Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Dan Slott's anti-GOP rantings

For the week of the GOP debate, ultra-moonbat Dan Slott's got a couple of things to say that need a little scrutiny. For example:


So we know he's against interrogation concepts that are actually rather effective (he or another writer may have even written a story attacking the use of waterboarding several years ago in Spider-Man involving the Sandman). Maybe he should consider that some of the families of 9-11 victims came out in support using waterboarding to interrogate jihadists. And I don't think they'd be happy if they knew Slott was taking the same stances as a pretentious actor like Edward Asner did. That's why I recommend he go out and rent a video copy of Katheryn Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty to show he's not so close-minded.




We also know he's a Jimmy Carter supporter. That he backs a president who was otherwise responsible for allowing the ayatollah's acolytes of darkness to take over Iran and plunge it into oppressiveness, one that Betty Mahmoody's daughter just barely escaped from, and one that Slott doesn't seem to have much of a problem with. He also buys into every leftist narrative at face value with a closed mind. Perhaps he should read about several things he might not have known about regarding the hostage crisis, including how the Iranians didn't like Carter despite his own dhimmitude:
4) The hostages were released only after President Reagan was sworn in.

Ted Koppel described this as the Iranians' last act of cruelty toward President Carter. Even though the United States and Iran had come to an agreement to free the hostages in December, the Iranians waited literally until the hour President Reagan was sworn in before allowing the plane with the hostages to take off. The Iranians had a deep hatred of Carter and wanted to deny him this last moment of victory as President.

5) After the hostages were released, they met with President Jimmy Carter.

William Daugherty, who was held in solitary confinement for almost the entire time he was a hostage, said, "It was not a warm welcome" when Jimmy Carter flew to the U.S. military base in Germany to meet the hostages right after their release. The hostages were split on their thinking. Many felt they were left unprotected in the embassy after Carter made the decision to allow the Shah into the United States. Daugherty said that during the meeting, Carter went around to hug all the hostages, and many remained still with their arms at their sides and did not return his hug.
I assume Slott's going to turn his hatred against the hostages now, much like he already has towards Reagan? Tut tut, that wouldn't be a good idea, no matter what one thinks of Carter's willingness to take in the shah whose pro-western system was allowed to fall without standing up to the ayatollah's monsters. On which note, I don't think CNN is being fair to the shah himself, and Carter was at fault for doing nothing to ensure the sharia advocates wouldn't succeed in taking over Iran and plunging it into oppressive darkness, where torture is used against anybody who dares to disagree. On which note, how come Slott's so worried about waterboarding, but not about torture tactics used against dissidents in Iran? As usual, he lets his ultra-leftist upbringing get the better of himself, to the point where he can't even raise more challenging issues. And what's the use of saying Carter built houses for the poor, when he failed to make anything better for people in the Muslim world, which has a sizable poverty rate? We can only guess what Slott's stance is on Carter's approach to Israel too. Even a writer for the SF Chronicle, a very left-wing news source, says that Carter was quite a failure, and Shmuley Boteach turned against him. Slott can uphold Carter as much as he likes, but it won't change anything about the real picture. Nor will he be helping by attacking Republicans one-sidedly and acting like conservatives are the root cause of all evil.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)