Home / About Those Atrocities…

About Those Atrocities…

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

First thing I saw when I signed into Journalspace tonight was the updated list of entries. What caught my attention on the list was an updated journal entry by bushatrocity I didn’t know there was a journal at JS called bushatrocity, but now that I am aware of it, by all means, let’s find out what that means.

I will go back and read more of the entries at that journal because, after all, everyone needs a good laugh now and then, but the entry that was most recently posted was on an article I read also. The New Yorker Magazine, that bastion of chicken soup for the Liberal soul, is one of my favorite places to go slumming. As a matter of fact, I subscribe. I like to see how the other half lives.

In traditional Liberal fashion, bushatrocity stretches the truth a bit in claiming that The New Yorker endorses John Kerry thereby breaking an 80 year tradition of endorsing no political candidate in any election. Actually, what The New Yorker’s editors claim at the end of their spiel is

“For now, as citizens, we hope for [John Kerry’s] victory.”

In an effort to keep the illusion of non-partisanship, their editorial is a review of the Bush Presidency as compared to what they consider to be the illustrious promise of a Kerry Administration. Since they have been kissing Kerry’s butt for months now and bashing the hell out of the Bush Administration whenever possible, this hardly comes a surprise.

Seymour Hirsch claimed credit for breaking the story of Abu Ghraib, and he published his account of what occured there in Chain Of Command as well as a series of articles for The New Yorker. I read those accounts. Seymour Hirsch represented this story as further reason for Muslim hatred of Americans, but he at no time mentioned that Abu Ghraib could also be an isolated example. His story was all about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners with very little mention of the courage of American soldiers who turned in those who participated in the abuse. It was clear neither Hirsch nor The New Yorker had any interest in preserving even a shred of integrity for the American soldier. They were all animal preditors and Iraqis were their prey.

The New Yorker also published an interview with John Kerry. The interview made light of Kerry’s “heroic” behavior in battle mentioning that his conduct alternatively could have earned him a court martial according to Kerry’s own CO and remarks in Kerry’s own Vietnam journals. This account was further verified by the Swift Boat Veterans. The same group The New Yorker now claims was thoroughly discredited. Odd how they managed to print their own admission that Kerry disobeyed orders months ago while at the same time currently spinning it into a Swift Boat Veteran lie.

The New Yorker’s current editorial is called “The Choice”. It is a long discourse about the evils of George Bush, and to the uninformed, it represents an impressive list of blunders and failures. The problem is, you have to be seriously misinformed to accept what The New Yorker has to say. You have to be brain dead to accept the premise that President Bush lives up to the moniker “bushatrocities”.

I don’t say that lightly. I understand that others have differing viewpoints on politics than I do. My problem is when those who have differing viewpoints outright lie to make their points.

For instance, when Liberals cry outrage because they say President Bush wants to pollute our drinking water and poison our children, and they use his increase of allowable arsenic in water as the example, that’s a lie. One of the many Presidential Directives Bill Clinton signed as he was running like hell out the front door of the White House before he was relieved of his job was to substantially decrease the amount of arnsenic in the water supply. This standard had been set for years, and it was determined acceptable by the US Government. In lowering this standard, Clinton was putting an enormous burden on water plants. An unnecessary burden. Bill Clinton would need to answer who benefited from his actions. It sure isn’t the taxpayers who will ultimately fund a change that simply doesn’t matter. So whose pockets will this change deepen? Clinton never was held to account to answer that question.

What George Bush did was revert the arsenic standard to the pre-existing percentage. No more. No less. He made it what it always was. So the fibbies used this to say Bush wants to poison your children. That’s a lie, and Liberals know it.

The New Yorker has used this same technique to paint every action of the Bush Administration since they first took office as a directive from the devil. Bush is depicted as a religious fanatic, a destroyer of the environment, a sycophant to the rich, an arrogant, secretive, iconoclastic egomaniac with a God complex, and oh so much more. There is the odd mention of a success or two, but there’s always a BUT and an explanation for why the success is in reality a failure. Reading this tripe, one gets the impression that the similarities to Hitler are exaggerated — Hitler had an inferior resumé.

I could indulge in the same kind of spin the bleeding hearts use and say that Liberals must be getting awfully desperate to resort to this kind of continued character assassination of the guy they fear so they can get their guy elected. Truth of the matter is, I don’t know who is scared and who is feeling secure in this election race.

What I do know is that MSM has done everything it possibly can to undermine our faith in our own system of government particularly our election process. The New Yorker is merely another example of this.

I particularly loved this special touch:

“Bush’s immediate reaction to the events of September 11, 2001, was an almost palpable bewilderment and axiety. Within a few days, to the palpable relief of his fellow-citizens, he seemed to find his focus.”

So tell me. What would YOU do if your’re the President, and while you were participating in reading a story with a group of young children, you just found out the country was under attack? A stranger to the children has just whispered something in your ear. You don’t want to alarm a bunch of little kids by jumping out of your chair and rushing from the room. The kids might notice that this is not usual adult behavior. You want to get out of there ASAP but without causing panic. You also need to mentally set your priorities for this catastrophy. In the Oval Office with aides all over the place, decorum wouldn’t matter. But this isn’t in the oval office. This is happening in an elementary school classroom. Is 7 minutes too long to figure a way out? More to the point: did 7 minutes make a shred of difference in the status of the attack? The answer to the latter is no, it did not. It may have had President Bush been the only line of defense available for direction at that moment. What Liberals don’t mention is that their chosen spokesman, Richard Clarke, was already in motion and our government’s reactions were already underway because there is a plan for such an event as that. And one of the basics of that plan is to keep the President safe. Guess what. The plan was operational and it succeeded.

Conversely, John Kerry sat mentally frozen at a meeting in Washington, DC, sharing a brain numbing 2,700 seconds with his colleagues. He says he and the people with him were stunned by the unfolding events and could not budge from their seats. And he had no need to assume any kind of posture because he wasn’t on display for school children AND running cameras. 7 minutes of obvious mental calculation as opposed to 45 minutes of stunned. Yeah, I can see how Kerry comes up a winner on that one.

One last detail. The New Yorker, along with other Liberal publicans. likes to invoke the name of Richard Clarke when they discuss the “failures” of the Bush orchestrated war on terror. I read Richard Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, and I watched his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. If we’re going to believe Richard Clarke as the ultimate word on terrorism, then shouldn’t we listen to EVERYTHING Richard Clarke said?

Richard Clarke has pointed out more than once that had someone told the Clinton Administration to create a Homeland Security Department, send troops to invade any country in the Middle East, beef up airport security — in fact all the items on President Bush’s checklist of terrorism fighting agenda — neither Congress nor the American people would have agreed to fund it. Richard Clarke said that no one will sink a cent into what might happen. He also said we needed a body count to make the point and make everyone see the reality of the dangers. Richard Clarke was correct about that.

President Bush has been fighting tooth and nail to get Liberals to look outside the box and understand that terrorism is not restricted to one isolated incident after another. That the mindset of the Clinton Administration to chase after one attack then another and then another is not the way to resolve the problem. And Liberals are doing just exactly what Richard Clarke predicted both Congress and the American people would do when presented with the best and most obvious option to solving terrorism once and for all. They’re ridiculing it.

It takes commitment and it takes money to solve a problem we didn’t ask for and don’t want. All this gibberish about what we leave our children and our grandchildren? I’d like to leave them a safe world. So they may have to help pay for what it took to get them that security. Well my oh my oh my. Poor them. If their world doesn’t include innocent people getting blown up because they went to work that day, I’d say they can afford to share some of the financial burden it cost to get them that peace of mind.

We haven’t had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. That is NOT thanks to the UN or John Kerry or the mindless rantings of fools like the editorial staff at The New Yorker. That’s thanks to the Bush Administration. And because President Bush has not given into pressure from the Liberals; because he has remained comitted to the safety of this country, he’s labeled intractable. Since when was it a bad thing NOT to be wishy-washy? Since when is it a character defect NOT to flip-flop until no one knows what the hell anything means any more? But if I listen to Kerry, that’s what I can expect from him. No resolve. A change of mind more capricious than a teenage girl with 5 invitations to the prom.

Contrary to The New Yorker, I fervently hope John Kerry is resoundingly defeated. . We need to re-elect George W. Bush. And This Guy needs a name change, because if I remember correctly, it was Kerry who outright admitted to comitting atrocities. But I guess to Liberals, that just doesn’t matter.

Powered by

About Punditz

  • One of the first rules of journalism is accuracy.

    You referred to my blog with three different names, although only one is correct. It’s “BushAtrocity.”

    Here is the correct link.

    I will leave it to your several readers to decide if your careless command of simple facts casts a shadow on other “information” in this post, not to mention your numerous misspellings.

    As long as you’re stopping in to read my blog, however, you might want to check out this later entry, about a long list of prominent Republicans calling for Bush’s defeat, including John Eisenhower, son of the late Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

    And, for your information, I have been a registered Republican for 29 years. I won’t be voting for Mr. Bush on Tuesday.

    Fiberal that.

  • And your point is? That I’m not a journalist? Don’t recall ever claiming to be one. I always find it curious though that the Fiberals don’t mind a whole lot of lies, distortions, amd misleading statements that come from their party, but good God misspell their names and they go batshit. So very typical.

  • boomcrashbaby

    um, punditz, did you miss his point that he’s not a fiberal (whatever that is), he’s a registered Republican? And you just applied his response as being typical of liberals? That doesn’t make any sense.

    Thank you for the link though, I’ll have to check out his site more tonight. It looks very interesting.

  • No, I did not miss the point that he is a registered Republican. Apparently it is supposed to be significant of something that a registered republican is going to vote for a democrat. It isn’t. The guy is not voting his party and is impressed that The New Yorker supports John Kerry. If anyone is missing the point here it is the one who thinks it’s a big deal that a Magazine which has obvious leftist leanings is going to support a lefty candidate. Further, it was my opinion that the editorial to which he refers was full of misrepresentations, distortions, and outright lies. I don’t care what the guy’s registration is; to believe that crap he has to be of the mindset to accept it and that puts him squarely on the Liberal page.

  • You write: “We haven’t had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11… That’s thanks to the Bush Administration.” So, by your very own logic, you must believe that it was thanks to the Clinton Administration that we didn’t have any such terrorist attacks between 1993 and 2001. Right?

  • I think the point is that because one cites newpaper articles to make their point does not mean that they are not expressing an “opinion”. In this election cycle “spin” has played a huge role. Mr. BushAtrocity has applied his own brand of spin as we all have a tendency to do. Punditz does not claim to be a journalist yet is expected by Mr BA to be accurate even though the articles he cites apparently do not have to stand up to that test.

    The misspelling was unintentional yet one was still directed to the right page.

    The fact still remains that if one does not like what they read they are welcome to go elsewhere. If they wish to comment on it in their own forum or any other that welcomes differing opinions, the last time I checked they were still free to do so. And they can misspell all they want.

    I happen to understand what Punditz is saying regarding a “liberal response”. I’ve been called worse myself.

  • “You write: “We haven’t had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11… That’s thanks to the Bush Administration.” So, by your very own logic, you must believe that it was thanks to the Clinton Administration that we didn’t have any such terrorist attacks between 1993 and 2001. Right?”

    One statement does not flow to the other in any cognizant order at all.

    Now this flows nicely, I could say, “Thanks to the Clinton Administration, al Qaeda was free to amass all the necessary operatives, money and cooperation needed for them to already be in the country and start the process culminating in an attack within the first eight months of the Bush Admin.”

  • Oyster, that is some very rational reasoning. Unfortunately, the kind of jingoism you just read is very common at Blogcritics.

    The sloppy thinking you referred to is basically a failure to grasp cause and effect. When I’m teaching undergraduates, the example I use is:

    ~ There are more homicides during the summer than any other time of the year.

    ~ More ice cream is sold during the summer than any other time of the year.

    ~ But, eating ice cream does not cause homicides.

    Punditz’ claim that the Bush administration has prevented further terrorist attacks has the same fallacy. For such a claim to make sense, there would need to be evidence of attacks thwarted by the Bushites. The coincidence of the Bush administration and an absence of attacks occurring at the same time is not enough.

  • “So, by your very own logic, you must believe that it was thanks to the Clinton Administration that we didn’t have any such terrorist attacks between 1993 and 2001. Right?”

    If that were true, yes, it would be correct. Unfortunately, it’s not true. US interests were attacked 10 times during the Clinton Administration. We did virtually nothing about those attacks treating them as law enforcement issues and merely chasing them from one end of the world to another. Clinton’s “Terrorism Czar”, Richard Clarke was one of many to point that out. According to statements made by various 9/11 Commission members, and this would come from testimony provided by captured Al-Qaeda insurgents, other attacks were thwarted. All information on that matter has not yet been released. Therefore, it is hardly a coincidence that we have not had further attacks. It was thanks to preventative measures taken during the Bush Administration.

  • Duh. The only large terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to 9/11 was Punditz’ fellow Right Winger, Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. There have been attacks on Americans abroad which could be considered terrorism since the Cold War, at least. So, Oyster’s point is accurate. There were no attacks like 9/11 during Clinton’s two elected terms. Trying to pass off non-domestic incidents of violence as domestic is the kind of sophistry I would expect from someone who makes the ice cream fallacy.

