Political Commentary

Why The Dems Will Lose Next Year

Because they have Charlie Rangel as one of their spokesmen (sorry, no good URL):

The U.S. acted illegally when its soldiers attacked and killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, a leading Democratic congressman complained on Tuesday, before mocking the military maneuver that succeeded in eliminating the brutal duo.

“We have a law on the books that the United States should not be assassinating anybody,” Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, told Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.”

“We tried to assassinate Castro and we paid dearly for it,” the Rangel contended. “And when you personalize the war and you say you’re killing someone’s kids, then they, in turn, think they can kill somebody.”

When an incredulous Sean Hannity expressed dismay at Rangel’s comments, the Harlem Democrat shot back, “How can you get so much satisfaction that two bums have been killed? We got bums all over the world and some in the United States.”

Then Rangel mocked the U.S. military’s success in killing the two Hussein heirs, saying, “I personally don’t get any satisfaction that it takes 200,000 troops, 250,000 troops, to knock off two bums.”

Uncategorized

Good News From Iraq

It looks like they’ve not only killed Uday and Qusay, but their bodies are relatively intact. They may be body doubles, but it seems unlikely to me that there would be two doubles together. In any event, they should be able to confirm with DNA.

Intact bodies means they have pictures to distribute. It might even be useful, albeit barbaric (though not for that part of the world right now), to put the corpses on display in Baghdad, at least for a couple days, to suppress Elvis-like rumors, and really put the peoples’ minds at ease.

Just one ace left in the deck…

Media Criticism

“Clinton Haters”

KLo over at NRO points out this story about the Clinton Presidential Library, and a proposal to have a fact-checking version of it just down the street. The people who propose to do this are referred to, of course, as “Clinton haters,” including one usage of that phrase in the headline.

I wonder if the WaPo would run an article calling Bob Graham, or Charlie Rangel, or Dennis Kucinich, or Howard Dean, or Terry McAuliffe “Bush haters”?

Apparently no one is allowed to have a negative opinion about the Clintons, or criticize them, without “hating” them (see the comments section of the post).

This is, of course, simply ad hominem, and a deceitful attempt (unfortunately, often successful) to avoid dealing with the facts. As I said in the comments section of that post, what would these people do if the word “hate” were removed from their vocabulary? Perhaps they’d actually have to have a (losing) debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of their case.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!