These Guys Are On Crack, Right?
Tweet
I’ve found the crew at Powerline to be not only the most intellectually dishonest wing of the right-wing blogosphere (see Powerline’s pathetic game played with the GOP-authored Terri Schiavo memo), but quite frankly simply the most deranged in their zeal to protect their beloved president. In a long winded harangue against the nerve of President Clinton voicing an opinion (in their world, Democratic presidents are simply not allowed the courtesy of speech), Powerline vomits out this:
Again and again, President Bush has tried to work with the Democrats as if they were loyal Americans first, and partisans second.
Was this when they said we were working with Saddam Hussein, or when they said terrorists would attack if Americans had the nerve to vote for the Democratic ticket? Remind me.
He has treated Bill Clinton with a friendship and respect that, candidly, is disproportionate to Clinton’s meager accomplishments.
Yes, Bill Clinton balanced the budget, reformed health care and fought a war without a single American casualty. How could he hope to have more Americans die via terrorism on his watch than any President in history, as George Bush has? That Bill Clinton and his peace and prosperity – the cad! And at the same time that the Republican party has chosen to blame everything from terrorism to teenage pregnancy on President Clinton, no less.
Clinton’s politically-motivated tissue of lies and distortions is just the latest example out of many. But it is unprecedented, coming from a former President.
Yes, in the case of George Bush you should lie and get people killed while you’re still president.
That is a sad thing: the latest wound inflicted on the body politic by the Democratic Party.
How can less than half of the populace be wrong?
Oh, to be a Republican… and brain dead.
20 Responses to “These Guys Are On Crack, Right?”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I have no particular gripe about sites that foster division. I float between them like a moth to the flame. I want to know what they think.
Of course, sometimes I get a real look at the thinking and wonder?;
Do you think it would be fun to attend a buffalo-wing and beer bash with them?
I think not.
But then, when I get tired of the rant, I can fade and retire without letting on that the company is way past giving me real advice on almost everything.
It’s over! This has to be one of the best Redskins victories in years. Coming back from a 13-0 deficit with 5:58 left in the 4th quarter in Dallas on Monday Night. Does it get any better than that? Oliver, you should have a Skins game thread. Seriously.
What a crazy comeback. Maybe Gibbs’ magic is finally rubbing off.
:50 seconds Skins punt!
Cowboys @ 21. :36 left on the clock. No Timeouts for Cowboys…………..incomplete.
2nd Down and 10.
Incomplete.
3rd Down and 10.
:28 seconds…….
low snap
completed!
10 seconds to get in field goal range.
Can we all guess what Oliver is doing now?
One last play.
4 seconds left
Game cannot end of defensive penalty.
GAME OVER!!!! SKINS WIN!!!
STUFFED and the Skins take over!!!
In the real world, the Skins are up 14-13 in Dallas. The Cowboys have a 4th down and 4 to go at the Redskins 42 yardline at the 2 minute warning. Play of the game right here…
You’re all in the wrong thread!
Gotcha, Oliver!
Your monotonous mantra is Clinton balanced the budget, longest economic boom in history and longest era of peacetime. (An exaggeration at best)
Now you say:
Bill Clinton balanced the budget, reformed health care and fought a war without a single American casualty (Somalia, anyone? – oh, yeah – you said “a war” – clever).
He never got to stick his fingers int health care — lucky for us!
Of course, Power line is mistaken, too
“Clinton s politically-motivated tissue of lies and distortions is just the latest example out of many. But it is unprecedented, coming from a former President.” It is not unprecedented, as Carter has done it many times.
Bill Clinton balanced the budget
Thanks to the GOP who kept his spending in check. Divided government is often a good thing.
reformed health care
How exactly did he reform health care? What was different in 2001 from 1993?
and fought a war without a single American casualty.
Huh? What “war” was this?
How could he hope to have more Americans die via terrorism on his watch than any President in history, as George Bush has?
This is good. You seem to think it’s all in the numbers. Under Clinton’s watch, the United States suffered 5 foreign terrorist attacks in the US or against US property and installations. The major screw up in Somalia occurred with help from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. And how can we forget about the 165 people who died at the hands of a domestic terrorist attack? A rash of attacks between 1993 to 2000 that ultimately set the stage for the worst.
Since 9/11? Not a single terrorist attack on US soil or against US installations around the world. Not one.
Not a single terrorist attack on US soil or against US installations around the world.
Those suicide bombings in Iraq must be imaginary then, right?
the Republican party has chosen to blame everything from terrorism to teenage pregnancy on President Clinton,
Amusing, because the teenage pregnancy rate in 2000 was at its lowest since 1940.
jay said: Not a single terrorist attack on US soil or against US installations around the world.
ow said: Those suicide bombings in Iraq must be imaginary then, right?
