Conspiracy Theories.
On the heels of Saddam's receiving the death sentence, Rod underscored the brutality of Saddam's regime, writing, "one of the trial witnesses talked of being dragged into a torture center with his family, and seeing a meat grinder with blood and human hair under it."
It's funny that the term "meat grinder" would come up, because the last time he used the term, it was as metaphor for the situation in Iraq: "Voting against the Republicans makes it more likely that he and men like him won't be sent into the meat grinder to preserve this president's self-image."
I doubt we're wrong, but Bush and his supporters -- myself included -- may be wrong in believing that Iraq can become a relatively stable, relatively free country; we may be wrong in believing that the cause is vital to our national interests and we may even be wrong in believing that withdrawing in defeat would have dire consequences for our credibility around the world. We could be sincerely wrong, but Rod no longer gives the administration the benefit of even that little doubt: he thinks we're in Iraq "to preserve this president's self-image."
Disgusting and shameful as that comment was, it has proven to be a warm-up for this bit of conspiracy mongering:
Like the looniest Leftist, Rod Dreher is immediately questioning the timing of this verdict.
It's likely that this parody site has just outlived its usefulness; it's hard to satirize someone who's jumped over this particular cliff.
It's funny that the term "meat grinder" would come up, because the last time he used the term, it was as metaphor for the situation in Iraq: "Voting against the Republicans makes it more likely that he and men like him won't be sent into the meat grinder to preserve this president's self-image."
I doubt we're wrong, but Bush and his supporters -- myself included -- may be wrong in believing that Iraq can become a relatively stable, relatively free country; we may be wrong in believing that the cause is vital to our national interests and we may even be wrong in believing that withdrawing in defeat would have dire consequences for our credibility around the world. We could be sincerely wrong, but Rod no longer gives the administration the benefit of even that little doubt: he thinks we're in Iraq "to preserve this president's self-image."
Disgusting and shameful as that comment was, it has proven to be a warm-up for this bit of conspiracy mongering:
"Justice was done in [Saddam's] trial, and even though you cannot convince me that the verdict was not planned to help Republicans with the election, I still thank God for it." [emphasis mine]
Like the looniest Leftist, Rod Dreher is immediately questioning the timing of this verdict.
It's likely that this parody site has just outlived its usefulness; it's hard to satirize someone who's jumped over this particular cliff.
posted by Anonymous at 1:21 PM
13 Comments:
Bubba: "It's likely that this parody site has just outlived its usefulness..."
Oh, nice; I finally get made a cardinal in the last post and you talk like we're closing. Just my luck.
Hey, I agree with you here. Anything that brings attention to Iraq hurts the Republicans, and I think that they know that.
Bubba
You’re churning out the posts like hamburger from a meat grinder today. I predict that the Republicans are going to win big on Tues. Whenever the press talks about how bad the republicans are going to lose, that usually means the opposite. It is especially hysterical this year, hence the prediction. Be prepared for more voter intimidation stories.
If you all are Cardinals, can I at least be the token schismatic? You know “in“, but not quite “in“. Sort of the Lefevre of the group?
What’s SVS. . .the Inquisition?
you know, my outrage over the foley-media-overhype was simmering down because it happened so very long ago (note to democrats, it's "october surprise", not "*early* october surprise") but now the latest media bluster over this pastor haggard has got me fired up all over again to vote straight republican. like some closet-case preacher in colorado springs WHO ONCE ACTED AS ADVIIIIISOR TO THE WHIIIIIIITE HOOOOUSSSSSE is going to sway my vote. nice try, bbc/abc/nbc/cbs/npr/pbs.
and clark, thanks for that bizarre non-sequitur.
Oh, come on folks, it's probably just a botched joke. I mean good freakin' grief or whatever.
Bubba:
If the CC blog were hosted by Reasonedopinionnet, you might have a point. If Rod wrote for Informedjudgmentnet, he could rightly be called to task.
As it is, though, we're dealing with a site where, "I have no proof of that, of course, but that's what I believe," constitutes a sound argument.
oh lord, not again. dreher has linked to a larison post about how the contras ruined the crunchy debate because we just don't get it man. (in true larison fashion, the post is about 10 paragraphs too long, and will induce narcolepsy). at least larison does take some responsibility for viciousness on his side of the "debate"... before he turns around and discusses what lunkheads we are regardless.
I'm fascinated that benedict and friends are so concerned with how they are coming off in this debate. I'm also fascinated that they so rudely demand a more thorough, patient and objective inquisitor than Bubba. (while proud of my role as authoress of the CRUNCHY GRANOLA SONG, i don't pretend to be half as engaged as bubba with the meat of this stuff).
hey larison, since we know you're reading us and that you're so proud of your masters thesis for university of chicago, maybe you would be interested in this book published by the university's press:
LEGAL WRITING IN PLAIN ENGLISH, by Bryan Garner
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14160.ctl
the book deals specifically with legal writing, but its principles are applicable to all polemical writing: "The book ... offers valuable insights into the writing process: how to organize ideas, create and refine prose, and improve editing skills. In essence, it teaches straight thinking—a skill inseparable from good writing."
of course, one has to wonder: if straight thinking is inseparable from good writing, what sort of thinking is inseparable from bad writing?
What right does the government or large corporations have to impose their "values" and "traditions" on me?
If I want to go get fresh milk in a mason jar from a local dairy why can't i do it?
Why do I have to pay taxes when my children already exceed expectations for their grade levels. If I am willing to home school why should I have to pay higher taxes?
The issues are not just about food. There are issues. Both Dems and Reps use regulation to their advantage. Some times those regs hurt little people. Sometimes they are intended to destroy competition.
It is more than just organic food. My question to the crunchies is where are you? Why aren't you here debating. I am here. I support a lot of your ideas. There is nothing to be afraid of from fellow conservatives.
BTW, I voted mail-in today. All Republican.
My hand did not tremble!
Cubeland: "If I am willing to home school why should I have to pay higher taxes?"
I don't think you have to be "crunchy" to ask that question and ones like it. The only criticism you could make is that maybe conservative politicians should try to push this at the local level, you know, go up against a municipality and a school board and basically try to defund their educational industrial complex. I would vote for someone like that in a heartbeat......and most likely he'd lose in a landslide.
If the public schools continue to underperform home-schoolers and private schools then it will become more possible to push for a pay-per-use model with a strong, grassroots effort. This is one of the biggest problems I have with crunchies -- they fail to see many practical problems facing so-called mainstream conservative politicians and prioritize differently as a result. Then they point the finger at the most conservative guys (Santorum, Allen) and they say "you must go!" Yeah, a really practical approach, that.
Pauli, I agree with you.
I am in a rush. I am disappointed that no one laughed at my "hand did not tremble" quip. :-(
Did anyone get it?
I will try to reply tonight.
Forget Rod and crunchy conservatism! As I am writing this Santorum lost his seat. I am very upset that a good man like that would lose.
Who chairs the senate judiciary committee for the next two years if the republicans lose the senate? That’s for all you “conservatives” to consider. You wanted to punish the Republicans. Feel better now.
Sorry, I don’t feel like the thinking any more. Too pissed.
Post a Comment
<< Home