Skip to comments.Liberal Lunatic of the Day (2/26/2005)
Posted on 02/26/2005 5:31:03 AM PST by Beckwith
Andrew Greeley, the renegade priest-author-sociologist, asks, How long can Bush get away with lies? and responds, As the criminal, sinful war in Iraq enters its third year, the president goes to Europe to heal the wounds between the United States and its former allies, on his own terms of course. The White House propaganda mill will hail it as another victory for the president and ignore the fact that most Europeans still consider the war dangerous folly and the president a dangerous fool.
Greeley continues, Would it not be much better to have a president who deliberately lied to the people because he thought a war was essential than to have one who was so dumb as to be taken in by intelligence agencies, especially those who told him what he wanted to hear?
It is also asserted (by the propaganda mill) that the election settled the matters of the war and the torture of prisoners. These are dead issues that no longer need be addressed.
Finally, we are told that the Iraqi election confirms the Bush administration policy in Iraq.
Greeley then asks the question, How long can the administration get along with its policies of spinning big lies into truth -- as it has more recently done on Social Security?
He then answers his own question with, Nothing, in other words, has changed in the last two years. The war is still the "right thing to do," it is still part of the "war against terrorism," it is still essential to keep Arabs from blowing up our skyscrapers.
Greeley concludes with, You can still get away with the "big lie" as long as Karl Rove and his team of spinners keep providing persuasive rationalizations. The American public is still supine, uneasy about the war, but not willing yet to turn decisively against it. Will that still be the case next year when we "celebrate" the third anniversary of the war? Is the patience of the American people that long suffering? Is there no outrage left in the country?
I guess the short answer is, No.
But I have two issues with the good Father. The first is with Greeleys argument that President Bush is a liar.
Four times in the complete essay (three above) Greeley slanders the president as a liar, yet he describes the president as one who was so dumb as to be taken in. Well, Greeley cant have it both ways. The president certainly didnt lie if he was taken in, did he?
The second is Greeleys standard left-wing description of the president as less than bright, describing Mr. Bush as a dangerous fool and one who was so dumb.
Liberals and lefties have been painting Mr. Bush, a man with higher SAT scores than John Kerry, a graduate of Yale, recipient of an MBA from Harvard Business School, fighter pilot, successful businessman and Governor of Texas as dumb since the campaign of 2000. Yet Dubyah blows their balls off every time they turn around.
Greeley's description of Bush's rapprochement with Europe as "on his own terms of course" is an unintended complement to the intelligence and skill of our president. How absolutely crazy it must make these people to be snookered time and again by a dummy?
Hey, numb nuts. The war is over. Your side lost.
Greeley is a legend in his own mind and in the minds of those who also suffer from Neuron Deficit Disease.
My answer is that as long as no one can actually point to a specific provably false statement by President Bush, he's going to keep getting away with it.
I have long had issues with Andrew Greeley. Why didn't "Father Blackie" go after the SOB priests ruining the lives of many Catholic youth? It was known to all in the inner circles and Greeley was part of the inner circle. He watched, he let it happen and did nothing to stand up for the children. I cannot listen to him now when he grandstands.
Whitey Bulger one of the FBI's ten Most wanted. http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/bulger.htm
Bet he misses the good old days of LBJ.
By Andrew Greeley
March 27, 2004 | It has been 44 years since a Catholic ran for president. In 1960, more than two-thirds of the Catholic population voted for John F. Kennedy, providing him with the slight margin of 110,000 votes over Richard Nixon. According to the National Election Study of the University of Michigan, Kennedy had lost 5 million votes because of his religion.
Once again, a JFK is running for president, a one person balanced ticket, Jewish and Protestant in ancestry, Catholic in religion. Will Catholics again vote for him in overwhelming numbers? The answer, I think, is that they will surely be more likely to vote for him than white Protestants -- because Catholics are more likely to vote Democratic in presidential elections than are white Protestants. There is some chance of a bump of a few percentage points because Senator Kerry is "one of us," but not a landslide as when the issue was whether a Catholic could ever be president. There are, however, a couple of factors that could change this picture.
- - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/27/catholics/index_np.html
Where? (looks around)
I don't see a 'good Father'.
All I see is a punk-ass liberal puke lying to further the aims of dictators and tyrants, while posing as a "Man of G-d".
None would dispute that Fr. Greeley is the Catholic darling of the secular media. Whenever the major news marketers require an interviewee regarding Catholic Church issues, they indisputably call upon the ubiquitous Fr. Greeley.
Author of numerous nigh on pornographic novels, Father Greeley is under the authority of Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago. It is not known if Cardinal George has imposed any disciplines upon the aging hippy Father Greeley, whose behavior is not consistent with the ordained priesthood.
True to form, in an August 10, 2004 New York Daily News article, Fr. Greeley crafted a column that disparaged faithful Bishops and used the deceitful headline Catholics can vote for Kerry.
In this article, Fr. Greeley dishonestly stated that His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that Catholics could vote for Presidential candidate John Kerry, who promotes procured abortion.
Fr. Greeley was fraudulently referring to the Cardinal Ratzinger memorandum.
Andrew Greeley = C-SPAN caller?
That should read: Andrew Greely, the conformist priest-author of hackneyed mystery novels-anti-American socialist asks,
Regarding #9 I thought the "good father" appellation was dripping with sufficient sarcasm to omit the warning. Cheers . . .
How do these people answer the question as to what they would have in Iraq if it weren't for the war? One has to assume that torture, imprisonment, murder and facism is okay with them because they would not have us involved... as a published auther myself (historical, romance, military) I cannot finish a novel without it exposing the lies of the left as man lives and works and completes a life of true meaning. They've lost their heart and soul.
They have no answers. They live in misery. They wish everyone would share their misery. Problem is they can't and that makes them more miserable. And if they were able to, wouldn't they miss their latte' and limosines? Because once they've accomplished socialism, those items, dear facist lefty, would be gone... gone, lost; no one would serve them and no one would build them...
Does anyone know if Greeley has ever explicitly aligned himself with the "liberation theology" renegades?
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit Eternity Road:
Andrew Greeley, the renegade priest-author-sociologist, asks, How long can Bush get away with lies?
He thinks we should have an honest man in the White House, like Bill Clinton. (heavy sarcasm)
George Bush says what he means and does what he promises. I see where that could befuddle the left.