Friday, February 11, 2005

And this is news?

You know, North Korea announcing they have nuclear weapons is sort of like Ellen Degeneres announcing she is gay...

Uhhhhh, no. You're Wrong.

Via Michael Totten, I was referred to an article by Steve Silver, which Totten describes as a defense, although critical, of the MSM.

It is lengthy, and I have not read the whole thing, but early on in it I see some dissembling which makes me want to stop reading. Silver writes:

I’m not here to argue that the mainstream media is perfect, that the emergence of blogs isn’t a major event, that incidents of bias and inaccuracy don’t exist, or that certain frequent targets of blog attacks don’t deserve it. But I can say with complete confidence that the mainstream media does a very good job with the vast majority of the content that it produces, and there is worthwhile, entertaining, and valuable work to be found in the MSM every single day. It’s about time they got a break.

Much like lefties simultaneously bashing George W. Bush as both stupid and cunningly evil, bloggers who bash “MSM” are making two arguments that contradict one another- MSM is effectively and ruthlessly biased, yet they’re also incompetent. How can both be true?

Yes, reporters will sometimes make mistakes. But such mistakes are not necessarily a sign of incompetence. There are a million things that can go wrong with a story and all those things can happen to bloggers too. That’s the way it is, and the way it will continue to be for as long as reporting is done by humans.


Silver is trying a little slight of hand here.

First, he is setting up examples which are not quite accurate.

When lefties bash Bush, they do so as both a moron, and as a diabolical genius, depending on their mood. Cunning does not quite cover it.

But, even taking Silver's words, the left's position is absurd because stupid and cunning are oxymoronic. Basically, many on the left claim Bush is a both an idiot and a genius. Because they are mutually exclusive, it shows the illogical thinking of the left trying to have it both ways.

Silver then compares this oxymoron with the bloggers portrayal of the MSM as "effectively and ruthlessly biased" but "also incompetent" and then asks, how can they be both? Well, Mr. Silver they easily can be, because these two things are not mutually exclusive.

First of all, the bloggers do not lump together the MSM together as incompetent and biased. They find evidence of both on separate occasions. Sometimes the reporter is not doing their job, and ends up repeating bad info. Othertimes, you can see a pattern or a blatant act of bias.

But, the Rathergate episode is evidence of both at the same time. The report concluded that CBS news/60 minutes II was blatently incompetent in their handling of the Bush AWOL story. They ignored or bypassed a number of ethical and professional standards to get the story on the air. So, we have incompetence. However, despite what the report concluded, if you look at all the evidence, especially the stonewalling after the report aired, you have to see bias.

One could also say that the CBS staff were incompetent in their bias in that they stuck their necks out with this bogus story and phony documents, and did not cover their asses. Then, when confronted with mounting evidence that the jig was up, they stuck to their guns rather than quickly retract.

So, why can't somebody be effectively and ruthlessly biased and incompetent at the same time. Ruthless means "without mercy or remorse". How this does not jibe with someone who is incompetent is beyond me. Its a none starter.

Effectively has more legs, but not much. The reason the press can be effectively biased and incompetent is because the longest time, and even to a certain extent today, there was no effective dissenting voice against the MSM. They could do a pathetic job of slanted journalism in reporting a story, but who would or could question it. For the longest time the MSM could get away with biased reporting because they both were given this elevated status as truthtellers and were the gatekeeprs of information. They were effective at it because they owned the airwaves and much of the newsprint, and there was little ability for counterthought. Thus, the MSM got fat, lazy and complacent, thinking, "I'll just write something up that matches what I think, and who'll know the difference."

Unfortunately for them, times have changed. Not only are they challenged, but they are challenged effectively, and they are constantly caught being sloppy and biased because they were used to getting away with it.

I can agree some of Silver's other points, particularly the warning to blogs to not get too cocky themselves. They need to be vigilant and tough, but they also need to be fair. Hubris is human, bloggers are human, so its easy to do the math. Many bloggers view themselves as superior to MSM journalists, and in many cases they are right. However, they have to strive to remain that way.

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

The Opposite of Brilliant

A couple of left-leaning friends of mine sent me a copy of this drivel , and asked for my thoughts. Apparently they thought it was "brilliant". I did not agree. This is what I sent back. The author's material is in italics.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

My thoughts? Well, remember you did ask for them.

My first thought was that if the “Bush is Hitler” chant is going to be replaced with “Bush is Bonaparte”, then the left is really in trouble.

The second was that if the chant is picked up by the Democrats, then Republican super-majority in the Senate here we come!

Third thoughts were that it’s a badly written, poorly researched, hate-filled, childish rant full of hypocrisy, racism, and historical inaccuracies. I couldn’t decide if you guys sent it to me as a joke just to bust my chops, or really thought it was, as Lisanne put it, “brilliant.”

Originally I was going to leave it at that, because, well, I did not think the guy’s article warranted response. I did not intend to read it all the way through, because I read stuff like this all day on the web. Well, as much as I can stomach. Then, after skimming over it, I was just going to give it only an acidic and sarcastic response because, hell, it’s funning poking holes in pompous balloons. I actually enjoy it very much, once I get going.

Then I remembered recently reading this article by someone who, although on the left and suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), was making an attempt to see things differently. And I remembered this exchange between him and a soldier and pro-Bush supporter. It was a dialogue, and while probably still miles apart on many issues, the attempt was made, and maybe some progress resulted. So, I am going to be a little more tempered and thoughtful in my response, although not completely. Just too much of this guy begs to be mocked because he deserved.

When I’m done, let me know if you still think he’s brilliant, and if you have any second thoughts passing it along as a good representation of oppositional thought. His stuff is in smaller fonts, and in italics.

The emperor of vulgarity

By Mike Carlton


I think I know which definition of vulgarity Cartlon means, but keep this one in mind as you read:

Main Entry: vul·gar
5 a : offensive in language

January 22, 2005

George Bush's second inaugural extravaganza was every bit as repugnant as I had expected, a vulgar orgy of triumphalism probably unmatched since Napoleon crowned himself emperor of the French in Notre Dame in 1804. The little Corsican corporal had a few decent victories to his escutcheon. Lodi, Marengo, that sort of thing.


“Orgy of triumphalism”? C’mon! One would think reading this that Bush had taken a Koran and a Saddam Hussein doll, spiked them football style, then did a jig on both while waving a big green styrofoam finger.

Already Carlton is tipping his hand that this not going to be a serious piece, but one based on making reality fit his worldview. So, how exactly is a democratically elected President of a Republic equivalent to a dictator proclaiming himself overlord? And how would Carlton know just how much triumphalism there was at Napoleon’s coronation unless he’s over 250 years old, or gets a C-Span channel that looks back in time?

Not so this strutting Texan mountebank, with his chimpanzee smirk and his born-again banalities delivered in that constipated syntax that sounds the way cold cheeseburgers look, and his grinning plastic wife, and his scheming junta of neo-con spivs, shamans, flatterers and armchair warmongers, and his sinuous evasions and his brazen lies, and his sleight of hand theft from the American poor, and his rape of the environment, and his lethal conviction that the world must submit to his Pax Americana or be bombed into charcoal.

Okay, lets start with writing 101. Avoid run-on sentences. This thing is (count them) 85 words long. 85 Words! The Gettysburg address was only 235. This single one sentence is more than a third as long. And no semi-colons!

Am I being petty? Well, what is the literary function for this verbal monstrosity? What does this paragraph-long sentence tell us; how does it illuminate anything?

It doesn’t. It is simply a rambling list of all the cliched’ barbs and snide stereotypes and petty insults that have been fueling the left for upwards of 5 years now. Its not clever, or witty, or unique. Its an ejaculation of hatred; a mental evacuation of pent-up rage and frustration that Carlton can only express in a “sinuous” rant of name-calling.

Mountebank? Not any old mountebank, mind you, but a TEXAN one. Yikes! The very worst kind.

Chimpanzee? We are still here, at the 5th grade level, after 5 years? And isn’t this a little, eh, incongruent. “I’m so much more terribly sophisticated and urbane than this vulgar cowboy peasent Bush, but, Tee-hee, he sure looks like a monkey! (snicker-snicker)” Say it like Homer Simpson. It better illustrates my point.

Plastic wife? Wow! A politically incisive comment. Classy too. I’m in awe of his powers of debate.

Scheming Junta? Actually, I was kind of partial to plotting cabal myself.

The last part…well, yes, that stuff is actually true. I was at the latest meeting of the Long Island chapter of Republicans, and representative Darth Kapital laid out the agenda:

Repubs are intent on robbing the poor of every last dime, which just goes to show how stupid they are. I mean, if you go to the effort to rob someone, shouldn’t you rob the rich? The Dems are definitely one up on this one.

