The Vince Lombardi method of punditry.
(Swiped whole-cloth from August J. Pollak.)
I think the Richard Clarke story is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the Right in their support of fighting terrorism. This is seen nowhere better than online, where the warbloggers have launched a copy-and-paste assault on Clarke proving only that winning to them isn't everything, it's the only thing.
As I said in my last post, the idea that Iraq was the realistic target of the American emotional consciousness on 9/11--the day over a dozen Saudis under orders from a group in Afghanistan killed thousands of people--is laughable. And with the report from Clarke--who, also mentioned before, has a nearly unimpeachable record on terrorism issues--well, it's hard to refute at least a significant portion of his argument.
So is the Right actually refuting most of his argument? No. Instead, it's insisting that Viacom owning CBS and Simon & Schuster means 60 Minutes was just a scam to sell more books. It alleges that Clarke is an opportunist now that he's left the White House. It says he's friends with someone who works for Kerry.
Do you notice the underlying trend in those accusations against Clarke? None of them actually disprove anything he's said.
The Clinton Impeachment was one of the major examples of the sheer desire to win by the Right--"it's not about sex" basically shone a light on the real message--"it's about winning." They hated Clinton, and unable to get him for the countless things he's likely at least partially guilty of, they tried to make banging someone a means to destroy the Democratic Party. It failed miserably.
Now the Right has a near-unbeatable card in play that is 9/11. Republicans are good because of September 11, and that's all you need to know. And when someone comes forward refuting that concept, as Clarke has, the Right doesn't try to discuss this. Clarke must be destroyed.
It's saddening, because unlike Clinton's petty self-involved stupidity, Republicans are gambling with the very lives of Americans for the sheer sake of what they wanted during impeachment--to win. And warbloggers and GOP-favoring pundits are fueling this sentiment, because they don't have the political moderation and resolve that at least some people in Washington do.
I shudder to think that all the pro-Bush pundits out there who have spread the GOP talking points about Clarke honestly believe that this discredits him. There simply can't be that many people who are that ignorant and still know how to type at a keyboard. These are the people who wouldn't duck if Hillary Clinton told them a brick was flying at their head, because they'd rather get their face smashed in than believe Hillary doesn't just have a secret alliance with the bricklayer's union. Do these people--who believe that Bush will be re-elected, mind you--honestly believe a man would resign a multi-president stint in White House policy to work secretly to promote a candidate they think won't be president and to sell a book they believe to be irrelevant, and that in no way could he even remotely, possibly, be right about the fallacies Bush has made in the act of--not like this is important or anything--preventing us from being killed en masse?
The answer shouldn't even provoke debate. Of course not. What they want, beyond their false desire to protect the country ("the country, of course, meaning themselves, and their own fears) is to be right. And to be right, at this point, two and a half years after 9/11, they have to maintain the "with us or against us" rhetoric. Bush must be infallible. For if he isn't, neither are they.
Weblogging and punditry of the like has done wonders for political debate, but it has also magnified the selfish and juvenile aspect of the over-emotional and attention-needy: the move to discredit Clarke is a shining example in the internet age of the desire to win over the desire to actually better the safety of the American people.
I think the Richard Clarke story is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the Right in their support of fighting terrorism. This is seen nowhere better than online, where the warbloggers have launched a copy-and-paste assault on Clarke proving only that winning to them isn't everything, it's the only thing.
As I said in my last post, the idea that Iraq was the realistic target of the American emotional consciousness on 9/11--the day over a dozen Saudis under orders from a group in Afghanistan killed thousands of people--is laughable. And with the report from Clarke--who, also mentioned before, has a nearly unimpeachable record on terrorism issues--well, it's hard to refute at least a significant portion of his argument.
So is the Right actually refuting most of his argument? No. Instead, it's insisting that Viacom owning CBS and Simon & Schuster means 60 Minutes was just a scam to sell more books. It alleges that Clarke is an opportunist now that he's left the White House. It says he's friends with someone who works for Kerry.
Do you notice the underlying trend in those accusations against Clarke? None of them actually disprove anything he's said.
The Clinton Impeachment was one of the major examples of the sheer desire to win by the Right--"it's not about sex" basically shone a light on the real message--"it's about winning." They hated Clinton, and unable to get him for the countless things he's likely at least partially guilty of, they tried to make banging someone a means to destroy the Democratic Party. It failed miserably.
Now the Right has a near-unbeatable card in play that is 9/11. Republicans are good because of September 11, and that's all you need to know. And when someone comes forward refuting that concept, as Clarke has, the Right doesn't try to discuss this. Clarke must be destroyed.
It's saddening, because unlike Clinton's petty self-involved stupidity, Republicans are gambling with the very lives of Americans for the sheer sake of what they wanted during impeachment--to win. And warbloggers and GOP-favoring pundits are fueling this sentiment, because they don't have the political moderation and resolve that at least some people in Washington do.
I shudder to think that all the pro-Bush pundits out there who have spread the GOP talking points about Clarke honestly believe that this discredits him. There simply can't be that many people who are that ignorant and still know how to type at a keyboard. These are the people who wouldn't duck if Hillary Clinton told them a brick was flying at their head, because they'd rather get their face smashed in than believe Hillary doesn't just have a secret alliance with the bricklayer's union. Do these people--who believe that Bush will be re-elected, mind you--honestly believe a man would resign a multi-president stint in White House policy to work secretly to promote a candidate they think won't be president and to sell a book they believe to be irrelevant, and that in no way could he even remotely, possibly, be right about the fallacies Bush has made in the act of--not like this is important or anything--preventing us from being killed en masse?
The answer shouldn't even provoke debate. Of course not. What they want, beyond their false desire to protect the country ("the country, of course, meaning themselves, and their own fears) is to be right. And to be right, at this point, two and a half years after 9/11, they have to maintain the "with us or against us" rhetoric. Bush must be infallible. For if he isn't, neither are they.
Weblogging and punditry of the like has done wonders for political debate, but it has also magnified the selfish and juvenile aspect of the over-emotional and attention-needy: the move to discredit Clarke is a shining example in the internet age of the desire to win over the desire to actually better the safety of the American people.