Fantasyland Humor: Craig R. Smith and Abuse of the Presidency.

Our resident right winger over at Stumpburners posted this article titled Abuse of the presidency. It was published by WorldNetDaily. That's a place that right wingers go to get their strange beliefs validated. It was written by Craig R. Smith. It was the first time I'd heard of him, but he's apparently very big in Right Wing Fantasyland.

Now you may be wondering why I would be putting an obviously right wing article, from an obviously right wing source here. Because it's unintentionally funny as hell.

Mr. Smith's article will be in bold.

For the benefit of our country, I hope and pray respect for the office of the president returns with the new president in 2009. The abuse the presidency of George Bush was forced to tolerate has been nothing short of obscene.

Yeah, poor little rich kid George W. Bush has been obscenely abused by the evil left and now may be traumatized for life.

I guess Mr. Smith feels that we should follow his example on respect for the office of president. This is from a 2006 article at, you guessed it, WND.

Make no mistake about it. Jimmy Carter is not an American citizen. He is a
citizen of the world. His views are so misguided that he would be relegated
to a
spot next to Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan had he not been president
of the
United States. My God in heaven, what were we thinking at the time to
elect a
nut case like this in the first place?

The man just oozes respect.

Just last week, someone referred to the president as "that bastard Bush." The former first lady, senator and presidential candidate gently nodded her head in approval and answered the foul mouth with, "Well, there is a lot of truth in that."

While it's true that an elderly lady did say "Bush the bastard" at a Hillary town hall meeting, Hillary did not say, "Well, there is a lot of truth in that". Here's the real story.

BRIDGETON, Mo. -- An elderly lady in the audience at Hillary Clinton's town
hall outside of St. Louis prefaced a question about a rumored U.S.-Mexico-Canada
economic union this morning by saying "Bush the bastard..."

Hillary smiled, head bobbing slightly, and didn't say a word in
dissent. The crowd roared in approval.

The woman, speaking during a question-and-answer session focused on
trade competition and pocketbook issues, asked about a widely-circulated
conspiracy theory that President Bush was pushing for the creation of a North
American "Amero" currency that would replace the greenback dollar.

"He has this all planned for 2010," the questioner said of Bush.

"Let me say that I've heard that story and there's not a lot of truth
to it," Clinton responded, adding that if it was real she would kill it in a
"bird-dog minute."

This is what passes as journalistic excellence in Right Wing Fantasyland.

For years now Mr. Bush has been called a liar, betrayer, dummy, bastard, fear monger, murderer … just to name a few. The Democratic Party has spent the last seven years attacking the man and the office. Now the next president will attempt to sit in the Oval Office and command respect. Be it Democrat or Republican … good luck!

Well, you've got to admit that Bush is a liar and he has betrayed this country by lying his way into Iraq. Dummy? I prefer idiot, but dummy is certainly apt. While not a bastard by birth, he managed to grow into one. (an offensive or disagreeable person) Fear monger? Since 9/11, his whole presidency has been based on fear mongering. Murderer? Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians are proof enough for me.

"Command respect", until the righties manage to turn this into the Fascist States of America, a president will continue to have to earn respect.

I wonder if the Democrats have ever taken a moment out of hating George Bush to consider the long-term damage they will have inflicted on the presidency by attacking everything President Bush said or did. They made a cottage industry of these attacks two years into a war talking about how the "dummy" duped them into it. Who is the idiot in that equation? Being duped by a dummy is nothing I would list on my resume if I were applying for the job as leader of the free world.

Well let's just change history here. What I've seen is most Democrats doing is rolling over for George W. Bush. Any damage to the presidency is self-inflected.

And it's pretty obvious here who's been duped by a dummy.

I can only imagine the outcome if the attacks Mr. Bush has weathered had been leveled on George Washington while fighting the British prior to becoming our first president? Could you see Mr. Lincoln being called a liar and a crook during the Civil War? How effective would FDR have been fighting the Nazis if Charles Curtis was screaming, "He betrayed us. He played on our fears," as Al Gore did?

History is extremely malleable in Right Wing Fantasyland.

The contrast between Washington's record and
Gates's brilliant victory was one factor that led to the so-called Conway
Cabal--an intrigue by some members of Congress and army officers to replace
Washington with a more successful commander, probably Gates.

The Radical Republicans were furious with Lincoln's decision. On
5th August, Wade and Henry Winter Davis published an attack on Lincoln
in the New York Tribune. In what became known as the Wade-Davis
Manifesto, the men argued that Lincoln's actions had been taken "at the
dictation of his personal ambition" and accused him of "dictatorial usurpation".
They added that: "he must realize that our support is of a cause and not of a
man."

As World War II began, Roosevelt was among those concerned at the growing
strength of the Axis Powers, and he found ways to help Great Britain, the
Chinese Nationalists, and later the Soviet Union in their struggle against them.
This prompted several ambiguous isolationist leaders,
including air hero Charles Lindbergh, to criticize
him as a warmonger who was trying to push America into war with Nazi
Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. This criticism was largely silenced
in the public arena after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but was
occasionally replaced by the private belief that FDR knew of the attack
beforehand.

Ever since we invaded Iraq, the Right has tried to place in in the same context as just wars. Unfortunately Iraq would be more accurately compared to the Mexican American War, the Spanish American War and Granada.

There is a better-than-equal chance there will be a Democrat sitting in the Oval Office as our 44th president. Should that president be treated in the same manner George Bush was treated during a time of war? Will the Democrat leader of the Senate talk about losing the war after the president sends troops to fight in foreign lands?

You know if the Iraq War was thrust upon us, as WWII was, there might be some merit to this. But since what actually happened was, Bush lied his way into this war for no actual national security reasons, there is no merit in it.

And I can assure you that any Democrat president will recieve the same treatment, by those of us on the Left, if he does anything even close to as stupid as what George W. Bush has done.

I am all for free speech, and I love a country that embraces dissent. But when we elevate dissent to ad hominem attacks on the president with troops in harm's way, we are treading on very treacherous ground.

First of all, telling the truth is hardly "ad hominem attacts", except in Right Wing Fantasyland.

Second, criticism of Bush has very little effect on the troops whose biggest concern is survival, since they're not too crazy about Bush anyway.

When people in America were claiming Bill Clinton ordered air strikes to deflect the Lewinsky scandal, I was very vocal with my criticism. Pundits were all singing the "Wag the Dog" song. The leaders of the Republican Party were not part of the choir.

Considering that the Clinton "Wag the Dog" drama was nothing more than right wing myth, it's hardly surprising that the leaders of the Republican party didn't want to jump in the middle of it.

In fact, a lot of Republican leaders backed Clinton.

"A parade of Republican Senators — including John McCain of Arizona, Richard G.
Lugar of Indiana, John W. Warner of Virginia and Jesse Helms of North Carolina —
voiced support for the President's decision to strike now. All are prominent
party spokesmen on defense and foreign policy matters."

The time for debate is prior to a presidential or congressional decision. There will always be plenty of time to analyze, criticize and attack after the fact; but not during. Once the order is given, we only lessen the chance of success when the very folks who gave the authority to make the decision attack the motive.

What this all comes down to is whatever is convenient at the time, to push the Right's agenda, will be used. Check this out, AT LEAST TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE INITIATION OF WAR ON IRAQ.

Funny how things suddenly changed with a Republican president. And don't give me that 9/11 changed everything garbage. It didn't change the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Decorum has been thrown out the window by a power hungry Democratic Party that will sacrifice anything to regain power. Even if the presidency, military and ultimately the country are the offering. It's as if Democrats suffer from Munchausen by Proxy syndrome. If they destroy the presidency, military and the country they will have something to fix once they take up residency at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

As you can see, in Fantasyland, it's the Democrats destroying the military, the presidency and the country. Granted, there's plenty of Democrats who share the blame. But that's because they were gutless and backed Mr' Smith's idiot president, who ultimately sholders the responsibility for the mess we're in now.

It is bad enough when Moveon.org or Cindy Sheehan is hammering the president. I understand the idiots like Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon attacking the Bush Oval Office. Calls for impeachment from future Secretary of the Dept. of Peace Kucinich are a certainty. Hugo Chavez, Michael Moore and Ahmadinejad attacks should be expected. But former presidents? Former vice presidents? The Senate majority leader? The speaker of the House? Have we lost any sense of decorum in politics today? Has it truly become a no-holds-barred approach?

Decorum? In politics? What a sheltered life Mr. Smith must lead. Politics, by nature, is a cutthroat pursuit.

The real problem in politics today is that the Democrats won't get down in the mud with the republicans and stand up for what's right and in the process we get screwed.

I applaud Mr. Bush for not lowering the presidency to the level of attacks he has had to endure. I appreciate the respect he still holds for the office. He will not return attack for attack. He will continue to do his job as he sees fit. Right or wrong. And for that I have a tremendous respect for the man.

Only in Fantasyland could someone have tremendous respect for a man, that has so far, done everything wrong.

Poor delicate, flower that is President Bush thrust into the fetid sewer of American politics. How come I feel no sympathy for him?

Mr. Bush has clearly made a number of mistakes, and I am confident history will deal with each one in the proper way. He has however made the safety of this nation his top priority for the last seven years. I only hope it will be the priority of all future presidents.

Have you ever noticed how concerned the Right is with their safety? You might say obsessed. They certainly put their safety above the Constitution. We know that they are willing to give up their rights and ours to feel safe. But what do you expect when greed and paranoia are the prime motivations in your life.

The next president will be faced with very serious problems. That is without question. I just hope the Democratic damage inflicted on the office does not diminish the ability of the office and its resident to lead us going forward. Hindsight may be very painful to the Democrats in what their Bush-hating folly produces for the long-term image of our country.

OK, make that greed, paranoia and hypocrisy.

One thing I can assure you: You won't see Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney acting like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Al Gore. That is for sure. The Bush administration has too much respect for itself and the country for that to happen.

OK, make that hypocrisy, greed and paranoia.

We know what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney will be doing after they leave office, selling themselves to the highest bidder.

I just want to leave you with this.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we
are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt

Later.