Repubs are also very much for giving that whore mother nature what she deserves. I mean, she’s freakin’ asking for it all the time, is she not? What with the hurricanes and the tsunamis and all that. About time we slapped that bitch up, if you ask me.

Repubs are also planning to turn everyone’s cities to charcoal, nomatter what they do. The fact is that once they steal all the oil, it will still run out, and they need something to fuel those SUV’s so they can run over baby seals for laughs.

Difficult to know what was more repellent: the estimated $US40 million cost of this jamboree…
Nice word, jamboree. Nicely dismissive, suggesting an certain immaturity, like that possessed of Boy Scouts, or say, those that call other people silly names rather than engage in reasoned argument. Plus, them Boy Scouts all wear brown shirts, the little homo-phobic fascists!

BTW, according to this Washington Post article, Clinton’s inauguration cost nearly $30 million. Taking into account a) the rise of inflation, and b) the cost burden of additional security, it seems pretty in line. Which would seem to make attacks on this point both petty and unfounded.

I mean, are the self-absorbed elites at the Oscars gonna scale that stuff down this year? Rescue workers are still going to be finding and burying the dead when that self-congratulatory meeting of the self-absorbed meets in March. Are they going to mail everyone their Oscars and tell them stay home?

How about the Superbowl? Did they cut back on the hoopla of the Superbowl this year? HOW much is every 30 second spot going for this year? Exactly.

(most of it stumped up by Republican fat-cats buying future presidential favours),

Or, to put it another way, most of it was not paid for with public tax dollars, but with private donations. The left sure does hate anything not paid for with public tax dollars.

Oh, and we all know that Democrats have no fat-cats *cough* Kennedy, Corzine *cough* buying future presidential favors *cough* Soros *cough*.

…or the sheer crassness of its excess…

Uhhhmmm, Carlton calling Bush excessive? Pot to kettle. Pot to kettle. You are black. Over.

…when American boys are dying in the quagmire…

First they are men, and women, dying there.

And yes, it is a quagmire just like the one we got into in Afghani- Uh, just like that quagmire that was declared 3 weeks into Ira… Uhm, just like that quagmire we were facing when we went into Baghda- er, uh,…VIETNAM!!!


…of Bush's very own Iraq war.


Yes, a war of his very, very own. Not like one anyone else voted for it or anything… http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Other wartime presidents sought restraint.

Yes, unlike stupid Chimpy who we all know 5 minutes after he finished listening to the goat story was randomly launching nukes at all those fur-in countries with weird names and turning their cities into charcoal! Am I right people? HUH?

Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address in 1865 - "with malice toward none, with charity for all" - is the shortest ever. And he had pretty much won the Civil War by that time.

Wow, where to begin. Let’s start with a factual error. Lincoln’s second inaugural is 702 words long. The 4th inaugural of FDR that Carlton cites later in the piece is 558 words long (give or take a few words, depending on the source). By my calculations, that means that Lincoln’s could not be the shortest ever if it were in fact longer. Call me crazy. Here, look them up yourself:


Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural


Roosevelt 4th Inaugural

Already he’s off the mark just with basic, and easily checked, facts. The fact that he does not know really know the speeches comes up later as well.

Second, to whom should Bush have addressed a “Malice toward none, and charity to all” message? This is where the left in general tends to have a deaf ear. Americans have plenty of malice toward the people who killed 3,000 of them on September 11th, and they have malice toward thugs who cut people’s heads off because they are infidels, and they have malice left over for dictator’s who murder hundreds of thousands of people. And with good reason.

The Confederacy, repugnant as some of its beliefs were, was not trying to destroy the North, they wanted separation from it. Islamofacists want all lands under Islamic law, and anyone who resists will be destroyed. That’s not hyperbole or propoganda. Listen to what they say in their internet messages and what they preach in the radical mosques. They are the ones who demand that all shall submit or die.

Lincoln was looking toward a resolution of the Civil War by the time of his 2nd inaugural, but that victory was over fellow Americans who had a common, if now bloody, history. What Lincoln was trying to do was assure the people of the South that while slavery was done, finished, they could and would be accepted back as Americans once the war was over. What he may have feared, and rightly so based on records from the Confederacy, was that the South would carry on a campaign of guerilla warfare, of “insurgency” if you will.

