Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Frank Gaffney Educates Us

I must confess that I am getting rather bored with the conservatives' incessant whining. Once in a while though, one of them bursts through with an explosion of dishonesty of such a magnitude that I just can't let it slide by unnoticed.

Frank Gaffney, at the Washington Times, is one of the more consistent providers of such innocent amusement, and he hasn't let us down today, in a wonderful attack on Paul Krugman, who, as you know, writes for the New York Times. Now, the New York Times bears the same resemblance to the Washington Times as the Los Angeles Lakers have to the Los Angeles Latkes of the San Fernando Valley Mah Jongg league. Still, stupidity this far above and beyond the call of duty is always worth noting, regardless of the venue, so, here's Frank:

"I was surprised to see the New York Times columnist take a swipe at me and the paper that has long been my home. Since Frank Rich, another New York Times columnist, and numerous bloggers have all written essentially the same thing as Mr. Krugman, it is obvious that a new line of attack against conservatives is emerging."

Or that they are all trying to report the truth, Frank. Seeing as how you work for the Washington Times, that would never occur to you, I guess.

"In a column called "The Big Hate," Mr. Krugman seized upon two unrelated shootings in different cities - of a Kansas abortionist and a U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum guard in Washington - to contend outrageously that disaffected conservatives and Iraq war veterans may pose a public threat."

Only two complaints here, Frank. Leave the word "unrelated" out and I agree with the first part, and I suggest that the phrase "to contend outrageously" be changed to "to state the obvious fact" There. See how an editor can prevent you from making a fool out of yourself?

"....To this list of alleged extremist-enablers, Mr. Krugman added The Washington Times, noting that it "saw fit to run an opinion piece declaring that President Obama not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself."

And? Seeing as how that is just what you did, what exactly is your objection?

"Let me be clear. The nature and religious context of Mr. Obama's relationship with his Creator is, as far as I am concerned, the man's own business."

No it's not, you jackass. Othewise why do you write columns claiming he is a Muslim?

"Indeed, one would think Mr. Krugman and his friends would be the first to defend the rights of such critics. After all, Mr. Krugman's cohort on the left and its media echo chamber endlessly assailed President George W. Bush's policies. They also routinely engaged in the most aggressive and inflammatory personal attacks on the president and his subordinates. Remember "Bush lied; people died"?"

Frank, "Bush lied; people died" is not a personal attack. It's the truth. George W. Bush's policies just about destroyed this country. That's why people assailed them. That's why not the Left, but the 75% of the American people who were still sane after eight years of Bush assailed them. That's a little different from calling Obama a Muslim, or can't you see that?

"In addition to selective outrage, Mr. Krugman is given to selective quotation. He ignores the evidence I cite showing an uncanny similarity between some of the language and policies of the president and of Muslim Brotherhood. In my column, I identified a number of instances in which Mr. Obama's policies track with this agenda. These include his promise in his Cairo speech to "fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear"

Can you even believe the guy can write this crap? Being against negative religious stereotypes makes Obama just like terrorists? Frank, you don't believe this for a second. It is an out and out malicious lie, which you and your fellows tolerate because you just can't find anything wrong that Obama has really done.

"One could add to this worrying list Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s announcement following the president's Cairo speech. Mr. Holder promised "a return to robust civil rights enforcement and outreach in defending religious freedoms,"

Defending religious freedoms. That's the evil lurking in the Obama administration. This from the people that are constantly wailing that their religious freedom to be right wing jackasses is under constant attack.

Bush started an unjustified war, destroyed the economy, perverted our justice system, allowed the rich to rob the country blind, sat back while an American city drowned, ignored the crisis of global warming for eight years. What did Obama do? He defended religious freedoms. That's his sin.

Frank, can you see why it might make sense to see Bush rather more negatively than Obama?

"It is extremism to hold that all critics of the president should be shunned into silence. "

Well, obviously no one is going to shun you into silence, Frank. No matter how stupid and vicious you are.


Poll P. said...

Like watching a swordfight between Erroll Flynn and the Three Stooges.

Green Eagle said...

Which is which?