Thursday, January 20, 2005

Eric Alterman Has Lost His Mind

Eric (shudder!) Alterman, who inexplicably has a space on, has been steering very near the edge of the precipice for quite some time. Today, he finally drove right over it, full throttle. A fisking is definitely in order (for those who are new to the concept, Eric's in bold, I'm in italics):
To the horror of its well-wishers across the world, the United States�once the �last, best hope of mankind�- is re-inaugurating the worst president in its history; one who has exploited an attack, the success of which its own incompetence helped enable, in order to execute an extremist agenda that is killing thousands, costing trillions and leaving all of us far more insecure than when it began.

This is going to be painful. Eric, this is the reason you guys don't win elections - the United States is still "the last, best hope of mankind". The worst president in its history - well, at least he's keeping things in perspective. Did you quit taking the meds again, Eric? I find the suggestion that 9/11 was enabled by the Bush administration absolutely risible - Bush had been in office for nine months. What did Clinton do, really, in eight years to fight terror? Blow up a donkey or two in the middle of nowhere? Come on...and whose agenda is killing thousands, Eric, the Bush Administration's, or the 'insurgents' in Iraq? The killing in Iraq can stop any time the terrorists want to stop slaughtering innocents.

Before November 2, we could argue it was all a mistake; the guy ran as a �compassionate conservative,� misrepresented his record, Nader screwed everything up, and we actually voted for Gore anyway. It took the Republicans on the Supreme Court�two of whom were appointed by the guy�s dad�to stick the country with this regime filled with ideological fanatics and corrupt incompetents.

Yeah, you could argue it was all a mistake - except for this pesky little thing called the Electoral College. Look it up - it's how we select our presidents. Incompetence can be a matter of opinion, but what charges of corruption, exactly, is Sir Alterman referring to? Eric, I'm waiting...

Now, what are we to say? Fifty-nine million members of our nation do not mind that we were deliberately misled into a war that has drained our blood and treasure to create nothing but hatred and chaos; and that the very people who were at fault have been rewarded and promoted, encouraged to look for new targets to spread their hubristic malevolence. It defies all logic and truthfully, my ability to explain or even fully understand it.

Eric, your figures are a little off. You understated Bush's vote total by more than a million, though I can understand why you weren't anxious to look up the results again before you wrote your little column. In addition to the hatred and chaos engendered by the war, you left out the free elections that will take place in a mere ten days, the fact that a maniacal dictator is a prisoner, and the hope that ordinary Iraqis now have for a better future. Minor things, though, aren't they, when you're on a Radical Left jag. 'Hubristic malevolence' - say, Eric, you need to take a walk or something, you're looking a little flushed. You are certainly correct, though, that current events defy your ability to explain or understand.

One thing is for certain: Based on an [sic] virtually unanimous unwillingness to consider its past mistakes and learn from them, things are going to get far, far worse before they get better. Thousands more will die. (Twenty six yesterday.) Trillions more will be squandered. Millions more will grow to hate and revile the name of the United States of America and prepare to attack us in ways for which our government is resolutely unwilling to prepare. Avoidable catastrophe awaits this nation and its victims during the next four years as we will undoubtedly reap what we have sown.

Eric, try to string together a coherent sentence, will you? "An [sic] virtually unanimous unwillingness to consider its past mistakes and learn from them..." What the hell does that mean? What is the antecedent of 'it' in your sentence - things? Ahh, but the optimism of the progressives - "thousands more will die", "trillions (TRILLIONS!!!!!) will be squandered", yada, yada, must be a blast at dinner parties.

One thing�s for certain, none of this would have been possible without the enthusiastic cooperation�if not cheerleading�of the nation�s mainstream media. Thomas Friedman, considered a liberal opponent of the Bush administration who nevertheless advocated for its mendacious arguments vis-�-vis Iraq and then explicitly excused its willingness to lie because, after all, Hussein was a vicious dictator, cannot help but recognize the damage the administration has done to the nation�s good name the world over. Still, he once again chooses to empower its worst instincts vis-�-vis yet another abominable adventure in Iran by finding what? A single Oxford student in Paris. And pronouncing on the basis of this intrepid bit of investigative reporting that Iran is a �Red state� by extension, would welcome an American invasion of the type outlined by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker. Four years from now we will be assessing the fallout from that catastrophe undoubtedly in dead Americans, Iranians and additional hatred�and terrorists�bred the world over. God Bless America. We are going to need all the help we can get.

One thing's for certain, Eric, and that's that you already said one thing is for certain just a couple of lines up. Do you read this crap before you post it? This is on MSNBC, folks...take a writing course, please. You need to change that last sentence to YOU need all the help you can're spitting on everyone. Calm down - relax a little. We survived eight years of Clinton - you guys can live through another four of Bush.

No comments: