| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Distortion of the facts: It’s the anti-war hate-Bush way
The far left has proven quite adept at distorting the facts on any given issue in order to ‘prove’ their ‘rightnesss’ on various issues, but no issue on their list is bigger than the ‘facts’ as they report them about the Iraq war, Bush’s handling of it, etc.
Right now, the latest poll I’ve read on approval of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war is that 63% disapprove (per the Newsweek 8/24-25/06 poll). What that means to you and me, and others who have reading comprehension skills higher than a third grader is exactly what it says: 63% of the American people think Bush is poorly handling the Iraq war.
On the other hand, what does that translate into for the anti-war hate-Bush left? One or both of the following things:
1) Those 63% now believe Bush “lied!!!!!!!!” to get us into Iraq and no longer support the Iraq war and/or
2) Those 63% believe we should leave Iraq “now!!!!!!!!!”
Those who aren’t blinded by Bush hatred know that there is a difference between those who disapprove of the handling of the Iraq war and those who think that Bush lied and we should pull out now. Of course conflating the two is a not-so-sly attempt by the far left to try and distort the issue of those who are unhappy with Bush’s handling of Iraq versus those who think Bush “lied!!!!!” and who also want us to cut and run. It’s a cheap attempt at trying to inflate the numbers of people who agree with the cut and runners and a cheap attempt at trying to say that Rummy, et al – by slamming those who would advocate that we leave too soon – are also criticizing those who merely criticize the handling of this war. That’s another distortion made by the far left, and it’s done so in an attempt to ‘prove’ to people that the admin is trying to “stifle our free speech rights by labelling anyone who criticizes the war as an Islamofascist sympathizer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Again, that’s not something that’s happening, but the far left continues to repeat it as though continuing to do so will ‘make it true.’
Another way the far left tries to distort the facts is the way they go about trying to prove that Bush “lied!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” about the rationale for the Iraq war. But when pressed for an explanation, what the far left ends up doing is lying about what he said. Amazing, eh? You try to prove someone lied about something, and have to lie about what they said in order to ‘prove’ it. It’s a strange, strange world the anti-war Bush-hating cultists live in when they have to invent their own version of reality and then turn around to try and disprove it.
All of this is done in an effort by the Nutrootians to put pressure on Congress to get Bush to pull out of Iraq, because in their minds a defeat for Bush in Iraq is a defeat for – well, Bush. While that would be true, what they ignore is that a defeat for Bush in Iraq would not only be a defeat for him, but a defeat for America in the war on terrorism as well – but the ends justifies the means to the far left, so distorting (lying, really) the facts is not a big deal to them, even if it comes at the price of the United States losing face in Iraq. Priority one is getting Bush to admit to “failure” in Iraq and following that a shameful pullout of our forces there. That would be a feather in the caps of the hate-Bush cultists in the Democratic party who see nothing wrong sacrificing our national security at the altar of partisan politics, even as the enemy still fights for the control and submission of the west (more on that here).
It’s a warped, reprehensible mindset the far left clings to, but one that is taking root, nevertheless – if the CT primary is any indication.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
13 Responses to “Distortion of the facts: It’s the anti-war hate-Bush way”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Can you imagine how many heads would simply expuuulllooooooode if Cheney and Rumsfeld ran for Pres. and VP in 08 and won! Maybe Rove could take over for Rumsfeld.
Sister, what a great post.
We are certainly seeing the moonbats in damage control and they are panicking big time. Its gettin good, would someone please pass the popcorn and forest, yeah Rove would be good for Rummy’s replacement and you are right, the exploooooosion would be bad, it’d get all over us, yuk.
Schumer on Fox Sunday morning, actually refered to Afghanistan as thier victory. I believe his words were, “even thier victory”. He was refering to the war in Afghanistan as I guess a republican victory, or an American victory, whoever the “thier” refered to, he wasn’t a part of it.
I suppose that if I were polled on this question, I’d honestly have to stand with the 63% who do not approve of the way the war’s been handled.
That’s because I think we’ve been way too gentle with some of the loonier factions (Moqtada al-Sadr’s private militia, for example) and restrained ourselves too much in kicking
insurgentterrorist butt. If you must be in a war, go in with overwhelming force and WIN it, already.If Newsweek were really interested in a serious analysis of how America thinks, they’d be asking questions about what we SHOULD be doing, not appealing to BDS with a nonsense question that lumps those of us who want to win decisively with the spineless Murtha-Dean-Kerry cut and run crowd.
