Tactically speaking, how in the hell does one debate a Conservative? I mean, really. Michelle Malkin is the example of the minute, with another of her batshit-crazy posts about nothing. Essentially, she's just quoting, so I'll crib just a chunk of the post:
The heat is on. Washington Times is reporting: House Republicans call for Annan to step down
Excerpt:
"The oil-for-food program is a scandal of enormous proportions, and it may reach into the highest levels of leadership at the U.N.," said Rep. Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican who introduced a resolution yesterday calling for Mr. Annan to resign. "I don't think we'll get all the facts as long as Mr. Annan is remaining at the helm," Mr. Wicker said.
Nineteen Republicans and one Democrat -- Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi -- had signed the resolution, as of late yesterday.
[snip]
I'm picking on Michelle because she linked to this non-story from a non-newspaper, and because she's enjoying the idea of de-legitimizing the U.N. Perhaps someone reminded her that two-thirds of Americans weren't in favor of invading Iraq unless we had U.N. approval, and as time wears on, they might remember that.
But I digress.
First of all, what in the hell is Malkin? She's a conservative writer. She's got no more intelligence or ability than anyone else who can string a sentance together, but she's propped up by people who like her nutty politics. In her bio, she was an editorial writer and columnist. Jesus, not even a journalist, which requires some sorting of fact and fiction.
This means she's been shielded from any sort of rules of engagement regarding public discourse. This is standard for Conservatives, in that reasoned public discourse sticking to a commonly-held set of facts and decorum would expose them for the caprecious frauds they are.
So now when she opens her mouth in public or puts pen to paper, a torrent of nonsense comes flooding out, washing away any sort of hope for a reasonable discussion. Like most Republicans, she adheres to the rule: why be merely disagreeable, when with a little effort you can be impossible?
Let's take this simple post to wit.
"The heat is on..." in reference to House members--19 of them, and even a Democrat from Mississippi, if there still exists such a creature--calling for the resignation of Kofi Annan. One wonders if Michelle is aware of just how impotent the U.S. House of Representatives is in such matters, as clearly those 19 members of the House and Sen. Norm Coleman are not.
But this is just one of numerous lines of logical fallacy at work here. The next, of course, is that the Secretary General has not been implicated in anything. Republicans are calling for the resignation of a man who no one with any knowledge of the situation is accusing of doing anything wrong. Who voluntarily set up an inscruitably clean review board to investigate. And who has done nothing in his his adult life but work toward the goals of peace and international cooperation.
These Thugs in Congress would seek to besmirch the reputation of a man who has more integrity than the entire Republican caucus and all of their flying monkeys like Malkin, while at the same time working to protect the scandal waiting to happen in their leadership.
There's also this business that the Secretary General's office did not have oversight of the oil-for-food program. The oil-for-food scandal comes to rest on numerous heads, not the least of which being the UN Security Council and U.S. business interests. If we were to remove the head of an organization because individuals outside of his control, and yet working within the confines of the organization were engaged in malfeasance, well then... yeah, fill in the blank. The other part to this is that Paul Volcker is bound to find all sorts of skeletons, especially if he's able to interview people close to Saddam. God forbid some high-buck Republican donor is implicated; Janet Jackson might have to bare her breasts again.
And then there is the echo chamber of Malkin's post. The Washington Times is only a newspaper under the narrowest of definitions. Essentially she's parroting the Moonie rag in an effort to cover her own ass. As if to say that "Look, a newpaper is reporting this! It's important!" Please. This meme was cooked up in Norquist's Wednesday morning meetings, and I'm wondering if the "reporter" even had to pick up his phone, or if he was at the meeting where the proper spokespeople were having their tomato juice.
This post has gone on for far too long, and that's precisely the point. Malkin is able to post the strangest of things: a lie, wrapped in half-truths, partisan glee, and caustic goals. It's takes effort to unwrap this nest and it requires us to lie down in shit with these right-wing swine in order to do so. Some days I admire their complete lack of scruples or conscience, and other days I marvel at why they're beating us.
But most days, I just revile how an entirely odious group of people have managed to hold a formerly decent country hostage.
Comments