Sunday, August 19, 2007

You can't turn off the derangement.

You'd think that with Karl Rove leaving, the vindictive leftists that make everything personal might have found some new target for destruction.

But I guess if you hate people bad enough long enough, you just can't turn it off. I don't know what it's like to be so filled with vitriol, hatred, and animus toward your fellow man, although I also don't know what it's like to think killing children is a natural, acceptable thing to do either.

And if you can convince yourself that kids aren't really humans if they just haven't managed to escape their killer's wombs yet, it can't be that hard to convince yourself that people who call themselves "republicans" also are somehow sub-human, and deserving of ridicule, scorn, disease, sickness, and death. I imagine there's a good number of lefties who, if on a jury for someone who tried to kill the President, would vote not guilty and give the guy a thumb's up.

Anyway, over at a VB Dems post titled Rove: Proof That You Can’t Undrink the Kool-Aid, their hatred of Karl Rove so clouds their judgment that they make a series of ignorant statements based on his interview with uber-"journalist" David Gregory -- starting with the bizarre notion that Gregory, who hates the President and never misses a chance to talk down to the administration as if he knows better, is somehow a stooge for Rove:

4. Rove actually gets testy with David Gregory, who after all works for him. Rove: “I understand, and I’m gonna get to your question, if you wouldn’t interrupt.” Gregory, like a chastised puppy: “Okay.”

Other choice items:

1. “In 2000 this President won an election that he shouldn’t have won.” We know, Karl, and we’re still not over it.

Hysteric hatred can cloud your thinking skills, but there's no way Bush should have been able to beat the democrats in 2000, because Clinton's administration had done a great job of manipulating the media and the markets to hide the horrendous economic bubble about to burst, and put off many hard choices like actually responding to a major terror attack on our military. But Al Gore was such a lunatic, even then, that Bush managed to win. Of course, despite the fact that at NO TIME in the entire election OR recount was Gore EVER ahead, the leftists still believe that Gore somehow won Florida -- after all, that's what the networks told them.

3. The Iraq War: “Yes, okay, fine, judge us by our performance, but let’s not be a society that says we’re going to judge things instantaneously, from moment to moment to moment.” Four and a half years, $453,413,000,000 and counting, and more importantly, 3759 American lives, 27,000 American wounded, untold Iraqi deaths and wounded. No WMDs. No link to 9/11. An unmitigated disaster. But wait, let’s not be hasty.

Yes, if hatred has clouded your judgment, you could well believe that a war started in March of 2003 resulting in an entirely new government for a country of 25 million people should be easy and accomplished in 4 years. Or that it can be fought without any loss at all. You might also actually believe that all the WMDs dissappeared the moment Bush invaded, and yet not think it was a GOOD thing that there are no more WMDs in Iraq. And you might still think that "link to 9/11" is the only thing that matters in the world, as if there are no terrorists other than the 19 that died on the planes, plus Osama Bin Laden.

History will judge the war for the Middle east, but it will be DECADES before it is won or lost.

5. Part of the Bush doctrine lives on. “If you harbor a terrorist, you’re as culpable as the terrorist.” “We use all the tools against terrorists.” Gee, I thought the Bush doctrine was about the right of the world’s only superpower to wage pre-emptive war.

Because if you are deranged enough, you would believe your own hype that Bush can't spit and chew gum at the same time, and therefore couldn't possibly have a foreign policy that includes BOTh stricking the terrorists BEFORE they blow up our buildings (that's what "pre-emptive war" means, in case you are wondering whether the leftists would prevent the next 9/11), and could also include going after those who harbor terrorists, or using tools to attack terrorists.

Fortunately, there are sane people in our government who are doing all of those things, because the leftists haven't taken over.

6. Valerie Plame: Rove denies his role as a confirming source for Robert Novak, despite what Novak and others said. “My recollection is that I said ‘I heard that too.’ If a journalist had said, I’d like you to confirm this, my answer would have been, ‘no.’” Only in the twisted mind of Karl Rove …..

Armitage outed Valerie Plame, as did Joe Wilson. But Armitage isn't a "friend of the administration", and facts aren't all that useful to leftists.

8. Why did he blow off a congressional subpoena? Well, he and Harriett Miers said “we’d be happy to go up there and visit with them.” Much harrumphing about the Constitutional separation of powers and the Founding Fathers, who supposedly “wanted to insulate the judicial, the executive, and the legislative from each other in this respect.” I seem to remember that the Founding Fathers, anxious to avoid a King, created three co-equal branches of government, with checks and balances. I also seem to remember, during Watergate, that the Nixon equivalents to Miers and Rove did testify before Congress, despite claims of executive privilege.

Even when they are right, the derangement of impure hatred blinds them to the truth. As Rove said, the Founding Father created 3 branches of government, with separation of powers. The "checks and balances" are in the powers each branch was assigned, NOT in the ability of one branch to harass another branch. And it is funny to see the Nixon administration cited favorably by anybody as a measure of how things should be done constitutionally.

Of course, the very idea that there is a congressional need to investigate why people who serve at the pleasure of the President were fired is just another sign of how blind hatred can lead people to bizarre beliefs.

9. Speaking of Nixon, Rove has fond memories of his time in the sub-basement of the RNC during the Imperial Presidency, carrying buckets for the plumbers: ”It was a fun time.”

I'm not sure the Republican National Committee ever had a "sub-basement". That term usually applies to the White House. It is another sign of the searing effects of hatred on one's capacity to think straight that would lead liberals to mistake the executive branch of the Government with a political party's national committee.

10. Stay tuned for the perp walk ….

last year, a close cousin to DailyKos, the Democratic Underground, was awash in the reports from "truthout" that Karl Rove was going to be marched from the white house in chains. Of course, that was also the desire of another purveyor of hatred and loathing, the aforementioned Wilson, who hated Bush so much he risked his wife's life by outing her as an agent -- by confirming the story for the media that was previously only "confirmed" by anonymous leaks that could be cast into doubt. Nobody was going to doubt when Wilson blabbed about his wife.

Of course, there was no "perp walk" then, since nobody had committed a crime. And there will be no perp walk now, just the end of the career of another man who made the mistake of trying to serve the public good on the "wrong" side, thus earning the apparently permanent emnity of a group of liberals who are awash in hatred, anger, loathing, and bitterness.

No comments: