Are Republicans Stupid, or Do They Think We're Stupid?

[jsteele]

On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was attacked while another hijacked aircraft was crashed. Soon after, a number of Americans were killed and other sickened by Anthrax deliberately send through the mail. On December 22, 2001, Richard Reed attempted to destroy an aircraft by igniting explosives hidden in his shoe. George W. Bush, a Republican, was sworn in as US President on January 20, 2001 and served until 2009. Clearly, all of these attacks occurred during his presidency. There can be no dispute about that.

Yet, Rudi Giuliani doesn't remember:

"We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama."

GOP Strategist Mary Matalin doesn't remember:

"I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation’s history."

And former Whitehouse Spokesperson under George W. Bush Dana Perina doesn't remember:

"We Did Not Have a Terrorist Attack on Our Country During President Bush's Term"

Are these three individuals simply stupid, deluded by their own bullshit, or trying to re-write history? And, just how long will the Republican base allow itself to be led by this band of liars and charlatans? I can respect those from the other side of the political spectrum for their deeply held convictions and intellectual arguments. However, I can not respect them for willingly following people who erase on of the most tragic events in recent American history from their memories, or those like Palin who outright invent things such as "death panels" that don't exist.

[Anonymous]

The sad thing is, I think some of them *know* they are full of shit, know there are enough stupid people with really short memories who will believe whatever they sell, and do all of this for ratings. How f**ked up is that?

And some are really just that stupid. Which makes those that listen to them beyond stupid.

[Anonymous]

Wow, usually I wince when I see these threads with titles calling Republicans stupid (leftist here but I hate name calling like this) but if all these incidents are true, these people really are stupid!

[Anonymous]

Anthrax - american nut job - nothing to do with islamic terrorists. No different than Columbine or Oklahoma city.

Richard Reid equivalent to the undie bomber, and neither are being counted.

Fort hood - islamic terrorism on us soil. According to the calendar Obama was president.

[Anonymous]

Oh, it doesn't matter. Facts RARELY matter to these nimrods, on BOTH sides of the aisle. They want to push their parties agendas, despite sense, reason, and truth.

It is dispiriting to hear ALL of them talking about the underwear bomber, b/c the Republicans are either rewriting history, or the Democrats are saying "whatever Obama does is great, and it is all Bush's fault anyway."

Same message, different people, NO REAL INFO.

Total bullshit.

[Anonymous]

This has Karl Rove written all over it. Tell the lie until people start believing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anthrax - american nut job - nothing to do with islamic terrorists. No different than Columbine or Oklahoma city.

Richard Reid equivalent to the undie bomber, and neither are being counted.

Fort hood - islamic terrorism on us soil. According to the calendar Obama was president.

Huh, so what was 9/11 -- a neighborhood mugging?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has Karl Rove written all over it. Tell the lie until people start believing it.

Yes, totally!

I agree that individuals on both sides of the aisle can be full of shit, but it was the Republican party under Bush/Cheney/Rove that perfected the art of turning lies into commonly held beliefs.

So frustrating.

[Anonymous]

I know that Rachel Maddow has turned into the tea party's public enemy #1. but does anyone find her show to be pretty fair? I watched her last night (and have watched her many many times in the past) and found her to be fairly balanced and critical of many on both sides of the aisle. Yes, she is obviously liberal in her views, but when there is some serious dumbassery, she goes after it, no matter who it is from.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Anthrax - american nut job - nothing to do with islamic terrorists. No different than Columbine or Oklahoma city.

Richard Reid equivalent to the undie bomber, and neither are being counted.

Fort hood - islamic terrorism on us soil. According to the calendar Obama was president.

None of the quotes said there was no Islamic terrorism. They said no attacks, period. And, why are you defining terrorism by the religion of the perpetrator? When a non-Muslim kills someone for political reasons he's a nut-job, but when a Muslim kills someone it's terrorism? That's to say nothing of your following the footsteps of the other idiots and forgetting about 9/11.

[Anonymous]

Here's how it works: they craft a message of the week, and every pundit, senator, and political hack repeats the same message over and over. Then the newspapers repeat story because it has become a theme due to coordinated effort on their part.

The GOP has been so good at this message of the week thing, if one day they tell us that bananas are blue, Obama is going to have to hold a press conference denying that blue banana production has dropped to crisis levels under his watch.

[Anonymous]

To be fair (which I know is always a struggle in the political arena), I think to some extent people are talking about Bush AFTER September 11. September 11 changed the world, and it certainly changed Bush's own policy (with the Patriot Act, etc). So they are comparing Bush post-9/11 and Obama.

Having said that, the comparison (as are most Republican/Democratic comparisons) is stupid. Obama has inherited many times over the Al-Qaeda presense worldwide because of Bush's alienating policies. And even if Bush could be credited with preventing an attack on American soil AFTER 9/11, I for one don't take the stance of 'at any cost'. There was a very large cost of this stance, one that we have had to pay dearly for. The fiscal ramifications alone are startling (and in no small way contributed to the inability for the country to handle the financial crisis).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:To be fair (which I know is always a struggle in the political arena), I think to some extent people are talking about Bush AFTER September 11. September 11 changed the world, and it certainly changed Bush's own policy (with the Patriot Act, etc). So they are comparing Bush post-9/11 and Obama.

The three people I quoted in the original post are all well-educated, articulate people. If they wanted to say that there were no attacks after 9/11, they are all perfectly capable of saying that. However, even that is not true. The anthrax and shoe bomber attacks were both after 9/11. In July 2002, an Egyptian holding a US green card attacked the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles airport, shooting six Israelis (killing 2) before being killed himself. The FBI classified this as a terrorist attack. In March 2006, an Iranian-born American intentionally drove his jeep through a crowd at the University of North Carolina because the US "killing his people across the sea". Also, while most of us probably don't consider it terrorism, John Allen Muhammad -- the Beltway sniper -- was convicted of terrorism. There have been literally thousands of attacks against US troops in Iraq as a result of Bush's unprovoked invasion.

The issue is not one of a comparison of Bush to Obama. Rather, it is a simple matter of accurately reporting history. Three leading Republicans have been presenting obviously misleading information and not being called on it. Guiliani's statement was made to George Stephanopoulos, who did not even bother to correct him (in a written report, George says Guiliani "forgot" about 9/11).

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair (which I know is always a struggle in the political arena), I think to some extent people are talking about Bush AFTER September 11. September 11 changed the world, and it certainly changed Bush's own policy (with the Patriot Act, etc). So they are comparing Bush post-9/11 and Obama.

The three people I quoted in the original post are all well-educated, articulate people. If they wanted to say that there were no attacks after 9/11, they are all perfectly capable of saying that. However, even that is not true. The anthrax and shoe bomber attacks were both after 9/11. In July 2002, an Egyptian holding a US green card attacked the El Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles airport, shooting six Israelis (killing 2) before being killed himself. The FBI classified this as a terrorist attack. In March 2006, an Iranian-born American intentionally drove his jeep through a crowd at the University of North Carolina because the US "killing his people across the sea". Also, while most of us probably don't consider it terrorism, John Allen Muhammad -- the Beltway sniper -- was convicted of terrorism. There have been literally thousands of attacks against US troops in Iraq as a result of Bush's unprovoked invasion.

The issue is not one of a comparison of Bush to Obama. Rather, it is a simple matter of accurately reporting history. Three leading Republicans have been presenting obviously misleading information and not being called on it. Guiliani's statement was made to George Stephanopoulos, who did not even bother to correct him (in a written report, George says Guiliani "forgot" about 9/11).

Okay, yes, but if you are talking about Al-Qaeda, that's a different matter. If the comparison is an Al-Qaeda orchestrated attack and if they are comparing Bush Post 9/11 and Obama, then they have made a point, a point which by the way I think is ridiculous. But I find this perseveration with details ridiculous as well. Has there been a SURGE in attacks since Obama? No. One isolated incident, which was unsuccessful. Perhaps Bush had one isolated incident, about which I don't know (didn't know about this Egyptian, for example). I think rather than focus on a guy who kills 3 people at a ticket counter who associates himself with Al-Qaeda, you provide statistics which are more meaningful.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Okay, yes, but if you are talking about Al-Qaeda, that's a different matter. If the comparison is an Al-Qaeda orchestrated attack and if they are comparing Bush Post 9/11 and Obama, then they have made a point, a point which by the way I think is ridiculous. But I find this perseveration with details ridiculous as well. Has there been a SURGE in attacks since Obama? No. One isolated incident, which was unsuccessful. Perhaps Bush had one isolated incident, about which I don't know (didn't know about this Egyptian, for example). I think rather than focus on a guy who kills 3 people at a ticket counter who associates himself with Al-Qaeda, you provide statistics which are more meaningful.

You are turning this discussion into something it is not. The point is not whether Bush or Obama is better. Hence, no statistics are needed. Three leading Republicans made statements in very similar terms. What they said was not complex and the factual incorrectness of that statement cannot be disputed. I don't know why you are determined to add new parameters that were never included by the original speakers into the mix. Yes, it may be true that no attacks were committed by left-handed, quadriplegics between the hours of 10 and 2 on Friday, June 10th or whatever. But, that is not at issue. The issue is whether there were attacks during the Bush administration. The answer to that is "yes". So, why have three leading Republicans said otherwise? Is it because they have collective amnesia? Is it because they cynically believe Americans are a bunch of morons who can't remember anything earlier than last week? Is it because they expect people like you to warp their own logic in order to concede that "they have made a point" when that so-called point is not even remotely what they said? Personally, I think they are banking on the moron alternative and I think that all Americans should be insulted by it.