I object to Bush's war and they bring up Sandy Berger. This has happened twice now, once with each parent, in incidents almost a full year apart.
[Berger was Bill Clinton's National Security Advisor who later stole classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing them down his pants. The lead prosecutor of the case indicates that he stole only copies and that no original material was destroyed, though this story is hotly disputed by Rush Limbaugh and the like, who claim without much factual basis that something much more sinister was happening.]
Who knows what the hell was going on there, but what kind of derangement is happening when you attempt to compare this to Bush's war crimes? Its like comparing the Columbine shootings to spray-painting some graffiti on a school wall. I can't even fathom what point they're trying to make by bringing it up. "Well you're saying that Bush illegally invaded two sovereign nations causing the slaughter of at least a million people, but this one guy who used to work for Clinton stole some documents!!"
3 comments:
They have a bad case of BDS (Berger Derangement Syndrome).
That comment made me giggle. Thanks.
seems to be a simple case of false dichotomy. the premise is that either democrats act in the best interest of national security, or republicans do. since you can show that a democrat once didn't do so, therefore republicans always do, and it follows (as long as you don't think about it too hard) that everything a republican does is in the best interest of NS.
obviously, it's total BS, but people with strong political beliefs don't let details like logical rigor get in their way.
Post a Comment