No finer example of Bush Derangement Syndrome can be found today in the media than this piece from the editorial page of the NY Times. Guess what? They’ve finally come out and admitted what their liberal cohorts have been saying or implying for years: Bush isn’t not interested in fighting terror, but instead has used 9-11 to feed his raging desire to increase Presidential power:
Lorie Byrd examines some of the latest election-year tactics from the Democratic party as they continue to try and gain some understanding of the values of voters, with an emphasis on religious values.
Remember Larry Johnson, the supposed CIA ‘expert’ the media loves to turn to when it wants a former CIA ‘official’ who will slam the President’s handling of the war on terror? The same jerk who wrote that it was "small wonder [Karl Rove’s] mother killed herself" (which the liberal blogosphere was curiously silent on)? The guy who launched a nasty attack blogger Seixon by suggesting that he had a "latent homosexual man crush" for the President because he defended him against the likes of Johnson?
The last few days have seen a flurry of outrage expressed by Republicans over a recent Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ad which showed an image of the flag-draped coffins of US troops being transported back home (view the ad here). Because of the condemnations expressed towards the DCCC by Republicans over the ad, it has now been pulled (hat tip: Allah).
Check out John Hawkins "Quote of the day" – too funny.
There is not a conservative reading this who hasn’t gotten into an argument with a liberal at one time or another and eventually been accused of ‘intolerance’ simply for disagreeing with them on their opinions regarding various social and/or religious issues like affirmative action, teaching Islam in public schools, and gay marriage. Democrats don’t hesitate to ‘inform’ people that they are the big-tent party of ‘tolerance’ and that they welcome and encourage differing opinions. It certainly sounds good, but the reality is that the assertion is flatly untrue. Nothing demonstrates that more than the following story:
