Posted on 10/29/2005 11:19:26 PM PDT by STARWISE
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence to prove that there was a "broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain. He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior. He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove," writes David Brooks in Sunday's NY TIMES.
"Leading Democratic politicians filled the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society."
"Why are these people so compulsively overheated?.. Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?
(snip) Brooks quotes from an essay written 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."
Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.
"The paranoid spokesman," Hofstadter wrote, "sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms -- he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization." Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction."
Developing...
(Excerpt) Read more at drudgereport.com ...
Look at all the crap that came out of the Kerry campaign and , when caught, they just go on and on as if nothing happened.
Great read! May I send it via email to liberal friends?
Every time I read something of yours, I feel like I learn something new! Democrats aren't the only ones who didn't know that Scooter Libby and his wife are Dems; I didn't either. And I'm not sure what you meant by the battle between NCPAC and MD4Bush. As to the rest of your post: APPLAUSE AND BRAVO!
DON'T get me started on the issue of polls or I'm likely to rant. One FReeper's tagline (and I'm sorry that I don't know to whom to attribute this) went something like this: Polls are proof that when MSM wants your opinion, they'll give it to you.
The bizarre, Alice in Wonderland thing is that if you go to DU and look at the postings there, they accuse us of the same things.
Yep, this is where they lost me too.
My question all along has been what could Bush/Rove/Libby, et al, possibly gain politically by "outting" this CIA analyst?
(Note: I didn't say "Operative" because nothing I've read supports the notion that she ever was one and if she was and there are more like her up at CIA HQ, God help us all!)
Bingo! You win the prize! That is a brilliant question that NO ONE else has asked. It should not be too difficult to find out, it should be a matter of public record.
It's not beyond the pale that Cheney MIGHT be indicted, if the overzealous Fitzgerald can manufacture a way.
Secondly, there were a number of high level Dems, including Schumer, Reid, everybody but Hillary, who publically stated that this "goes to the highest level of the Administration, and proves how corrupt and untrustworthy they are" -- or something along those lines.
Several Dems, although I cant be specific, went so far as to say this proves that we went to war in Iraq on a pack of lies, etc.
Even the mainstream media is getting sick of the repetitive bull coming from the lib weenies.
"the dying convulsion of a very sick party"
I want to agree with you, but election night 2004 was entirely too close for comfort, even though George McGovern looked sane compared to John Kerry. Perhaps it's the zombie (graveyard) vote for the Dims, but they had much too much support with an incredibly weak candidate for me to believe we're there yet. If something like 60,000 votes in Ohio had gone the other way, we would not have been spared a traitor as Commander in Chief.
What an excellent, outstanding post! I recommend it for post of the day. Thank you!
The history of leftist political strategies is well known. Leftist foreigners (many from Russia and Germany) attempted to instigate revolution in England and Germany in 1840s (politely called "Progressives") and were quite active in the US during the labor movement (check for "Haymarket bombing." The goal is to win, not to win through intellectual debate. They will exagerate and lie as long as no one in the media points it out.
So, the Dems are simply following the tradition of winning at any cost. Especially if it means sacrificing the truth.
I've thought about Hofstadter a lot lately. His "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" in particular, after the "elitism" charges flying around in the Miers controversy. What a great book that was!
The beauty is the MSM takes democrat paranoid excesses and pushes them out for all to see. They inadvertently recruit for us.
Living under water for so long, the MSM has lost the ability to know wet...
Is the rest of this terrific article posted on here?
The MSM takes democrat paranoid rantings and publishes them for all to see. They're inadvertently recruiting for us.
Living under water for so long, the MSM has lost the ability to know wet...
No the Rats have never been trustworthy, but it has been easier in the past for them to outwardly appear saner than they now do. My theory is that the whole party was just not Y2K compliant. Since 2000 they have grown more shrill, outrageous, clearly wrong, and visibly unhinged year by year.
It's probably in today's NY Times --I'm not a subscriber.
Same here. I really want to read it though. There's another Brook's article, "The Prosecutors Diagnosis: No Cancer Found", that I want to read. Could be the same article...not sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.