... you might want an excuse to start drinking early (if the last one didn't do it for you, I mean), you might like to know that (guzzle, guzzle, glurg, glurg, burp) Karl Rove …
… yeah, Ol' SmugMug Turd Blossom hisself …
… has an op-ed in the WSJ complaining about the Democrats and all they've done to poison the political discourse. Apparently, where we're at today is entirely due to Ted Kennedy and Jay Rockefeller being mean to that nice President Bush, when all he wanted to do was invade another country, burn women, kids, houses, and villages, and what, under false pretenses? MEANIES. Also, Al Gore.
If you're having already having problems with self-medication, don't click this.
(h/t: @GregMitch, RTed by @Johngcole | pic.source | x-posted)
[Added] Don't miss what Alastair says in the Comments.
1 comment:
Too late, I clicked.
So if I'm reading it right: Even though Bush didn't "intentionally" lie, Dems were wrong to vote with him and then later claim that he deceived them and the rest of the country (and the world for that matter)?
In other words they shouldn't have believed Bush in the first place? If they had (rightly) called him a liar at the outset there would be no problem? Is that really what Rove is saying?
In fact the Dems (and the rest of the country, never mind the Republicans) do deserve criticism for being insufficiently skeptical about the claims being made by the Bush administration. I remember clearly being unconvinced myself, and disappointed that the Dems couldn't see that the case for invasion was being made on pure bullshit.
(Incidentally I didn't then, but do now, have some sympathy for the Hitchens viewpoint that Saddam did need to be toppled on purely humanitarian grounds...)
Getting back to the Rove piece, do you like the way that he links Saddams trial with the Bush lies? As though Bush was somehow vindicated by the fact that Saddam was executed? It's the Chewbacca defence!
Glad you warned me to start drinking beforehand.
Post a Comment