Thursday, June 21, 2007

A Rare Glimpse Into Republican Honesty

Originally posted on 10/30/06:

It's rare to see anyone involved in politics let their defenses down long enough to provide a real glimpse of the twisted heart beating beneath the slick veneer, but boy, when they do, it's an interesting view. Mr. Paul Burgess, a former speechwriter in the Bush White House, has decided to give us all a piece of his mind, and just to let you know, if you happen to be against the current administration's foreign policy adventures, well, he hates your fucking guts. When I first read this, I thought it was one of those joke op-ed pieces from The Onion, but nope, it's the real deal. I can't imagine what the outcry would be if a Democrat wrote something like this. This guy was a major player in the current administration's communications department, and I imagine that his view reflects that of many in the White House who can't be quite so candid. This is seriously sick, nasty stuff. Don't believe me? Here, let him tell you then (first published on October 28, 2006, in the Frederickson (VA) Free Lance-Star):

Friends, neighbors, and countrymen of the Left: I hate your lying guts

WHEN I WAS speechwrit- ing at the White House, one rule was enforced without exception. The president would not be given drafts that lowered him or The Office by responding to the articulations of hatred that drove so many of his critics.
This rule was especially relevant to remarks that concerned the central topic of our times, Iraq. Having left the White House more than a year ago, I conclude that the immunizing effect of that rule must have expired, because I now find that I am infected with a hatred for the very quarter that inspired the rule--the deranged, lying left.
I never used to feel hatred for people such as Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, or other pop-culture notables who, for example, sing the praises of Central American dictators while calling President Bush the greatest terrorist on earth. I do now.
And though these figures might be dismissed as inconsequential, their views seem mild compared with those of some of our university professors charged with the "higher" education of our youth.
Thus have I come to hate Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who called the Sept. 11 victims of the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns"; Nicholas De Genova, the Columbia professor who loudly wished "a million Mogadishus" on American troops in Iraq; and Kevin Barrett, the University of Wisconsin professor who teaches his students that President Bush was the actual mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
I used to laugh these people off. Now I detest them as among the most loathsome people America has ever vomited up.
I have also grown to hate certain people of genuine accomplishment like Ted Turner, who, by his own contention, cannot make up his mind which side of the terror war he is on; I hate the executives at CNN, Turner's intellectual progeny, who recently carried water for our enemies by broadcasting their propaganda film portraying their attempts to kill American soldiers in Iraq.
I now hate Howard Dean, the elected leader of the Democrats, who, by repeatedly stating his conviction that we won't win in Iraq, bets his party's future on our nation's defeat.
I hate the Democrats who, in support of this strategy, spout lie after lie: that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq; that he lied to Congress to gain its support for military action; that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD; that he was a unilateralist and that the coalition was a fraud; that he shunned diplomacy in favor of war.
These lies, contradicted by reports, commissions, speeches, and public records, are too preposterous to mock, but too pervasive to rebut, especially when ignored by abetting media.
Most detestable are the lies these rogues craft to turn grief into votes by convincing the families of our war dead that their loved ones died in vain. First, knowing what every intelligence agency was sure it knew by early 2003, it would have been criminal negligence had the president not enforced the U.N.'s resolutions and led the coalition into Iraq. Firemen sometimes die in burning buildings looking for victims who are not there. Their deaths are not in vain, either.
Second, no soldier dies in vain who goes to war by virtue of the Constitution he swears to defend. This willingness is called "duty," and it is a price of admission into the highest calling of any free nation--the profession of arms. We have suffered more than 2,300 combat deaths in Iraq so far. Not one was in vain. Not one.
These are the people I now hate--these people who seek to control our national security. The best of them are misinformed. The rest of them are liars.
So I intend to vote on Nov. 7. If I have to, I'll crawl over broken glass to do it. And this year I'm voting a straight Republican ticket right down to dog catcher, because I've had it. I'm fed up with the deranged, lying left. They've infected me. I'm now a hater, too.
PAUL BURGESS of Spotsylvania County was director of foreign-policy speechwriting at the White House from October 2003 to July 2005.

I guess I won't be getting any invites to this guy's Christmas soiree until I trade in my Democratic voter ID card for something a little more fascistic in nature. As for me, I don't hate Mr. Burgess, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to be the one sprinkling the broken glass along his voting route before the next election. I hear blood really mucks up those touch-screen voting machines.

FYI The "Central-American dictator" he's referring to is in fact the popularly elected Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela. Venezuela is in South America, not Central America, but I wouldn't expect the former 'Director of Foreign-Policy Speechwriting' from the Bush White House to know the difference. I mean, we latinos do all look alike, right?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

He also doesn't seem to know that Ward Churchill is a registered Republican.