THE NATIONAL REVIEW: CHAMPION OF TREASON
I have just realized why I ignore reading the National Review: Recent stories about all those lying Arabs, how Henry Hyde was just a wonderful man, how the NIE is obviously wrong because it does not agree with their already quite biased beliefs. You just can't read this Shit without getting a case of hives. This is not journalism or even legitimate commentary or opposition; The National Review has forsaken any intellectual honesty simply to commit treason against the United States of America and The Constitution of the United States of America.
Do you think that's harsh? Really? Then why doesn't The National Review, which had no problem with Bill Bennett calling the NY Times treasonous for writing about black sites outside the US a year after they found out about it not demand that Scooter Libby, Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, and Robert Novack be tried for treason?
Or perhaps they can explain how it's perfectly all right to demand Clinton's impeachment for getting a blow-job, but wouldn't think of calling for Bush's impeachment for lying us into a War which was illegal in the first place and trying to lie us into a second war without reason or provocation, their smoking gun nothing more than their fever dreams of imperialism? I especially like the accolades to Henry Hyde, a man who had to resign because he was getting his dick waxed outside of his marriage at the same time he was playing high hypocritical priest of morality about Clinton. Right the fuck up there with Newt Gingrich.
And let us not forget their warmongering in Lebanon. They were quite willing to pile on Baeuchamp when he supposedly made up stories; but their warblogger buddy in The Tank; he was just misinformed by those "lying Arabs."
It's quite clear that The National Review will say or do whatever it takes to get their position to be accepted as the only position to have. The National Review cares nothing about truth, facts, or reality. This is not a magazine which provides clear critical thought, whether right or left. It is one part of the propaganda arm of an organization trying to destroy The United States.
Do you think that's harsh? Really? Then why doesn't The National Review, which had no problem with Bill Bennett calling the NY Times treasonous for writing about black sites outside the US a year after they found out about it not demand that Scooter Libby, Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, and Robert Novack be tried for treason?
Or perhaps they can explain how it's perfectly all right to demand Clinton's impeachment for getting a blow-job, but wouldn't think of calling for Bush's impeachment for lying us into a War which was illegal in the first place and trying to lie us into a second war without reason or provocation, their smoking gun nothing more than their fever dreams of imperialism? I especially like the accolades to Henry Hyde, a man who had to resign because he was getting his dick waxed outside of his marriage at the same time he was playing high hypocritical priest of morality about Clinton. Right the fuck up there with Newt Gingrich.
And let us not forget their warmongering in Lebanon. They were quite willing to pile on Baeuchamp when he supposedly made up stories; but their warblogger buddy in The Tank; he was just misinformed by those "lying Arabs."
It's quite clear that The National Review will say or do whatever it takes to get their position to be accepted as the only position to have. The National Review cares nothing about truth, facts, or reality. This is not a magazine which provides clear critical thought, whether right or left. It is one part of the propaganda arm of an organization trying to destroy The United States.
posted by George at 5:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home