"As usual, Clinton figures that the rest of us are too stupid or lazy to look it up for ourselves"

"As usual, Clinton figures that the rest of us are too stupid or lazy to look it up for ourselves," writes Dennis Byrne at Fox News. "And having read the complete report when it came out more than two years ago, I think it is an inescapable fact that a vacillating, equivocating administration had more than one opportunity to take out terrorist mastermind bin Laden, but blew it." (President Clinton embraces White House intern Monica Lewinsky during a campaign fundraiser a few days before the '96 presidential election. Dirck Halstead photo)

"For several years now we have heard repeated, almost non-stop, accusations that the Bush administration and the Republicans are trying to stifle free speech," writes psychoanalyst/psychaitrist blogger ShrinkWrapped, deftly analyzing the left's psychological projection problem:

In projection, one's own unacceptable thoughts and feelings are imputed to another person. Thus, a person who cannot tolerate their own intolerance will intolerantly accuse another of being intolerant . . . When Michael Moore's amalgam of half-truths, overt lies, and occasional brushes with reality was screened, any criticism by those who opposed his world view were treated as attempts at censorship, though no one on the right, to my knowledge, called for the banning of the film.

Yet now that a TV series threatens to show the Clinton administration in a poor light in the lead up to 9/11, the howls of protest have escalated to true attempts at intimidation and censorship.  The Democratic leadership of the Senate sent an overtly threatening note to Disney.

"When it comes to an assumption of venality, it sounds to us like Michael Moore is projecting," we ourselves wrote back in June of 2004, when "Fahrenheit 9/11" was opening to rave reviews among our fellow Americans of the left and their fellow-traveling fascists of the Islamist persuasion throughout the world. Remember Moore's heartfelt tribute to those whose lives were cut short by terrorist rage that day?

If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him!

Osama & Company had been blowing up Americans since 1993, but Moore, unable to conceive of any other motive than his own hysterical desire to "get back at Bush," again projected the private hell of his BDS onto the enemy. As we wrote then:

At the time, we dismissed Moore's hysterical rantings as loony left logorrhea. Now we know better. Looking back at the post-9/11 Moore mouthings, in the wake of the damage his demagoguery has done to the administration's and the nation's credibility among the weakest-minded of our own citizens and leftist fellow travelers around the world -- not to mention Osama's adoption of Moorish rhetoric in his latest Bush-bashing tape -- we realize that Michael Moore is right up there with George Soros trying to undermine our democracy. We, the citizens, are too stupid to figure things out for ourselves, of course. Moore is, in fact, telling all who will listen that Americans are "the stupidest people in the world." Soros and Moore know what is best for us, and each wants to be a kingmaker -- one via ill-begotten billions, the other with Riefenstahl-lite propaganda that assumes the cluelessness of its audience-- and each has made remarkable inroads while the rest of us were preoccupied trying to keep the world safe for democracy.

"All at once, Ken Starr persuades both players in the Lewinsky scandal to come forward and testify. Here, an inside account of how he did it. Are Americans finally about to hear the whole truth?" asked a coy Time Magazine in August of '98. "The whole truth"? Give us a break.

Like ShrinkWrapped, we wouldn't dream of blaming the Clinton or Bush administration for 9/11. ShrinkWrapped explains, so we don't have to:

Our society was singularly unable to take the threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism seriously. The nature of a democracy is that we are slow to respond to threats; in fact, we rarely respond to attacks until after they occur.  We would not have entered WWII without Pearl Harbor and would not have engaged the Islamists in the current war without 9/11.

Exactly. The nation would never have had the will to go to war had the terrorists not mistaken us for Osama's "weak horse." But who has time for rational discourse when one's been out of power so long? Certainly not the Democrats, whose leadership is scaring the daylights out of the estimable ShrinkWrapped, who worries about what we would call Fear Society Lite or worse:

When powerful government officials begin to use intimidation openly, it is chilling, to say the least.  Perhaps all the claims of incipient fascism that the left sees all around it embodied in the Republicans is a projection of their own authoritarian tendencies.  This is, of course, not a novel idea; the left has been accused of authoritarianism for quite some time.  What is most troubling is the apparent lack of awareness of the impact and importance of this letter from the most powerful and important members of the Democratic party.

I would not expect the DU [the moonbat contingency of the left blogosphere] crowd to show any awareness of their own projections; they are quite openly authoritarian and are willing to use almost any means to silence those they oppose.  This kind of authoritarian silencing of those who do not espouse the proper political line is also common in academia, which is troubling but not surprising.  When the disease of authoritarianism, the readiness to silence one's opponents rather than engage them, has spread to the core of one of the two major parties, the danger to our political system is real, though one hopes it is transient.

Not only is there no awareness that the campaign they are running against the Disney Corporation is dangerous, but they revel in their ability to use all the forces at their command to intimidate a media outlet.  If Republicans did this, the howls of outrage would know no bounds, yet the Democrats, champions of civil liberties as they fancy themselves to be, propose censorship without a trace of irony.

As we always ask rhetorically in these cases, how can they live with themselves? The answer, of course, is projection. Thank you, dear Doc ShrinkWrapped.

Update: Pajamas Media links. Be sure to treat yourself to Tammy Bruce's "recent evidence (six months ago) of Bill Clinton’s laissez-faire attitude toward the War on Terror."

Comments

[goomp]

Sisu, that was a great analysis of the ShrinkWrap's thesis. If it comes to suppression of democrocy and freedom, let us hope a person of Lincoln's stature such as George Bush will be the one, not a lame-brained liberal.

[hnav]

a fascinating post...

when the Clinton's lied about the Genocide in Rwanda, i was stunned so many liberal partisans blindly defended these negligent opportunists.

it is a serious American Tragedy, those 8 years, and it still haunts our existence today.

one can only hope the Clintons, and those who lied on their behalf, will someday no longer send others astray.

perhaps they will gain some justice in the end.

but the denial, enabling, censorship, deceit, corruption became common practice for the Democrat Liberal Partisan in the 1990s, emboldened the pathetic Bill and Hillary Clinton...