In one posting OW confirms Bush’s success in fighting terrorism and lends credence to the Neocon “flypaper” theory. And he points up the really significant hurdle Democrat candidate ’08 must overcome: their party is percieved as being wishy-washy on terrorism and seemingly are more focused on understanding ‘root causes’, like Israel policy and poverty, and what we (this country) has done to cause terrorism, moreso than kill terrorists. To fight this perception, party activists think the answer is to hate Bush.
Dugger
Success in fighting terrorism? Flypaper? I think you’ve got the wrong analogy. Bush decided to fight mosquitos by creating a swamp.
Overall, terrorist attacks in the world are up significantly since the war in Iraq began. The fact that we haven’t had others here since 911 is statistically insignificant (it’s not like we were having them monthly prior to creating the swamp.
What the Democrat candidate in ’08 has to show is that he/she has a better ability to fight terrorism than Bush. At one time, that would have been a challenge. Now it’s looking more and more like simply needing a candidate who can demonstrate that they know how to show up to work.
Oliver : Please explain to us how you are defining the term “casualty”, and then please demonstrate how there were none under Clinton’s watch.
Bush deserves credit because there hasn’t been a single terrorist attack on US soil since the worst terrorist attack in history occurred on American soil? You know when you put it that way it doesn’t sound all that reassuring.
When talking terrorist attacks on US soil let’s remember that there was an eight year gap between the first trade center bombing and 9-11 and the millenium bomb plot was foiled. Were Republicans out praising Clinton for his bold defense of the homeland during those eight years? I think not. Did they praise Clinton when he trageted al-Qeada and bin Laden with a missle strike? No. It was “wag the dog” time for the Republicans.
Now as to this flypaper theory, remember the eight year gap between attempts on the trade center. We’re still well within that window, boys. (it’s not if but when, remember). At the same time, the flypaper theory didn’t exaclty help the British. Do you know why? Because terrorism and those who practice aren’t like standing armies. Terrorists can appear wherever the idea behind it appears and ideas, as we of the internet age should all be aware, are notoriously hard to stop. Why should we try to understand the root causes of terrorism, dugger? Every try to kill an idea?
guither,
I would be all for your (Democratic candidate) going to the American people with his /her plan to fight T: “I will show up for work!” Give it a shot; probably work just fine.
frame,
Meaningless in this argument to indicate Clinton was or was not unsuccessful in fighting T – except if it your wish to show that Rs are organically capable of being inconsisent or hypocritical. Yes to both. Same for Dems. The seminal event which stamped terrorism upon the American consciousess was 9/11. The peope thought about iiseriously, considered it a dominnt issue and re-elected Bush. And I’m OK with you and W or Bubba or understanding all the root causes you want ( I would do it for better psyops), but not to the point of that standing in the way of pro-actively fighting the terrorist threat with guns and bullets.
Also, the issue isn’t making the potential terrorists go away. Thre will always be haters out there like McVeigh, Unabomber, that cop-murdering IndyMedia freak, etc – they will be there. Its decreasing their options, decreasing their support, decreasing their odds of success, their range. In my view we will see Mideast-based terroism as long as Israel survives and we have the gumption to support that democratic state.
Dugger
Dugger
It seems to me that the absence of terrorist attacks in the US between 2001 and 2005 is a) not historically unusual b) explainable -to the extent it needs explaining- by heightened domestic and international security efforts, i.e. the “police actions” that right-wingers so vigorously denounce in their thirst for blood and large explosions.
Couldn’t we have acheived the same result by enacting heightened security and NOT invading Iraq?
“Couldn t we have achieved the same result by enacting heightened security and NOT invading Iraq?”
Ahh, the KEY question! Bush and Neocons believe Iraq is AN integral part of the long term war on terror. Saddam’s ties to terrorists and terrorism were there, but not that great (at least as far as the US was concerned – not Israel, I think). Arguably, since Saddam was a dictator, could we have have directly pressured him as an individual and get him to have stopped whatever T movements were underway in Iraq – via his own domestic terrorism? Maybe, maybe not. Will the neocon strategy long term actually fix the mideast – by establishing stability and ushering in via various media etc the 20th century. The mullahs and ayatollahs maybe keep getting pushed back into the hinterlands, as the countries modernize ,and become inconsequential Falwells and Farrakhans. Oil money gets to the people, relative prosperity, trade etc. Israel becomes a non issue. It could happen. Or the region could stay mired in a medieval world of violence and ignorance.
Dugger, He Don’t Know Sh*t
In other words, the answer to my question is “quite possibly”. That’s why a lot of us think that Bush and his neocons are culpably responsible for the death of over 2000 coalition troops and countless thousands of Iraqis and the waste of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars. And that’s just for starters.
I don’t know shit either, Dugger. If Spartacus had had a Piper Cub we might all be speaking Swahili right now.
Caruso babbled:
Bill Clinton balanced the budget
“Thanks to the GOP who kept his spending in check. Divided government is often a good thing.”
Then why do we have deficits as far as the eye can see with the same GOopers in Congress? And since you’re a fan of divided government, I will assume you’re voting for Democrats in ’06? Wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite (again), would you?