Blogging Without Spencer

The Delco Times recently changed the layout of their site.

Besides the facts that previous links no longer work and there is no longer a "search" feature, another casualty of the software change (I decline to call it an upgrade) is that the Blogging with the Editor (Phil Heron) and Blogging with Spencer no longer support replies by the readers. Without the reader feedback, it's no longer blogging, but rather online editorials. Also gone are the past blogs with comments by readers (half the ones on Spencer's blog were from me). This new situation leaves Spencer's Archie-Bunker rantings unchallenged; but fortunately, PA7Watch is here to inject some unwanted reality into Spencer's fantasies. (Phil Heron did reply to inform me that blogging improvements will eventually be installed, but until then....)

In his most recent column, about "stars" that need therapy, Spencer fantasized about Dr. Phil having conversations with Paris Hilton, David Hasselhoff (Knight Rider and Baywatch), Alec Baldwin and Venus Ramey (Miss America 1944). Most men would find Paris Hilton's imagined presence sufficient for a fantasy (conversation or otherwise). Why does Gil need to fantasize about Dr. Phil, Baldwin, Hasselhoff and an 82 year-old former beauty queen? I wonder if Gil was picturing Hasselhoff in swim trunks on the beach or running in slow motion? Seems to me that Spencer is the one needing some therapy.

In his recent opinion column Leaving Iraq now means whole world loses, Spencer misrepresented the desire of the majority to leave Iraq. He starts off with "Some people believe it is time to cut our losses and bring the troops home from Iraq." instead of "Most people believe.."
Spencer follows with "More than 3,000 U.S. soldiers have died. Thousands more have been maimed or seriously injured."
Notice how he leaves out the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed until later when he accuses Reid and the other Democrats of ignoring Iraqi deaths. Even worse, Spencer takes a sober appraisal by Reed that the continued failures by the Bush administration will cost the GOP Senate seats (because they have defied the voters) and misrepresents Reed as "Giddy" about a political windfall. I guess Gil forgot how Bush and the GOP politicized the war, or staged the Mission Accomplished speech with banner as a campaign photo-op. (First Bush claimed the banner was the idea of the ship's crew. Then it came out the banner was produced by Bush team and flown in.)

Spencer criticizes Nancy Pelosi for talking to Syria (as recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group), but conveniently declines to criticize Condi Rice for her recent attempts to engage Syria.

Spencer then predicts that if the Dems succeed in pulling out the troops then millions will die in a chaos that he and the neocons claim will follow. What happened to the neocon predictions we would be greeted with flowers as liberators? Or the war paying for itself? Or those WMD's? Or "Bring it on"? Or things would settle down once we captured Saddam? Drafted a Constitution? Held elections? Put up walls? Sorry Spencer, the neocons haven't gotten a prediction right yet. However, they have promoted lots of fear mongering that things would go badly if the Democrats were in charge.

Spencer also ignores the opinion of the Democratic leaders (and the evidence of our own eyes) that our presence in Iraq has made things worse. The worsing situation in Iraq is the direct result of failed leadership and planning by the GOP and their failure has our troops and innocent Iraqis to pay the price.

Spencer even goes so far as to claim that al-Qaida will get stronger and that "Democratic-advocated retreat will prove Osama bin Laden quite right." Well, Bin Laden working out of a cave has made al-Qaida stronger. Bush with the highest technology ever invented and hundreds of billions of dollars has weakened our own military and reduced our readiness. Bin Laden made it quite clear his goal was to bankrupt the US by drawing us into an asymmetric conflict for which we were not prepared. Stubbornly staying in, when there is nothing left to win, just plays into Bin Laden's hands.

Incompetent leadership emboldens terrorists. The Bush administration, neocons and people like Spencer promoting fear embolden the terrorists because fear is their goal and Americans spreading fear are the ones aiding the enemies. The real enemies are ignorance and intolerance. They are used to recruit new terrorists and used to continue a war that never should have been fought.

The answer is to de-radicalize. Internationally, we must support voices of reason. Nationally and locally, we must become voices of reason and challenge people like Spencer when they implying that those opposed to the war are sympathizers, appeasers, cowards or traitors. It is un-American.

I don't regard Spencer with the same distain as the neocons running the show. Spencer just isn't bright enough to mastermind and craft talking points, he just repeats them. Spencer's not the problem, but he is not the solution either.