  • bhw

    There have been no landings by alien spaceships in my backyard in the past 4 years.

    I would like to take credit for that.

  • You can have credit for the absence of Ferengi among us, Bhw. But, I want props for keeping the Betazoids out. Counselor Troi was much too saccharine.

  • Duh, and what do you call the first bombing of the World Trade Center? It is assinine not to consider attacks on the US as relevant no matter where they occur. It’s just convenient to preserve some bogus Clinton legacy to dismiss the 10 attacks that occurred under his watch, and not bother noticing that his lack of attention to terrorism led to the attack of 9/11.

    Kudos on the success with the martians. Keep up the good work. Just don’t depend upon Kerry to help you… well, unless you want to have sensitive discussions and global approval.

  • JR

    punditz: It is assinine not to consider attacks on the US as relevant no matter where they occur.

    The thing is, you did exactly that in the original post when you credited Bush with not a single “terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11”.

    And you’re right, it was asinine.

  • bhw

    There were many attacks on foreign soil [and air space] before Clinton took office. If we’re going to look at what happened under his watch, then it’s only fair that we look at what happened under Reagan and Bush I’s watches, as well. Because if Clinton allowed the conditions for 9/11 to happen, then those that preceded him allowed the conditions for Timothy McVeigh and the first WTC bombing to happen, as well as what happened abroad. Right?

    January 1982: Lt. Col. Charles Ray, a military attachi stationed at the embassy in Paris, was shot and killed by Lebanese terrorists.

    August 1982: a bomb exploded on a Pan Am jet during its approach to Honolulu Airport, killing one Japanese teenager.

    April 18, 1983: a delivery van filled with explosives detonated in front of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing a total of 63 people, including 17 Americans.

    October 23, 1983: the headquarters of the Marine Battalion Landing Team at Beirut airport was destroyed by another explosives-laden truck, killing 241 people. A second bomb, at French forces headquarters, killed 59.

    September 1984: a van bearing diplomatic license plates navigated around three concrete barriers in front of the U.S. Embassy annex in Christian East Beirut and detonated. Two American military officers and twelve Lebanese were killed.

    mid-1980s: a time of frequent kidnappings (and occasionally murder) of Americans in Lebanon. Targets included journalists, educators (including the president of the American University in Beirut, who was murdered), and ministers, as well as intelligence and military officers.

    June 14, 1985, TWA Flight 847, carrying 153 people, was hijacked on its way from Athens to Rome. A U.S. Navy diver was murdered by the hijackers.

    April 1986: a bomb exploded at the La Belle disco in Berlin, killing two American soldiers.

    December 21, 1988: Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 passengers and crew, as well as 11 residents of Lockerbie.

    I guess you could say that the lack of attention that Reagan and Bush I paid to international terrorism led to the first WTC attack, the Oklahoma City attack, and other attacks on US interests abroad during Clinton’s years in office. Right?

  • JR

    In any case, the anthrax attacks happened after 9/11; so strictly speaking, it’s not true to say we haven’t had any attacks on home soil since.

  • bhw – you forget that bill was OFFERED bin laden during his presidency and I guess he just blew it off!

  • Shark

    “….John Kerry sat mentally frozen at a meeting in Washington, DC, sharing a brain numbing 2,700 seconds with his colleagues…”

    Oh yeah?!

    We’ve been mired in that stupid useless war in Iraq for over 38,979,522,384,371,589,666,741,892 seconds!

    So there!

    (And worse than that, Bush has been a fucking idiot for over 58 years!)

  • JR

    Bush was offered a hit on Zarqawi on at least three occasions and he just blew it off every time. And this was after 9/11 (but before Zarqawi killed hundreds of civilians and soldiers in Iraq).

  • bhw

    Clinton denies that he was offered bin Laden.

  • he denied getting head in the oval office too!

  • JR

    I thought he denied having sex. Any middle-school kid can tell you oral doesn’t count.

  • you got me there!

  • bhw

    My point was that you don’t *know* that Clinton was offered bin Laden. You just believe the Sudanese instead of Clinton. There’s a big difference.

  • bhw – there is this from latimes.com

    clinton let bin laden go

    but I’m not sure about latimes.com

  • bhw

    Andy, I’m pretty sure the 9/11 commission said they found no evidence of the offer. I don’t have a link for you right now, though.

  • Impressive math skills, Shark. Absolutely awesome.

  • Shark

    Punditz: “…Impressive math skills, Shark. Absolutely awesome…”

    Thanks. I studied in Florida under Katherine Harris; got my Masters in Ohio.