Don’t Like Reality? Make Up Your Own!
May 16th, 2007 | by Jersey McJones |For many years there has been a political class in America that existed to maintain the status quo and resist change by spreading fear and loathing (to quote a late clever observer) among it’s base. It was not a particularly partisan class, but more local and regionally so. But as a vacuum in this political class grew from the demise of the Dixiecrats, the Republicans, historically an aloof, elite, patrician party, adapted to fill that vacuum and today that particular political class is partisan and decidedly Republican. But change is reality. We do not live in a static universe. That’s why Evolution is a fact - it is simply a term for Change Over Time. These new Republicans are discovering today what the Dixiecrats learned the hard way some years back - if you resist reality for too long, you get left behind - you become extinct.
Here’s some examples of extinctions, or soon to be extinctions, among the GOP Reality Deniers…
“He did not accept the bank’s policy on conflict of interest, so he sought to negotiate for himself a resolution different from that which would have applied to the staff he was selected to head.”
This is from the findings of the World Bank committee regarding the unethical breaking of bank rule Rule 6.01 by Paul Wolfowitz. He still refuses to resign. Pauly Boy was the number two man at Defense who said that the Iraq war had nothing to do with oil, would pay for itself (with oil), and tied Iraq to 9/11 and the Anthrax Attacks. Something tells me there’ll be another resignation coming up in his near future.
“As the first load of prisoners arrived at the new military prison camp at Guantanamo, Cuba, on January 11, 2002, he (Donald Rumsfeld) declared them “unlawful combatants” who “do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention.” In fact, the Geneva Conventions provide explicit protection to anyone taken prisoner in an international armed conflict, even when they are not entitled to actual prisoner of war status, but no one at that time was in a mood to contradict the all-powerful secretary of defense.”
Rummy Boy also said that his “worst day” during the Iraq war was the incident at Abu Ghraib. Go figure.
“OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda–perhaps even for Mohamed Atta–according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.”
That’s from the infamous “Case Closed” article by Stephen F. Hayes, that was based on the “(Douglas) Feith Memo” (leaked lies about Iraq precluding the war). Feith has been furiously defending his role in the failed Iraq invasion since his departure from the administration. Said Feith in 2005 to the New Yorker, “When history looks back, I want to be in the class of people who did the right thing, the sensible thing, and not necessarily the fashionable thing, the thing that met the aesthetic of the moment.” Oh, Dougie Boy, you’ll be in a “class,” alright…
“…the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.”
That’s what John “Lost to a Dead Man” Ashcroft said when he announced his resignation as United States Attorney General in 2004. Of course, the lesson that “terror” is “crime” is too lost on Ashcroft. Crime rates had been flat from the last year of the Clinton administration through Ashcroft’s tenure. Ironically, since then crime has been back on the rise. Clinton’s “COPS” program and subsequent GOP cuts to it may explain the variation and what Ashcroft “achieved” in the way of crime-prevention. As for terrorism, it is well-known that terrorism has been on the rise worldwide since 2003. It seems clear to this writer that the only reason they haven’t hit us here again is that they were gifted everything they wanted and more from 9/11, and Johhny Boy wrapped it with a bow.
Is it cognitive dissonance? Apathy? Arrogance? Stupidity? Probably all of the above. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith and Ashcroft are just four of many now, or soon to be, extinct creatures erstwhile known as “Neo-Cons.” With the defeat of the GOP on the Hill last November, it seems that William F. Buckley was right when he said, “There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican Party will survive this dilemma.” And Willy Boy, the dilemma is greater than just Iraq.
JMJ
17 Responses to “Don’t Like Reality? Make Up Your Own!”
By Paul Watson on May 15, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
Just as a bit of balance, Wolfie did try to recuse himself from the affair. He waas told he couldn’t. That’s a significant mark in his favour. However, instead of giving a promotion OR a large payrise, he gave both. That’s a mark against.
By SteveIL on May 15, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
Apparently the so-called “liberal” takeover of Congress is in as much a shambles as the Republicans in the administration, at least according to the American people.
By Jersey McJones on May 15, 2007 | Reply
I guess, Paul, what I was trying to point out was how these Neo-Cons simply refuse to play by the rules or face reality.
