Sirota And The Morally Bankrupt Left

It appears that the Left side of the blogosphere saved up a most repulsive display of itself for the anniversary of 9/11. OTB has a round up of the ugliness here. And I just saw this bit of ugliness pop up on Memeorandum from David Sirota, putting aside Kevin Drum.

Even on 9/11, neocon chickenhawks can't refrain from straw men attacks

You'll notice, of course, that neither Limbaugh or the DLC actually names anyone. Instead, like the loyal McCarthyist disciples they are, they prefer to use the nebulous "some." Why? Because they can't actually name any single political figure who even comes close to fitting their dishonest descriptions.

Well, you're something of a political figure, Sirota. Consider yourself named. Happy now?

Allahpundit has an edited down version of CNN's live coverage from 9/11. There are additions to come. It may be difficult to watch, but it's not as ugly as the likes of Sirota and the morally bankrupt Left.

Comments

[Piper from DC]

I agree with everything you said. But, I now know why Bush's approval numbers haven't gone above 40 the last 6 months despite his many pretty good speeches. I heard his interview with Matt Laur. Wow! Why do Bush's handlers let him give these unscripted interviews?? He truly sounded like he had no idea what he was talking about. He wasn't as bad as Tom Cruise but he's real close.

[rwilymz]

Bush is anti-charismatic. He actually sucks life out of the room. He's done most things well: surrounded himself with people who know what they're talking about and know how to do what needs to get done ... and he let's them do it.

Except in one area: talking to the American People. As a result, those people who are psychotic and disposed to seeing grand conspiracies while reading the backs of cereal boxes are seeing vast, complex conspiracies in the informational vacuum of the White House; similarly, those who are simply partisan weenies and are loath to grant the Benefit of the Doubt to someone of the Other Party are seeing conspiracies themselves.

Hence, the plethora of conspiracy theories around.

I read on cnn.com today that 37% believe that the Bush Administration was behind 9-11. Or something like that.

That's either a whole lotta people in need of a refill on their lithium, or a huge failure to communicate.

[Terry Gain]

Someone who uses the name -get this- r w i l y m z (sic) shouldn't accuse ANYONE of a failure to communicate, however if the poll is accurate this is the most depressing news I have heard in my 59 years.

It means that in order to prevent rhe pacifist leftists from taking over Congress, one must hope-either that all of the 37% who are nuts don't vote or that of the remaining 63% AT LEAST 82.5% vote for the adults(Republicans).

[rwilymz]

??

wutsamatta with my name, Mr Gain? It's mine. It communicates exactly what it needs to: that I have entered and am speaking.

And am I wrong? Is Bush anywhere close to The Great Communicator? He stumbles in scripted speeches, in mass-audience extemporany he mangles words and stammers. About the only setting he's reported to be comfortable speaking is private one on one.

Well, okay, he can't be Reagan. Or Clinton. But he could have hired somebody to do the 'splainin for him. Somebody glib. Who uses words well, and has a silver tongue.

He didn't hire that guy. He hired guys who know foreign policy like the backs of their hand, who know military doctrine, who know economic principles -- all the things he doesn't know well. But not somebody who could capture the ears of the public by opening his mouth.

In the absence of information, humans invent it.

[Terry Gain]

rwilymz,

Clearly Bush isn't Cicero, but this does not explain why 37% of the American public are deluded about 9/11. The information about what happened is readily available. There is no need to invent it.

[rwilymz]

"The information about what happened is readily available."

So what? The information about Desert Fox was readily available as well, yet there weren't that many Republicans willing to concede that Clinton's first [and only] real forceful use of the military in a more/less tactically valid manner was about anything other than a political diversion from a blue dress with a splooge-stain on it.

Many street-level Republicans mouthed the convenient words of the Capitol-level Republicans, and for no other reason than it's fun and satisfyng to *pile on*.

Let's gang up on the guy in charge! it's our right! And these people aren't interested in learning anything more than what it'll take to jump into the jeering crowd.

Well, yes it is our right to do this; but it's cowardly, immature and gratuitously divisive when such piling on doesn't serve a real good purpose apart from notching our ideologicial gunstock.

The Republicans taunting with "wag the dog" were doing the same thing yesterday as today's Democrats who jeer "illegal war", "eye off the ball", or "you were warned in August".

And to be honest, I don't see this fatuously juvenile behavior stopping any time soon. Ain't more than a handful of us Americans who are grown up enough to acknowledge that some axiomatic tenet of our own philosophy is not equal to the task, or that some axiomatic tenet of the "evil opponent's" philosophy actually makes sense. Moynihan was the last Democrat who could really do it.

Maybe privately we do, but god forbid anyone actually get along with [ew! ew! ew!] other Americans in public.

[Terry Gain]

Right. Let's ignore the perjury and obstruction of justice and pretend it was all about sex.

[rwilymz]

So ... you think he started bombing Iraq to shift national focus?

Or were there reasons for bombing Iraq that had to do with Iraq?

[Terry Gain]

r....mz

I've never accused Bubba of wagging the dog. I do not know what was going on in that factory he bombed in Sudan. I do know that Clinton -and those who think you handle terrorism as a mere law enforcement issue - are clueless about the threat we face.

[rwilymz]

"I do know that ... those who think you handle terrorism as a mere law enforcement issue - are clueless about the threat we face."

I'll go along with that.