A left-leaning look at the stories and people that build, shape, manipulate, encourage, and/or contribute to the downfall of the United States.

Saturday, November 12, 2005

O'Reichly, Bush, and the GOP Usher in a Golden Age of Hypocrisy

Thanks to the rise of the Republican juggernaut to its full hideous strength earlier in 2005, hypocrisy has seen one of its biggest years in the spotlight since Tricky Dick accused communists of being traitors to America. And Americans have actually noticed this, too, leaving Bush grasping at the sort of mid-thirty percent approval ratings Tricky Dick himself might've grabbed for to keep away from the Roaring Twenties (which, by the way, the new, trickier Dick is down below that).

Briefly, I'd like to talk about Bush's statements made yesterday about the War in Iraq, which were, to be sure, hypocrisy of such an unfathomable level that the word "hypocrisy" seems hardly fit to describe it, giving me want to invent a new word, knowing that I lack the linguistic skills to do so. Then, I'd like to spend some time on Bill O'Reilly's statements made last night in response to San Franciscans voting against some O'Reilly-favored measures, which were hypocrisy of such an exceedingly unfathomable level that if I had invented that new word for "hypocrisy," it would hardly be fit to describe this level of hypocrisy.

During his annual Veteran's Day speech, in which it is customary that the President honor United States veterans, Bush decided this would be an appropriate time to attack critics of his war. Viciously, he did so. Here's a choice quote:

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

Now, what I noticed the first time I read that quote, and what I later found Senate Democrats characteristically failed to point out, is that "rewriting history" is exactly what Bush and his administration did in the actual run-up to the war! It's a documented fact! See for yourself.

Here's the truth:

The report, the 15th released by the commission staff, concluded, 'We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.'

And here's the George Bush revised version of the truth:

Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.

I suppose I'll digress here. Of course, there are other examples, largest of which is the rewriting of the piece of history that said that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (by the way, I'd like to take a tick here give mad props to the Rotten Library - subsidiary of the famous Rotten.com; it is, surprisingly, an extremely helpful source of information, and I recommend you check out the section on Iraq WMDs for more on Bush's rewriting of history).


Intermission before we move onto the real shocker, Bill O'Reilly...






Okay, here's the story.
Yesterday, Bill O'Reilly was pissed. San Franciscans had not only voted for a ban on gun ownership, they had voted against allowing military recruiters on public school campuses. O'Reilly fumed at the treasonous voting habits of the Castro-loving San Franciscans:

Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead.

Suggesting that because San Franciscans voted against something O'Reilly wanted, San Francisco should secede from the United States? The typical O'Reilly bullshit. Utterly banal. Familiar territory. Not the kind of thing that would prepare a casual listener for the following journey into the surreal:

And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco.

Bill O'Reilly is soft on terrorism? Now that's kinda weird, but we expect Bill to change his principles every now and then to whatever best panders to the right wing. O'Reilly's downward spiral to partisan madness climaxes:

You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

Wow. Wow. I think this might top the shocking revelation made a couple of months ago that Bill Bennett is a racist prick.

Now, as you may know, Bill O'Reilly has something of a history of labeling leftists as "un-American" or "traitorous." As an example, take Arianna Huffington. Here's what he had to say about her book Fanatics and Fools and her comrades on the left:

You can understand how people like me and maybe a lot of people watching think you are a loony lefty when your book, 'Fanatics & Fools,' which I like the title, but I hope you are not in that group, is endorsed by the following: Molly Ivins; Bill Maher, Bill Moyers; and Larry David. Why don't you get Che Guevara on that, oh, he's dead. How about Fidel Castro? Come on, they are the far left fringe. That's who you're hanging with, Arianna.

I leave you now with a question to ponder. Which is more un-American:

• Writing a book endorsed by Molly Ivins and Bill Moyers, or
  
• Inviting a radical anti-American terrorist group to destroy a major American city?
  

posted by SwiftyLeZar at 8:04 AM