Iranophobia?
[...] That seems to be the mantra of the Democratic Party these days as it sinks in that Gen. Petraeus came up with a winning strategy. Deaths are declining. People are returning. The war is being buried in the back pages of the newspapers where the good news stories go to die.
Yes. Success repels the anti-Americanists what with all their tripe about the yammering from the kook fringe irrelevant moonbat left...America isn't at war, the military is. What a bunch of idgits these moonbat idgits are. And those freakazoid Ronniev Pauliev supporters...good Lord! I'd "Rather" be in a room with the Code Pepto Dismal loons than the same state as an RP dweeb any day.
It was so easy last spring: Wait till summer when the Surge fails and watch the Republicans over the summer, one by one, distance themselves from the 34% president.
Only one little problem: The Surge worked.
Well, actually, that was a big problem. As the No. 3 Democrat in the House, James Clyburn, said: "I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us. We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
He was right.
One lefty blogger was so depressed by all the good news this week that he wrote a post that included no curse words. [...]
Frank Rich has a whining drivel going on and it seems apparent that the Democrats WANT GWB to bomb Iran even though their rhetoric is, well, er, uh, just that...rhetoric.WHEN President Bush started making noises about World War III, he only confirmed what has been a Democratic article of faith all year: Between now and Election Day he and Dick Cheney, cheered on by the mob of neocon dead-enders, are going to bomb Iran.
How's that for an epitaph? Someone needs to slap this guy down, this Chicken Little Rich. Oh! Wait! Someone did! Poor Frank, being Riehlslapped...
But what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats. If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don't, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night's debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one. [...][...] Frank Rich seems to have worked himself into a bit of a tizzy over Iran and Hillary, suggesting Iran could help spell defeat for the Democrats in 2008. That aside, I decided to follow a link he provided to see if it matched his rhetoric. Perhaps he's caught Glenn Greenwald syndrome, linking things that substantively don't measure up:
Read the three pieces and see if you come up with the same conclusion...something about a Conservative Tsunami.
... a fresh arsenal of hyped, loosey-goosey intelligence and outright falsehoods that are sometimes regurgitated without corroboration by the press.
Mr. Bush has gone so far as to accuse Iran of shipping arms to its Sunni antagonists in the Taliban, a stretch Newsweek finally slapped down last week.
First Newsweek's supposed slap down:
In at least one case the administration seems to be overreaching: Defense officials tell NEWSWEEK that evidence of the Iranian government's shipping arms to the Taliban remains tentative at best.
Anonymous Defense officials? Without knowing who they are, it isn't even clear if they'd be privy to any intelligence that exists. The Washington Post did a little better than that when they covered the subject in some depth. And one of their sources was Sec Def Gates, who Rich sites as a "saner military mind" in his column linked above. Note the quote from Gates in bold that both acknowledges the shipments and their size. You'd think Rich would know what a slap down is given his history of being kicked around the blogosphere. Apparently not. [...]
Others blogging/writing:
Frank Warner
Lucianne
Catch the wave
|