Time.com Dropped some blogger names in its Man of the Year Issue (pronoun change intentional). They were, not surprisingly, lefties (the Bloggers, I mean). One caught my eye, Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. This morning (with Kevin Drum) THE PUBLIC AND THE WAR he re-hashes the numbers surrounding the country's dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. They're dropping apparently. Oh well, buck up America!
Aside from the obvious: 1) That the MSM (the communications wing of the Democratic party) has been hindsighting the President about Iraq since May 2003.
2) That Michael Moore and dozens of tinfoil hat conspiracy-theorists like him have made a cottage industry out of ascribing all sorts of nefarious intentions to the Iraq War. (Ooooooh, Halliburton, bad!)
3) That Jimmy Carter, who never met a communist he didn't like, invited that porcine sleazeball (Moore) to sit with him at the Academy Awards, I mean the DN Convention. (I guess Ramsey Clark was busy that night instructing Saddaam Hussein on his defense strategy.)
4) That Chris Matthews has been conducting a one-man crusade to prove that Bush lied because the American people think Iraq had something to do with 9-11. (most Americans probably see it as I do. Saddaam, bad man in the Middle East. Al Queda, bad organization in, where? the Middle East? Hmmmmm, I wonder…..) The distinction is so beside the point its amusing, plus it's been fun to watch him dance on the head of a pin and parse the meaning of "operational involvement" from the 9-11 report).
5) That "populist” Al Gore or was it "fundamentalist" Al Gore or "Alpha-male" Al Gore nearly burst a blood vessel when he railed at Bush: that Bush "betrayed America." (I just think he was angry that Bush was President...let it go Al, the country's better off without you.)
6) That we had a particularly bad day in Mosul recently. And, finally,
7) That there probably is a grain of truth in Marshall's conclusion about the emotional investment Bushites (myself included) had about Iraq and that’s wearing off. And that the "realities on the ground"-effect has set in.
All this aside, however: the snapshot opinion of the American people and the MSM's daily fascination with "how it's going in Iraq" serves only one purpose, as it did in Vietnam, to embolden our enemies. If the left could just let it go, be patriotic, take the high road, support the war effort, accept the fact that the American people handed Bush a decisive victory. (The 'split down the middle electorate' is a nice wish on the Democrat's part, but savvy Dems know it for the rubbish it is, 10-20% of the support for Kerry was weak, soft, very weak, well, hell to borrow from the Dan Rather book of down-home cornpone, it's was as watery as Texas Grits in a Louisiana Bayou. Let's just accept it's going to be a long, tough slog to take power from the strongmen and Mullahs in that 12th century backwater (the Middle East) and give it to the people.
So liberals, get with the program already. Stop pretending to support the troops while declaiming the mission? How about supporting the current foreign policy of YOUR country, the United States, unless we're too religious for you? Is it so hard to deflate your egos to accept that we must press on like it or not? Liberals: stop whining.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Thursday, December 16, 2004
The Campaign is Over, Yet at the New York Times it Continues
The New York Times continues to campaign on behalf of the Left to which it is so slavishly, mindlessly, monolithically dedicated.
I have purposely given up my subscription and refuse to buy the paper, nevertheless being the "National Paper of Record," it's hard not to glance at the headlines from time to time. Especially the Weekend edition (Fridays). It's usually jam packed with interesting items, things to do or see in the city.
A cursory glance at the headlines on page A-1 reveal its continued crusade. And positioning is everything.
This from the Friday, December 10th edition.
Top left hand corner: It's Inauguration time....$250,000 Buys Lunch With The President and More. Why bother reading the article, it's a hit piece on the callous greed of the Republicans.
Middle center, just above the fold: "Muslim Scholars Increasingly Debate Unholy War." The fact that they consider the pronouncements of Muslim "scholars" as significant says a whole lot. Isn't Muslim Scholar an oxymoron anyway? What's the point? Who cares? Don't they have to sort out their own mess? Like children clamouring for attention, they improperly turned their anger with their society's own failures outward and struck at their imaginary enemy -- the all purpose Great Satan.
It's the last gasp of a failed philosophy in the throes of its death, we can only hope. The NY Times "scholar" is a civil engineer, I'm sure he's a thoughtful man, but where are their think tankers? I guess they don't have them. (If the New York Times were to look at me, a reasonable well-educated student of political economy, sparsely published humorist, they would dismiss me out of hand, but that's another story.)
The left / the New York Times cuts our Muslim friends a lot of slack and who knows why? Guilt probably. But, why feel guilty? If Christian people were sitting on all the oil riches the Arab Islamisists have, Arabia would be the center of education, medicine, scientific discovery, the greatest universities in the world would be advancing the cause of humanity all funded by this incredible wealth. Not the Muslims, they're fighting wars from the last Millennium, a war for domination they lost in the 16th century, but are winning in Europe today. (See Robert Spencer's piece in FrontPageMag.com: "The Rise of 'Eurabia'", or Nial Ferguson's "Eurabia?".)
--- to be continued ---
I have purposely given up my subscription and refuse to buy the paper, nevertheless being the "National Paper of Record," it's hard not to glance at the headlines from time to time. Especially the Weekend edition (Fridays). It's usually jam packed with interesting items, things to do or see in the city.
A cursory glance at the headlines on page A-1 reveal its continued crusade. And positioning is everything.
This from the Friday, December 10th edition.
Top left hand corner: It's Inauguration time....$250,000 Buys Lunch With The President and More. Why bother reading the article, it's a hit piece on the callous greed of the Republicans.
Middle center, just above the fold: "Muslim Scholars Increasingly Debate Unholy War." The fact that they consider the pronouncements of Muslim "scholars" as significant says a whole lot. Isn't Muslim Scholar an oxymoron anyway? What's the point? Who cares? Don't they have to sort out their own mess? Like children clamouring for attention, they improperly turned their anger with their society's own failures outward and struck at their imaginary enemy -- the all purpose Great Satan.
It's the last gasp of a failed philosophy in the throes of its death, we can only hope. The NY Times "scholar" is a civil engineer, I'm sure he's a thoughtful man, but where are their think tankers? I guess they don't have them. (If the New York Times were to look at me, a reasonable well-educated student of political economy, sparsely published humorist, they would dismiss me out of hand, but that's another story.)
The left / the New York Times cuts our Muslim friends a lot of slack and who knows why? Guilt probably. But, why feel guilty? If Christian people were sitting on all the oil riches the Arab Islamisists have, Arabia would be the center of education, medicine, scientific discovery, the greatest universities in the world would be advancing the cause of humanity all funded by this incredible wealth. Not the Muslims, they're fighting wars from the last Millennium, a war for domination they lost in the 16th century, but are winning in Europe today. (See Robert Spencer's piece in FrontPageMag.com: "The Rise of 'Eurabia'", or Nial Ferguson's "Eurabia?".)
--- to be continued ---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)