And despite what Carlton writes, Bush did extend such an offer to the thugs and dictators of the world in the inaugural speech. But just like the South had to give up slavery and insurrection to be welcomed and accepted, the Islamofascists and dictators will have to give up tyrrany and terrorism to be receive charity. Until that time, they are the enemy. If they do not give them up, then they are doomed, and that is as it should be.

In 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt opened his fourth-term speech with the "wish that the form of this inauguration be simple and its words brief".

Okay, here we have another blatant factual error. It did not seem right to me when read it, but just be sure, I checked 5 different sites, and they all state that FDR gave his fourth inaugural speech on January 20th, 1945, not in 1944. Mr. Carlton, apparently in full stream-of-conscioussness rant mode, could not be bothered to check his facts here, and neither did his editor (if he even had one). This i swhat we call a pattern.

Why do I harp on things like this? Not to be petty, although I admit it is satisfying. I say it because it goes to the heart of the problem with much of the press as well as too many on the left nowadays. Carlton is talking out of his ass, and cannot keep even basic facts straight. He does no research and no fact-checking, and his knowledge of history, despite him knowing what minor battles Napoleon won, seems lacking. So, am I supposed to trust his opinion or analysis? Come to think of it, I did not check him on Napoleon, so who knows if that is accurate.

He spoke for a couple of eloquent minutes, then went off to a light lunch, his wartime victory almost complete as well.

Right, a LIGHT lunch, because no fat-cat was he.

But lets look at a little of that short speech by FDR, and see what wisdom lies within that Mr. Carlton thinks so sets him apart from Bush. Please read it all. I don’t think Carlton did. The bolds are mine:

“We Americans of today, together with our allies, are passing through a period of supreme test. It is a test of our courage-of our resolve-of our wisdom-of our essential democracy. If we meet that test-successfully and honorably-we shall perform a service of historic importance which men and women and children will honor throughout all time. As I stand here today, having taken the solemn oath of office in the presence of my fellow countrymen-in the presence of our God- I know that it is America's purpose that we shall not fail. In the days and in the years that are to come we shall work for a just and honorable peace, a durable peace, as today we work and fight for total victory in war. We can and we will achieve such a peace. WE shall-strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately-but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes-but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle.”

Funny. Carlton did not quote the part above, even though it comes right after the part he DID quote. Wonder why?

The entire speech is short, but it seems to be to making some rather grand statements, and contains some rather strident language, wouldn’t you say? Phrases like “Supreme test”, and “service of historic performance”. Language kinda lacking in restraint, one might say.

How about “Fight for Total Victory in War”? Seems like FDR still had quite a bit of malice for our enemies at that point. He must not have been paying attention to Lincoln’s speech. Although, he did seem to talk a little of charity toward our enemies. Then again, I think its fair to say he made it clear that the charity came AFTER we had kicked their fascist asses. Remember, FDR was the one to use the term “unconditional surrender”. Even the British and Russians whipped their heads around and said, “Say what now?” to that one. Restraint my ass.

Oh, and before that “almost complete” victory was complete; the battle of the Bulge would grind to a close; the battles of Okinowa, Iwo Jima would be fought; the firebombing bombing of Dresden and Japanese cities would occur; the invasion of both the German and Japanese heartlands loomed; and the dropping of both atomic bombs all remained. But, yeah, other than those events and the hundreds of thousands who would be killed, it was pretty much all wrapped up by then.

But restraint is not a Dubya word.

Nor apparently was it a Roosevelt word when it came to defeating fascists and genuine imperialists, thank God. Nor was it a Clinton word when it came to chubby interns, but I digress.

Learning nothing, the dumbest and nastiest president since the scandalous Warren Harding died in 1923, Bush is now intent on expanding the Iraq war to neighbouring Iran.

See, now, SOME would tend to think of it like this:

With the Iranians attacking and occupying our embassy in 1979,

Then holding Americans hostage for over a year,

And then killing Americans for 20 years with their terrorists,

And with them actively supplying the fanatics who are targeting our troops, our allies soldiers, and the CIVILIAN population of Iraq,

SOME might kinda see it as Iran has been expanding the war toward us for quite a long time. Isn’t perspective a wonderful thing?

Condoleeza Rice did admit to the US Senate this week that there had been some “not so good” decisions.

See Roosevelt’s references to “mistakes” above. Even the liberal Democrat icon admitted mistakes.

