Another Idiotic Editorial

I can't even bother with this stupidity. It's little more than the typical ignorant cant.

But let cite this one squeaky little fart of nonsense:

Yesterday, Cheney bashed those who voted for Democrat Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate primary, claiming that these votes would encourage "al Qaeda types" to think that "they can break the will of the American people."

The idea is that since 18-year incumbent Joe Lieberman lost based on his support for Iraq, Americans opposing the war are waving a white flag of surrender to terrorists.

...

For Cheney - and other Republicans like GOP National Chairman Ken Mehlman - to suggest that those Americans are encouraging terrorism is reprehensible.

Dear, would that be "reprehensible" in the same way that constantly claiming that Bush is "creating more terrorists" than he is stopping, or that Bush is "provoking Al Qaeda to attack us through his belligerency," or that America is "the greatest recruitment tool Osama bin Ladin ever had" are each "reprehensible"?

Why should it be that suggesting that one policy encourages the terrorists is "reprehensible," whereas suggesting that a different policy encourages the terrorists is simply the standard liberal line (and, of course, "THE TRUTH")?

Is the Philadelphia Daily News guilty of such absurdly-obvious double-standards? Of course they are. These idiots can't even keep such suggestions out of the very editorial condemning this "reprehensible" practice:

The immoral and ridiculous claims coming out of the Bush administration's reign of error could ultimately be responsible for the kind of casualties that al Qaeda can only dream of.

Ah. Bush and Cheney's claims and policies can lead to massive casualties, but it's "reprehensible" to suggest that Lamont's might.

Gotcha.

Can't have it both ways, assholes. It's either reprhensible to suggest such a thing or it's not. If it is reprehensible, than stop doing it yourselves. If it's not-- then keep doing it, but stop whining about it all the time.

Grown ups -- not including the Philadelphia Daily News' editorial board -- disagree on what the proper way to fight terrorists might be, and of course the wrong way to fight terrorists will encourage them and allow them greater freedom to commit mass murder.

Obviously different people believe their preferred policy to be optimal, that is, leading to the fewest terrorist-inflicted casualties. That means all other policies are sub-optimal, and lead to greater terrorist-inflicted deaths.

There is an important policy dispute here. Personally, I think Cheney has the better of it, but opinions may vary. Either way, I will not be shouted down by preening, tantrum-throwing children every time I try to advocate for my preferred policy solution.

This is just a constant refrain from the left. Free speech for me, but not for thee. And yet we're the ones guilty of "chilling" speech.

I ain't chilling your speech, morons. I'm posting it. Disseminating it. Because I happen to think your speech is self-refuting.

Meanwhile, you're the thugs attempting to mau-mau anyone who disagrees with you into silence.

Won't work. Keep on trying, though. This tactic has be so very effective for you these past five years.

Has Cheney completely lost it?

Has the Philadelphia Daily News completely lost it?

You be the judge.

Thanks to Confederate Yankee.

posted by Ace at 06:06 PM

| Access Comments