'Exiled Saudi Dissident' and other fairy tales

Any statement made by an enemy of the United States is news-- and apparently so is what the 'exiled Saudi dissident' (Osama Bin Laden) says... I wonder what kind of world the AP lives in?

Also, what color is the sky in the Democrats world? Did Hillary Clinton really just eviscerate Bush for failing to act unilaterally? I love it! How delicious.

Is it possible that Democrats and the left, (in which I include the Associated Press as a wholly owned subsidiary of the vast left-wing conspiracy), are truly confused? There seems to be little coherence in the babbling that comes out of many quarters of the left. 

The AP routinely labels Palestinian terrorists as 'victims' of their own suicide bombings, ostensibly blaming Israel for Palestinian deaths when the bombs they carry explode. But this latest redefinition pretty much takes the cake. It goes way beyond the obsessive compulsive 'neutrality' disorder that so pervasively and perversely affects the press.

Exiled Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden is seen in this April 1998 file photo... news.yahoo.com/photo

I suggest that the AP purge all the deadwood from their employee rolls. Any boob that cannot refrain from finding a completely inappropriate euphemism for Osama Bin Laden does not deserve to be working for a news organization. (Euphemisms I would have accepted include: 'dead man walking', or 'elusive prey', or something along those lines.)

To be fair, the AP is not much better than the Chairman of the Democratic Party himself, hereafter to be referred to as 'Chairman of the Bored'. It's as though the left has a perverse bias problem that creates some sort of friend-or-foe confusion.

For instance, Howard Dean said he couldn't say whether Osama was guilty or not-- until after he had been captured and had a fair trial:

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials." Dean added he is certain most Americans agree with that sentiment. cnn

Which brings me to the confusion of Democrats on how to deal with rogue nations. 

Is Hillary Clinton confused? 

In a speech at Princeton University, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, joined the Bush administration's call for sanctions against Iran, and also said that the threat of military action against nuclear sites should not be ruled out.

...'I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats [emphasis mine] and to outsource the negotiations,' Ms. Clinton said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The Daily Princetonian. 'I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines.' (completely biased) nytimes

I'm wondering if Hillary didn't get the memo. You see, the talking points for the last three years have been that Bush's failure is due to his failure to act multilaterally against Iraq, uh, that is, totally without the support and participation of the rest of the world-- and further-- that Bush has been using *FEAR* (evil Jedi mind tricks) to justify his unilateral actions. Don't take my word for it:

What gives? Hillary says Bush hasn't played up the fear of Iran enough! She is, in effect, demanding more fear mongering! This is in contrast to the entire left-wing of the Democratic party. In fact, complaints that fears of Al Qaeda (you know, the guys who have actually attacked us, as we are reminded in debates about Iraq) are greatly exaggerated are ubiquitous on the left.

So is Hillary stepping off into 'Senator Palpatine' mode? Should we be worried that her progressive credentials are in peril? Is she actually a Sith lord in disguise, plotting to take over the Republic and become Empress Darth Screech? i.e. Perhaps she should re-register as a Republican?

Seems like a fateful blow to 'John Kerry' multilateralism to me. You'd think that Bush would be praised for going the John Kerry diplomatic-multilateral-fully-involved-ally route. But perhaps that is the real objective of Hillary's speech, to put herself to the right of John Kerry for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. After two elections I think the smart money would wise up and know that no democrat is going to win the Presidency on a McGovern/Kerry platform. But to do it by advocating using the politics of fear... I thought we were just supposed to be friends?

One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest.

...Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: 'Men feared witches and burnt women.' Al Gore

(Is it just me or does this quote just scream to be read in your best Yoda impression warning Luke Skywalker to beware of the darkside?)

The left continuously scolds the right and the Bush administration for cynically using the 'politics of fear'.

Yet, it is increasingly apparent that the climate of fear promoted by the Bush Administration in the wake of a series of national traumas is having wide effect. It seems clear that the politics of fear and safety has been underestimated by progressives and pundits. This political message likely had more impact on the Democratic losses and Republican gains in the recent elections than the widespread sense that the Democrats had no message.

According to George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley University cognitive scientist and author of "Moral Politics," the anxiety-provoking anti-terrorism actions and messages of fear of the Bush administration fall into the category of the "strict father" mode of communication. progressive news aggregate web site: alter-net.org

A history lesson

What we need is a little history lesson about which side(s) Democrats have been on about Iraq. 

The sad truth is that the Democratic party has tried to have it both ways. When they looked at public opinion at the time they calculated that to vote against the war would be political suicide. They got up and pompously made the same kind of hawkish comments as Hillary is now, demanding action against Saddam. Hence even John Kerry, who voted against the first gulf war, (which ostensibly had all the conditions he set out for being a proper use of force), voted for this one against his own judgment. Democrats publicly agreed with the President and voted for the war but then began undermining it almost immediately. Soon accusing Bush of being a dictator, silencing dissent, and castigated him for their own votes. 

Democrats refuse to take responsibility for their speeches or their votes. They seem to want to forget these demands for action, after that action has been taken.

If Democrats like Hillary really wanted anyone to continue to believe anything they said, then they should be worried about the tactics they have been using that have done nothing but divide America and increase the partisan rancor during a time of war.

[H]egemonic Word count: 1226

Powered By: BackLinkr

 

---