Of course, to be fair, Carlton’s point may be that Rice did not call them mistakes. Fair enough. But what Carlton fails to note is that when FDR admitted his mistakes back then, it was accepted. It was not met by a hostile press and slavering opposition that proceeded to lambast, pillory and slander him, claiming he had planned Pearl Harbor and was stubbornly keeping America in a pointless war on behalf of the jews. Times have changed, have they not?

But the more I see of her gleaming teeth…

???

Gleaming teeth? Gleaming teeth? WTF? Seriously, no seriously. Did Carlton just make a racist, stereotypical reference to a black person’s teeth? You know like:

Q. How do they make roads in South Africa?

A. They make the black people lay down and have every other one smile.


Har-har. Sure seems like a racist comment to me.

But, wait. I forgot. Mike Carlton is on the left, and we all know people on the left can’t be bigots, unlike those cross-burning right-wingers. Sorry about that. Don’t know what I was thinking there.

…and her fibreglass helmet of hair…

Wha- OMFG! “Fibreglass helmet of hair”? He did NOT just write that, did he? Did- Did Mr. “I Hate Vulgarity” just make a derogatory reference to black people’s hair? Does Carlton just have a thing against hair-straightener, or would he have described an afro-headed Dr. Rice as having a “brillo-pad helmet of hair”? I could be dumb, but I am not sure what the texture of Dr. Rice’s hair has to do with national policy. Mike sees a connection. What would that be?

But, wait, wait. Maybe I am being unfair and jumping to conclusions. Maybe I am misreading this last bit. Again, Mike is on the left, probably a card-carrying liberal. I am not sure what he meant by this focus on physical attributes, but it just cannot be prejudice. I am sure that nomatter Carlton’s disagreement with Dr. Rice on the issues, he respects her as a women, a human being and a learned professional. Let’s Move On, as they say.

…and her perky confidence, the more I am convinced that back in the ‘60’s she used to be Cindy Birdsong, up there beside Diana Ross as one of the Supremes of Motown fame. I don’t think it’s a good idea to let her make a comeback as Secretary of State.

ALRIGHT! THAT’S IT! TWWWHEEEEEEE! Flag on the goddam play! Did he just say-?

So, let me get this straight.

Carlton looks at a African-American woman who is:

a Phd;

an expert in her field;

a classical pianist;

a Stanford Provost;

a National Security advisor;

a published author;

and he sees…


A Motown singer with gleaming teeth and fibreglass hair!

There is a word for this. Its called “racist”. R-A-C-I-S-T. Racist. Say it with me.

Interesting that Carlton also goes back to the 60’s for his insulting singer reference. Hmmm, maybe because the darkies all knew their place back then, Mr. Carlton? They were singing songs, and dancing and were not getting all uppity by trying to be something above their station. Ahh, the good old days.

Oh, and “perky confidence”? Isn’t that kind of a sexist minimalization of Rice. “Well, aren’t you all perky darlin’. Oh, I’d love to hear your thoughts about Russo-German trade relations post-Kaiser, really. But first, why don’t you all get us some coffee, cupcake. Thanks.”

We call that misogyny, ladies and gentlemen, although the judges tell us “sexist” is also an acceptable answer, Alec.



THE war in Iran is under way already, if we believe Seymour Hersh,

Actually, I do not need Seymour Hersh to tell me the war is underway. It was declared in ’79 as I mentioned before, but thanks for the reminder, Seymour.

… the distinguished investigative writer…

Well, distinguished might be a bit strong, actually. Hersh’s work has not always been stellar according to these guys:

Ted Kennedy described Hersh’s work as “fiction” full of “maliciousness and innuendo.”

"It's depressing to see such shoddy and careless arguments and such self-serving credulity coming from a celebrated investigative reporter," said Alan Brinkley, professor of American history at Columbia University.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, who served as an aide to President Kennedy, said “…Hersh's capacity to exaggerate is unparalleled."

..for The New Yorker magazine. Hersh reported this week that clandestine US special forces have been on the ground there, targeting nuclear facilities to be bombed whenever Bush feels the time is ripe.

Probably when it is “Orphan and Single Mother Tour Day”, no doubt.

"The immediate goals of the attacks would be to destroy, or at least temporarily derail, Iran's ability to go nuclear," he wrote, quoting reliable intelligence sources.

Which we all know is a crazy idea, given the Iranian mullahs’ decades long show of responsible leadership, humanitarian disposition and overwhelming need for nuclear power to build an better society. I mean, its not like they have oil coming out of the ground for Christ’s sake!

"But there are other, equally purposeful, motives at work…”

Cue somber, foreboding music. What dastardly, dark motive could this be?

“The government consultant told me that the hawks in the Pentagon, in private discussions, have been urging a limited attack on Iran because they believe it could lead to a toppling of the religious leadership."

Bastards! Trying to topple a dictorial theocracy giving loads of cash and aid to thousands of terrorists and busily assembling the means to attain nuclear weapons. No doubt to spread more of that vile democracy. Nasty democracy iz, and tricksy, yes…

Naturally, Pentagon flacks rushed out to deny all.

Well, you know those flacks. Always flacking off…

But then they did that when Hersh broke the story of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in 1968, and again when he revealed the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. A tussle for the truth between Hersh and the Pentagon is no contest.

Uhmmm, see, we again have a problem with facts here. Colton tries to cover by mixing Mai Lai with Abu Ghraib, both making the latter more henious with association, and trying to forestall any deniel of Hersh's charges as Pentagon spin. Ah, but then the darn facts get in the way.

The Pentagon did not “deny all” when it came to Abu Ghraib; not even close. In fact, it was a soldier in the army who started the whole investigation when he reported the sickos on overnights, and as CNN reported on 1/19/2004:

* An Army criminal investigation into reports of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers is focusing on reports of illegal treatment at Abu Gharib prison in Baghdad, a prison notorious for torture of Iraqis during the regime of Saddam Hussein. According to a senior Pentagon official, the reports of abuse came from other U.S. military personnel. "If it happened, it's criminal activity," the official said. It is not clear if there were witnesses to the reported activity, he said, but added there are "credible reports" that there may be photographs of the alleged abuse.

See, when you say “If it happened”, you are not denying it did. You are saying you cannot be sure, but you are not saying it did not. In fact, what they said was it might well have happened, and if it did, someone is going to jail. People generally don’t discuss penalties for offenses they absolutely deny occurred in the first place.

Also note that the Pentagon labeled as “credible” reports that said there were photographs of the abuse. Now, if the Pentagon was “denying all” about abuses at Abu Ghraib, they certainly would not then label as credible reports of photographs of those very same abuses, would they? Well, maybe they would if Mike Carlton was writing the press releases.

What terrifies me most is the people planning this new war.

For the third time, it is not a new war! Oh, nevermind...

The CIA professionals have been frozen out: too weak and wimpy for the Bushies.

Uh, so Mr. Carlton is upset that the CIA is NOT involved with something. I take it back. He does say something new and unique for a leftist.

Oh and, “Bushies”? I knew there was some Maureen Dowd in here.

The Defence Secretary, the incompetent Donald Rumsfeld, has seized control, aided by two Pentagon under-secretaries.

The incompetent that oversaw the swift invasion of Afghanistan and toppling of the Taliban within two months of 9/11, and the overrunning of Iraq in weeks, despite the loss of a major front due to UN waffling and French interference. Check.

The same incompetent whose military has managed to help organize and protect two successful elections in those nations within 2 years of invasion. Check.

The very same incompetent who, pre-9/11, saw the need for a faster, more mobile military to meet unconventional threats in the post-Cold War era. Check.

One is Douglas Feith, a mad-eyed Zionist…

Zionist means Jew. So “mad-eyed Zionist” must mean CRAZY JOOOOOOOOO!

…largely responsible for the post-invasion collapse of order in Iraq,…

Actually, I thought the combination of decades of brutal oppression, miserable deprivation due to Saddam’s theft and the corrupt oil-for-food program, and the reluctance of Coalition troops to shoot the people they came to liberate was largely responsible, but maybe it WAS all the fault of this one guy. What a jerk.

…a civilian bureaucrat memorably described by the former Centcom commander, General Tommy Franks, as "the f---ing stupidest guy on the face of the Earth".

Wait, wait, wait. I thought Bush was "the f---ing stupidest guy on the face of the Earth". Now I am really confused.

Anyway, Feith could very well be a schmuck and an idiot, but he is one of HOW many bureacrats in the government? How does the existence of a schmuck in the bureacracy create guilt by association? What? FDR, Carter and Clinton had no boobs working for them?

