Fascists, Lies and Presidential Videotape

by Curly Morris - September 1, 2006 - Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald

I've been called many things in my life, but I never expected to be called a fascist by the Secretary of Defense.

Actually Curly, he did not call you a fascist. He said that the people we are at war with are fascist and that you are wrong to think that fighting them in the middle east, including Iraq, is not the best policy. Rumsfield's boss, Bush was even careful to say that he did not think you were an appeaser for having your view. He said you were well intentioned but wrong.

My opinion is that Bush was wrong when he gave you credit for not being an appeaser. No one who so egregiously mis-states the comments of another, as you did here, can claim the moral high ground. Your comments are extremely offensive.

There are a few other of your comments I would like to disagree with too, so I am going to include a few more quotes than usual from your article to make it clearer what I am responding to.

Here goes.

For my politically challenged readers, fascism is defined as a governmental concept that is led by a dictator that has complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.

So, declaring yourself the winner of an election where you received 47 percent of the total vote when your main competition received 48 percent doesn't make you a fascist?

George Bush did not declare himself the victor. The U.S. Supreme Court, by 7 to 2, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court did not have the right to overturn the Florida Secretary of State affirmation of the Democratic Party Controlled Boards of Election vote counts in two Florida Counties which were accurate under the rules in place at the time of the election. They stopped the Florida Supreme Court from "inventing" a new state law to allow a recount by their rules, since the U.S. Constitution provides that the rules must be made by the Florida Legislature, not the Florida Supreme Court. Part of the reason is that the Florida court wrote rules that were so biased in Gore's favor they were an embarassment. I repeat that ruling was made by 7 to 2. Even a democrat should have to concede that is a pretty solid victory. But you don't!

It has always astonished me that all these nationwide democrat partisans who claim Bush stole the election ignore that the vote counts they insist should have been overturned were made by two Boards of Election that are overwhelmingly controlled by Democratic Party officials.

It is also curious that the court vote that is always touted by democrat partisans is the 5 to 4 vote by the Supreme Court as to whether the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than the Florida Supreme Court, could "invent" new rules to do a recount that would be a better set of rules than the Florida Legislature had written. 5 Justices ruled that the election had been run by the rules in force at the time, properly passed by the Florida Legislature as the U.S. Consitution provides, and the election was therefore over. That ruling merely stated neither the U.S. Supreme Court or the Florida Supreme Court could "invent" new rules to hold another recount which the law in Florida did not allow. However the original ruling was by 7 to 2 that the election had been run properly.

To claim this means Bush declared himself the victor is so stupid it would not be worth addressing again, except you had the audacity to write it. You don't like the result so you lie about what happened. Anyway, even the pro democrat Miami papers have since written that under the biased Florida Supreme Court rules for a recount, BUSH WOULD STILL HAVE WON!

During an interview at the White House last week, President Bush was asked by Cox News' Ken Herman what Iraq had to do with 9/11.

"Nothing," Bush said. "Absolutely nothing."

If you don't believe me, the press conference is posted all over the Internet.

Bush had just as well made that statement to the families of every soldier killed or maimed in the Iraq war.

I can't imagine how the mother of a child blown up by Iraqi insurgents must have felt when she heard that.

Actually this is a rather amusing charge for you to make. Bush has never said that Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The charge that Bush has claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 is a lie invented and repeated by democrats.

The argument Bush and the neo-conservatives made has always been that the islamofascist movement and its many factions were supported by Saddam (check out the $25,000 payments made to Hamas and Hezbollah suicide bombers by Saddam - and the Saddam support for Al Zarqawi who was both Al Qaeda and head of Saddam's foreign forces) and that for a list of reasons, we needed to remove Saddam from power to reduce the chances of his getting and giving these radicals access to nuclear bombs. Since the major work being done for an Iraq bomb was being carried on within the Lybian nuclear program, Qaddafi's giving up his nuclear program actually means that is one accomplishment that cannot be taken away from Bush. I know it doesn't stop you from pretending it did not happen, but it did!

Those who support the war believe that we are trying to stop nuclear bombs from going off here. You dismiss this happening. Under your illusion about the islamofascists they are mad about us invading Iraq. So why have they bombed and attacked us repeatedly for 30 years?

Your simplistic dismissal of the arguments made by neo-conservatives, as you did with your comments above, merely proves you are unwilling to honestly discuss the merits of the war.

Your article is nothing but a series of ad hominem attacks on Bush and all Republicans who disagree with you. What I find amusing is that you and Pat Buchanan agree on this. Buchanan smears Bush with the same attacks at every opportunity. There is a major argument going on inside the Republican Party with neoconservatives on one side and Buchanan on the other. Who would have thought you and Buchanan would have so much in common!

Including it would seem the willingness to use ad hominem attacks against anyone you disagree with.