SteveIL, The “liberals” did not “take over” congress. Most of the new Dem congresspeople are moderate at best. You wouldn’t know a liberal if he hit you over the head with a fragrant bouquet.
JMJ
By Paul Merda on May 15, 2007 | Reply
JMcJ,
“You wouldn’t know a liberal if he hit you over the head with a fragrant bouquet.” ROFL!!! Thanks for the hoot!
By Jersey McJones on May 15, 2007 | Reply
Welcome!
JMJ
By SteveIL on May 15, 2007 | Reply
Jersey said:
Sure I would. And I wouldn’t wait to be hit on the head by one. Because I could smell one a mile away. Shit is easy to smell.
Every committee chair is a “liberal”. Every sub-committee chair is a “liberal”. The only people who Pelosi and Reid put in these positions are “liberals”. Those new Dem congresscritters who you say aren’t “liberals” don’t actually do anything in Congress but vote. The “liberal” Dems in Congress are the leaders. They are also the ones responsible for those poll numbers.
Suck on that.
By Ron on May 15, 2007 | Reply
“Sure I would. And I wouldn’t wait to be hit on the head by one. Because I could smell one a mile away. Shit is easy to smell.”
Hohoho, what a great comeback!!! You poopyhead, Jersey!!!
Jesus, Steve, you make Joe McCarthy look like a piker.
We’ll get you yet SteveIL! And your little dog too!!! And all your tax money and we’ll give it to fatherless black homes that sell crack!!!Muhahahaha!
By SteveIL on May 15, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think I’m anything like Joe McCarthy. The liberals have hijacked McCarthyism.
By SteveIL on May 15, 2007 | Reply
And don’t touch my little dog or I’ll throw water on you…;-)
By Jersey McJones on May 15, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL, if you think Pelosi, let alone Reid, are “liberals” then you’re insane. Get help. I’d say there are probably a few true “liberals” chairing committees. Barney Frank is one, but he works real well with the minority and has recevied mostly praise from most committee members. There may be a couple of others, but that’s about it.
Jeez, SteveIL, are you really that brainwashed by FOX? A true liberal endorses universal healthcare and education, abhors preemptive war and was always against the war in Iraq, wants to legalize pot and decriminalize most vicitmless crime, wants to bring back the Roosevelt marginal rate and thw WPA, wants auto-style licensing and registration of guns, etc. How many dems do you think support all that? 10? Maybe? Get real man. god, you’re so screwed up, you don’t even know who you’re against!
JMJ
By SteveIL on May 15, 2007 | Reply
Pelosi isn’t a lib? You’re the one trying to spew propaganda, not me.
By Jersey McJones on May 16, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL, I know you don’t know much about American politics. At least just wiki her name and read about her a bit. She may have a “liberal” reputation among the politcally illiterate, and their masters in the media, but to liberals Pelosi is just another status quo Baby Boomer moderate Dem like the Clintons. The “liberal” tag is placed on anyone of the Dems who threaten the sleazy cons.
I can’t believe that anyone who0 posts around here wouldn’t know all this.
JMJ
By JT Davis on May 16, 2007 | Reply
Here is a liberal…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace
He was only the 33rd VP of the US.
Pelosi is no farther to the left than Eisenhower…
“This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm
Liberals Democrats have become moderate and conservative by comparison to the radical extremism now found on the right and in what passes for a Republican these days. That’s why you won’t be winning any elections any time soon.
Overton Window, chillun.
By JT Davis on May 16, 2007 | Reply
That’s wunnerful, Emmet.
We should all rely on the historical and political perspective of babes. They have a broader view than most 20 or 30 somethings…
By JT Davis on May 16, 2007 | Reply
Upon further reflection, Emmett has concluded it would be “politic” to retract his statement regarding the political acumen of his 11 year old daughter…
By Jersey McJones on May 16, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for the bump up front, BIO!!
JMJ
By Jimmy on May 16, 2007 | Reply
I was thinking about becoming an American politician. Any party will do- I just want the perks of mafeasance and cronyism to help me skirt the laws and line my pockets.