So, why does Feith get such rich abuse and the whole collapse of Iraqi order laid on his shoulders? Maybe Feith deserves it, but Carlton does not tell us why. You know, a sentence or two EXPLAINING how he is responsible might have been nice. Instead, we get a quote from Tommy Franks, who, I will admit, could be considered a reliable judge of character and ability. But, why did Franks say that? Carlton, again, does not bother to tell us. He had room for that 85 word insult-gorged sentence above, but none to say why Franks thinks so little of Feith. For all we know Feith scratched Frank’s Lexus in the Pentagon Parking lot. But, we are supposed to trust Carlton knows what he is talking about. Hmmm, based on his record so far, I’ll decline.

Hey, could it be because Feith is a jew? I don’t know. But, considering Carlton’s Rice comments, why can’t he be both a racist and a anti-semite?

The other is army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin, whose name also rings a bell. Jerry is a born-again Christian evangelical, a three-star bigot who, in his spare time, stumps the country in full uniform, preaching that America's enemy is Satan, Allah is a false idol, and that George Bush has been ordained by the Lord to rout evil.

Well, as far the bigot reference, we call that projection.

I could go off about free speech, and even Carlton acknowledges Boykin was doing this on his own time. People are free to believe or say what they want, or aren’t they? Boykin was talking at a prayer meeting. What happened to the Separation of Church and State, folks?

Yet, I concede that Boykin, because of his position, should have been more moderate in his remarks. There is a political/social aspect of this war that needs to be respected. Carlton may have a point. What someone says can be damaging to our cause and our image and one should take care.

Of course, try to tell the left that very same thing. When you suggest that promoting the “Bush planned 9/11 with the Mossad” idea might not be the best thing for the war effort, or that calling the terrorists in Iraq “minutemen” encourages them, they don’t want to hear it. You are instead met with shrill cries of “McCarthyism” and “Crushing of Dissent.”

But, lets get back to Carlton and Boykin. How is Boykin different from Carlton? Carlton faults Boykin for mocking another’s faith, but Carlton is busy mocking Bush for his in very insulting terms. We call this hypocrisy. Read on.

"He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this," Jerry told a prayer meetin' in Oregon just a while back.

This part illuminates my point better. This particular quote from Boykin is not racist, it ain’t bigotted. It’s a belief that God had a plan. You might not think there is a plan, you might not think there is a God, but someone is entitled to believe there is both. Cartlon says Boykin is wrong to deny Muslims their belief that Allah is God. Yet, Carlton then denies Boykin’s faith which says to him God has a plan, and it is in effect. What exactly if the difference?

Oh, there is prejudice in that last line, but its Cartlon’s. Notice the word “meetin’”, a bigoted crack meant to stereo-type by both religion and regional dialect. One can almost see the assembled hillbillies (for there are no other kind of people living between the coasts) gettin’ together for their meetin’.

Think I’m stretching? Well, let’s rephrase this a bit, adjusting for left-wing sensibilities.

The anti-semetic Baptist Jesse Jackson was pointed in his criticism of the President. “Mr. Bush has not met with organized labor leaders, the NAACP, the National Organization of Women and others … he seeks to close the door,” Jesse told da prayer meetin’ at a Chicago church.

Now, if a white conservative columnist had penned that passage, I am sure a number of people on the left, Mr. Carlton included, would be up in arms. “What are you trying to say? All black people talk like that? Typical right-wing racist.”

Be very afraid.

Here’s the hypocrisy again. For the last few years I have heard the left claim that the Bush administration was using fear to keep people in line, to force consent, to “chill” dialogue. Yet, it seems the left is the one throwing around the scare-mongering. Just in Carlton’s case, look at the language used:

Junta

Warmongers

Rape

“World must submit or be bombed in charcoal.”

Quagmire

Terrifies

Seized

Mad-eyed Zionist

Be Very Afraid


Who is telling who to be fearful again?

Combine this with; the “Bush is Hitler”, “43rd Reich” themes; the constant threat of the Arab street rising up; the various conspiracies regarding how 9/11 was planned to how it never really happened; to the jewish neo-con cabal talk; to the draft rumors; to the varied claims that Bush was going to seize power, destroy the environment, abolish civil rights, etc. It all adds up to a raging culture of fear.

So, I have shown this professional writer to be lazy, incompetent, childish, racist, anti-semetic, sexist, ignorant and for the most part vapid in his content. What exactly did you see in him again? Your thoughts... :)