on that please see the definition of the term “federalism”.
These people laugably pretended to give a damn about veterans when the Walter Reed fiasco gave them an excuse to slander Bush. Take it from a veteran: we know that too often, Democrats tend not to give a damn about us. The fact that you let Clinton slash our budget to the bone before you cried your crocodile tears over Walter Reed kind of gave away the game. What really sickens sane people is the fact that you hated the amiable Bush enough to try to pimp the infirmities of those who have borne the battle in order to get him.
In a shining example of political civility, many of the same people who donned sackcloth to lament Joe Wilson’s unfortunate outburst booed Bush during the 2005 State of the Union address. Rahm Emanuel would later make the absurd claim that before Wilson’s outburst, a president had “never been treated that way before. Never.”
These people claimed that the Patriot Act’s mere existence was somehow “proof” that Bush was “shredding the Constitution”. Oddly, the last time I had a good look at the Constitution, it actually identifies the “common defence” as something it exists to provide for; this is in contradistinction to the “right” to have rich folks pay for every ache, pain, and boob job of those who vote Democrat. Of course, I might have missed something whilst slogging through the Constitution’s great deference to abortion and sodomy.
And, finally, many of these same people laughed uproariously when an ungrateful Iraqi scumbag threw his shoes at Bush. Alas! If only Wilson had thrown an article of clothing, we could all be having a beer summit right now.
Conservatives tend to be more amused with liberals than we are angry. Trust me–we’re laughing at the fact that every protestor is hysterically help up as proof that we are all sinister and racist. We laugh when idiots like John Avalon try to equate our reasoned opposition with the blind hatred of the left over the past eight years. Conservatives aren’t really capable of it. We don’t have the energy. Besides–the left only opposes us because our chairman is black!
Most of us, after all, have better things to do–like figure out how to pay for liberal fairytales to come.
