Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Cite please? Who has the GOP smeared? I know I know, Max Cleland, right? Bullshit. That was a policy dispute, which the DEMS pulled a bait and switch on and tried to say Bush was questioning Cleland's patriotism. Same with Kerry. The response to any legitimate policy dispute is "Bush is questionning my patriotism."
|
Good god, man. You really need to start reading things other than the Drudge Report. Give us an anonymous PO Box, and we'll raise money to send you a subscription to
The National Review or something. Baby steps at first.
It's tough to know where to start with this, and there's insufficient time to build a true laundry list, but let's start here.
1. Please explain to me how what GWB did to McCain was not a smear, if not a sexual crime. You can start with GWB's close association with the fellas who declared during the 2000 primaries that "McCain abandoned the veterans." Bonus points if we credibly attribute this to a "policy dispute."
2. Richard Clarke. Sure, you might say, the Administration was merely concerned with factual accuracy in its criticisms ("On page 242, it was really TWO Predator drones, not ONE!! The man's obviously incompetent!!").
But that's not all. That sissified major media outlet
WaPo agrees:
Quote:
The latest case in point: Richard A. Clarke, who served four presidents (three Republican, one Democratic) -- most prominently as White House chief of counterterrorism during this administration and its predecessor. He has written a book about his experiences, saying that the Bush administration didn't take the al Qaeda threat seriously enough. (I note, skeptically, that he allowed the book to be released last weekend in a well-coordinated media campaign designed to maximize sales, thereby upstaging his own testimony on Wednesday before the government panel investigating the 9/11 attacks.)
Here's what happened the very next day: Clarke's account sparked a serious discussion of the many issues he had raised; the Bush White House thanked him for trying to make sense of what he had learned in 30 years on the job; and the media kept their focus on what he said and not why he might be saying it.
Of course, nothing I wrote in that previous paragraph is true. (It's sad what passes for an active fantasy life in Washington.)
Here's what really happened: Administration officials undertook a counter media blitz. Clarke is a partisan, they said. He is disgruntled. His "best buddy" is the chief foreign policy adviser for Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting. He "wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." He "may have a grudge to bear because he probably wanted a more prominent position." The book, said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan, is "Dick Clarke's American grandstand."
And that was just Monday.
|
Don't take it too seriously, Club. I am criticizing Bush, but it's also with some degree of admiration. When a GOP consultant preciently commented a year ago that with Kerry as the nominee, when the GOP is through with him "people will have a hard time remembering what side of the war he fought on," I can't help but feel a small bit of envy.
Clinton was good, but they just tried to make problems go away. The Bushies are fucking incredible. When they play hardball, they don't just take you out -- they take out your family, your friends, even your dog. De Niro's Al Capone would be proud.