One thing about this poll that most don’t seem to realize is that as low as Bush’s poll numbers are the Congress and Senate are even lower.
You hit the nail on the head, Rat. Even I would have to say that I am not happy with the way the war is being run, but that does not mean that I don’t believe it was the right thing to do or that I don’t support it 100%. It also doesn’t mean that I think Bush is doing a horrible job or that he lied or any of that crap.
I don’t disapprove of how Iraq is being handled. But, I am not happy about certain things. But so few of us get any good news. It is rather pathetic the way the news media has handled this war. I have a friend who has been over there for almost 2 years now and she has sent me some stuff about what the Corps of Engineers is doing. I like to look at their website, it helps me to stay focused.
LINK
These guys are working hard for the future of the people of Iraq. They are doing a good work, and the Iraqi people know it. – Lorica
I’ve recently been engaged in a debate at a very liberal blog regarding the concept of “framing” issues. Her take is that the evil Republicans are guilty of framing in a way to distort their message, while she forgets/ignores/refutes the fact that reframing is the hallmark of Dem campaign strategy. As ST suggests, they will use any “fact” in a way that suggests a false interpretation of that fact. The handling of the war poll is a perfect example.
“Her take is that the evil Republicans are guilty of framing in a way to distort their message, while she forgets/ignores/refutes the fact that reframing is the hallmark of Dem campaign strategy.“ – Comment by Marshall Art
Let us not forget – It was Slick Willie who, during his two terms in office, gave rise to the official art of ’spinning’ an event or statement. It was so well entrenched in his tenure, that the show ‘Spin City’ starring Michael J. Fox as the official ’spinmeister’ of a government official became a hit series as a tongue-in-cheek look at modern politics. Yeah, we can all thank the Dems for that little turn in American culture, where “I did not have sex with that woman” really means “I did have what you all call ’sex’ with that woman, but since I have re-defined the definition of sex to exclude all sexual acts except one, it no longer means what you all think it means to me, thus I can absolutely deny it. ”
Yup. How quickly they forget their own history.
Hey Did you hear that this ABC Special about the 2001 attacks, hits the Clinton Administration pretty hard??? Rush was saying that ole Billy Bob called the head of ABC to ask them to edit this film to make it so that it doesn’t make him, Clinton, look so bad. These lowlifes will do anything to cover up the truth. – Lorica
Heck, I’m sure ABC would re-edit the film to make it look like Bush personally wired up the explosives that brought the WTC down.
They have Snuffleupagus, Bubba’s personal spinmaster, on the ABC payroll..One word from him and Bubba will look like FDR.
A distinction you may or may not have noticed about the far lefties (I can’t label them liberals, they insult the definition of the word itself) is how they bend over backwards to not only disassociate DC Democrats from any responsibility in sending troops to war in Iraq,but incredulously deny Iraq has anything whatsoever with the War on Terrorism. Of course they won’t be happy unless Iraq is written into history books as a loss, never mind the psychological damage to veterans being told for the rest of their lives that their sacrifice was a “mistake” or a “lie” they can’t prove in the pages of rags like Mother Jones, let alone the floor of Congress.
No, there is a line they won’t cross and that IS the haunting images of Americans plunging 100 floors to their death on an otherwise beautiful setember morning 5 years ago, so they think they can disrespect one war if they deny its connection.
Iraq was the War on Terrorism before we went in, and is now. Saddam didn’t participate in 9/11, but he would if he could. More obvious proof is found in the joint resolution.
Sister Toldjah, the next time ANYone tries to pretend the two are not the same, just show them this:
LINK
which is well sourced but that is all common knowledge, I have links of the same events in TelegraphUK and BBC pages. There is abundant hard evidence of Saddam’s support for international terrorism- Not Al Qaeda, but the Palestinian Intifada, like Al Qaeda, is a splinter group of Islamic Jihad. Then direct them to the joint resolution, from the Senate and House:
LINK
Where it states more than TEN different times, Saddam’s support for International Terrorism, and three times states this act is pursuant to the war on terrorism.
Then ask them why they hate America.
I don’t know what’s worse, that lefties have manufactured all this doubt about the war’s legitimacy, that DC Democrats- (even the ones with the NO vote read the joint resolution) can get away with this disassociation when the proof is public record- or that the media is so poisoned with self defeatist liberal spin they won’t dare expose these politicians trying to destroy US policy.
Thank you for considering my point of view. John, San Diego