Friday, September 08, 2006

Dems: They Keep on Slandering, But Can't Take It Themselves

Michael Moore. John Kerry. Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton. Mary Mapes. Dan Rathers. Oliver Stone. Willie Nelson. Dixie Chicks. Maureen Dowd. Thomas Friedman. Daily Kos. New York Times. Los Angeles Times. Reuters. Associated Press. Toronto Star. Globe and Mail. All have slandered the Bush administration over the past 6 years.


One little miniseries on ABC.



rp said...

I'm a bit surprised that you don't weigh in on any of the amazingly disturbing shit the Bush administration has done, whether it be phone tapping or crafting fake intelligence reports.
The blank-cheque you and Natedawg give the Bush administration reminds me of a quote from this article:
"There are some people, and I'm one of them, that believe George Bush was placed where he is by the Lord," Tomanio said. "I don't care how he governs, I will support him. I'm a Republican through and through."

Rocketman1200 said...

1. "Phone Tapping" (which is a pretty old-fashioned way of describing the NSA program) is likely a important part of the defense strategy that the administration has. Their data-mining efforts in this area are quite a bit more sophisticated than just listening in on people's phone conversations. I don't find it disturbing largely because the calls that they do monitor are placed in the US, and connect to parts of the world likely to have strategic interest.

2. Name the 'fake intelligence report' that the administration has crafted, and I will counter it with an actual fake intelligence report crafted by the democrat, Joe Wilson. Or by CBS news and Dan Rather. Or by Reuters. Or by a couple NY Times writers.

3. The only blank cheques being written are by ideological opponents of the administration, bent on discrediting it at any cost.

Rocketman1200 said...

P.S. It's not my faith in God that makes me support GWB. It's rational thought.

Rumpus said...

I have not read anything that resembles rational thought on this blog.

Rocketman1200 said...

Rumpus, don't you think that's a little harsh?

rp said...

What really disturbs me is that president Bush consistently lies to the general public, like here, and you let that slide, yet you're willing to take effects of global warming out of context (or at least disregard any context) just to make the left look like idiots. If you're going to point out people's inconsistencies, you should stop ignoring GWB's.

Rocketman1200 said...

I don't see you commenting a lot about the Left's blunders, but I'll let that pass.

RP, keep in mind that this is an opinion blog, and that a person with an opinion is likely to try to bolster it with as much background as possible.

GWB is a human, not a god. But my position, overall on the matter of his administration, is that he has been repeatedly slandered and misrepresented over the past 6 years, and it's so god damned obvious that I can't believe people would ever fall for it. In fact, his re-election in 2004 would kind of demonstrate that they don't, and that the Left should try something else. With respect to your link, I would bet you 10 dollars that I could debunk that crap in a week worth of googling. Are we on?

rp said...

No need to let anything pass: let me refer you to my comment here on your blog to see me criticizing Cuban government officials I met with in a business meeting during my last job.

We're definitely on. Can you tell me what exactly you're going to attempt to debunk? The information in that article is taken from and Unless you don't trust the administration, there shouldn't be a need to google search anything, you've got the raw data right there. I'm sure you'll be able to find another opinion blog to distort it though :) George Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein had relations with Zarqawi, when in fact Hussein and the Iraqi Intelligence Service were actively trying to locate and kill him, as found by the appointed senate committee.

Rocketman1200 said...

Just a little taste for now; that quote from the 9/11 report was pieced together from several spots on that page. Information not included in it but found on the same page and page 92 indicates that a 'foreign intelligence agency' (My guess is the CIA) requested that the Iraq Intelligence Service capture him and four others. The ISS captured only one, and released him later, because as one Iraqi official put it later, Saddam thought that the guy would help to attack US forces once they invaded the country.

Only according to Saddam Hussein himself was Zarqawi an outlaw. And this was his sentiment in post-capture debriefings. But Hussein is a pathological man in many ways. I don't know if I'd prefer his story to GWB's.

Rocketman1200 said...

And good for you for criticizing a regime that is completely indefensible. I mean try criticizing your own party some time, or maybe the loony-left mainstream media like the New York Times or something. Possibly Reuters for publishing staged pictures for propaganda purposes.

rp said...

I enjoy many parts of your blog, and I can certainly respect your political opinions, but your comments aren't conducive to any sort of intelligent debate.

I could watch Bill O'Reilly every night and fume at his every word, but after some time I'd realize that my time is best spent toward constructive purposes.

Like CS said some time ago, maybe this subject matter is best discussed over beers, not in a blog.

Who knows, maybe in a year when we've bombed the middle-east into accepting our ideology, I'll be able to read this blog again..

Rocketman1200 said...

RP,first of all, thank you for your comments; they've been instructive. Second, there's no need to insult my intelligence. I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm confident enough in my capacity for reasonable thought that if you seriously challenge me, I will accept your challenges. You can't win an argument by throwing silly insults back at me while you walk away.

Lastly, bars are the worst place to discuss these matters, alcohol just fuels the emotions that lead to hurtful and irrational speech. Trust me, I know that well. Let's have a coffee instead.