Previously:

Democracy and the Constitution

Dependency On Oil

2008 Democratic Party

Iraq War Anniversary

Publicly Funded Elections

2008 Elections

CIA Torture Tapes

2007 Congress

Iraq Withdrawal Plan

Freedom of Speech

Big vs. Small Government

Iraq War Surge

Sacrifice In America

Iraq Study Group

2006 Midterm Elections

Democracy in America

Simple Issues

ABC and 9/11

Uniting Party and President

Global Warming

Immigration

George Bush

Democracy vs. Capitalism

Republican Party

Government Spying

Capital Punishment

Blaming Politicians

Rebuilding New Orleans

Katrina

Liberal Media

Conservatives and Christianity

Big Government

Our Christian Society

My Generation

Microsoft Monopoly

Why We're In Iraq

Fiscal Responsibility

Search CS:

CS Hall of Fame
You, Too, Can Be An Idiot

2006.08.13


There's a pretty mind-boggling "news analysis" in the New York Times today (click here if you are really interested). It's ludicrous at so many levels, I don't know where to begin. First off, there's this silly notion that today's media is liberal, and the NYT is typically used as a case in point. Yet, here they are printing a so-called "news analysis" that is nothing more than Bush administration talking points. Liberal, my ass. Republican lapdog is more like it.

But the real problem with this article is that both the points that it tries to make are absolutely, 100% idiotic. First is the idea that the recent British foiling of a major terrorism plot somehow validates the Bush administration's handling of terrorism. Are you kidding me? The British were able to thwart this plot through good old-fashioned police work, along with co-operating with other international police agencies. This is exactly opposite of the Bush approach! Does anybody really believe that bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age in any way helped the British investigation? Of course, not! If anything, the Iraqi war effort probably instigated these terrorists in the first place! The only way you can intelligently and logically interpret the implications of the British success is that this is the correct way of dealing with terrorism and the way we should be approaching the problem. But no -- Bush-Cheney-Rove are trying to tell us we need to wage bigger and badder wars of imperialism instead.

And then there's the second point -- that somehow Joe Liebermann's loss in the Connecticut Senate primary re-inforces the idea that everything that BushCo is doing in Iraq is the right thing to do. I can't even fathom how someone could be so stupid as to even attempt to put that bit of logic forward. Liebermann's loss was not only a repudiation of the Iraq war, but a total rejection of the entire Bush administration. You can't spin it any other way. Liebermann got in bed with a President who has been running down this country for six straight years, and the voters of Connecticut said "no more". It was that simple. It was, in fact, a very pro-America vote.

All of this is total idiocy coming from the Republican party, courtesy of the New York Times. Is anyone buying this crap? I shudder to think so, but then again we've still got something like a third of all Americans still approving of George Bush -- so clearly there are more than a few total idiots out there. We do have a major round of elections, though, coming up in November. Will the majority of Americans finally start throwing some of these morons out of office? Let's hope so.


TAGS: Terrorism, Iraq, Election 2006, Media Bias, Joe Lieberman, Right Wing Stupidity



Creative Commons License

 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.


back to thirdring.net