Underestimators

washington times ^ | 7/20/06 | David Limbaugh

[bitt]

The Left isn't obsessed with destroying Karl Rove simply because they want to taint President Bush by taking out one of his closest confidants. When they're not focused on their fantasy Vice President Cheney is the de facto president, they sometimes think Mr. Rove is. To destroy Mr. Rove is to neuter the Bush presidency.

As resolute, effective and visionary as Mr. Bush has been in office, the Left obviously still doesn't consider him in charge. Only a superhuman Machiavellian strategist could have engineered this bumbler's unlikely ascension to the presidency.

And anyone capable of facilitating a lightweight's rise to the highest office must be not only brilliant but sinister. For who but a sociopath would foist on the nation such a dangerous Neanderthal hell-bent on reversing "progressive" advances?

The Left's underestimation of Mr. Bush and irrational fear of Mr. Rove distort their perception and drive them into a mouth-foaming feeding frenzy to devour this mad political scientist. These misapprehensions also explain their jaded view of the baseless claims against Mr. Rove in the Valerie Plame matter.

But in considering the Left's possible motives in this manufactured Rove scandal, let's not forget the underlying subject matter driving the story: the Left's obsessive claim Mr. Bush lied in maintaining Saddam Hussein was stockpiling or trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

If there were such a thing as the personification and eventual death of an ideology, American liberalism would doubtlessly derive some degree of deathbed comfort from repeatedly chanting until its final breath the "Bush lied" mantra. What began as a monstrous deception would finally ripen into a full-blown delusion where the engineers of the lie came to believe it themselves into eternity.

[bitt]

ping

[clee1]

Misunderestimating the grand strategery...

[Paleo Conservative]

If a CIA officer sent her husband on an all expense paid foreign trip to try to dig up propaganda to discredit a DemocRAT president, does anyone of us have any doubt as to the angle the New York Times would pursue?

[Southack]

"If a CIA officer sent her husband on an all expense paid foreign trip to try to dig up propaganda to discredit a DemocRAT president, does anyone of us have any doubt as to the angle the New York Times would pursue?"

Well, they didn't exactly portray Linda Tripp as a noble whistle-blower, now did they?!

[rmlew]

The New Duranty Times headline is actually "All the New {We} see fit to print".

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

Great article! He really nails it. Fine description/diagnosis of modern liberal anti-Bush/admin. delusional lunacy.