Frank Rich Is a Big Fat Liar
by Larry O'ConnorBefore Frank Rich used his arrogance to tell us who we should vote for, he used it to tell us what plays we should see. Rich was, arguably, the last uber-powerful NY Times Theatre Critic. Unless a show had a huge advance and a great resume of talent behind it (”Cats,” “Phantom”) a pan from him would severely threaten a show’s future. Meanwhile, if he and he alone liked a show, he had the power to keep it afloat much longer than natural market forces would have allowed (”Sunday in the Park”).
Now theatre-boy Frank is an op-ed columnist and is known for erudite and vicious slams at all things Republican. This week, in trying to support President Obama’s disastrous spending bill, he not only assails the House Republicans, but takes frequent shots at the former President.
As classless and cheap as it is to continue to beat President Bush up, I am especially nauseated by this passage:
No one should expect the Republicans to give the new president carte blanche, fall blindly into lock step or be “post-partisan.” (Though that’s exactly what the G.O.P. demanded of Democrats with Bush: You were either with him or with the terrorists.)
President Bush NEVER, and I mean NEVER said or even implied that if the Democrats were not with him they were with the terrorists… NEVER!
There is only one time where President Bush came CLOSE to uttering a phrase like this. Here is the context and the passage of President Bush’s speech from September 21, 2001:
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
It is clear who President Bush is talking about, and what he means by “With us.” And, by the way, this is still our policy, and it SHOULD be. If we find that a country is wilfully harboring Bin Laden, they are our enemy.
By the way, I hope you click on the link I provided for the full text of this speech…. it’s from the New York Times. Theatre-boy Frank’s very own web-site has the actual information that exposes him for what he is: A Big Fat Liar.
Stage Right is on Facebook.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
30 Comments
Theater ciritcs Frank Rich and John Lahr (I tend to get them confused) both epitomize the New York liberal elitist mentality, with all of its off-handed stereotyping of Republicans and folks in flyover country.
And why is a theater critic allowed to write an editorial on economic policy? What’s next – Bill Kristol reviewing plays?
The NY Times is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
What’s the suprise here? Last year, Rich referred to John McCain as the Manchurian candidate.
Thank you for this piece, I wish it were longer! I grew up in Manhattan with the NY Times all my life, but even I stopped reading it back in the late 90s, when it started to strike me as irrelevant to anyone who actually had to work for a living. I have on occasion tried to read that windbag just to see what all the fuss was about. Never made it all the way through a single piece. The sad part is I used to like his theater reviews.
So, what about Rich’s main points that the tax rebates in previous years had virtually no effect on consumer saving and that the rate of job growth the last eight years has been the weakest in several decades. Your post doesn’t exactly address that.
Terry: “. . . at your own peril.”
Get a grip, dude.
I did search on Giuliani and the quoted phrase, but either Rudy was saying it in the same context as Bush did, or it was some lefty “interpreting” the line out of context (and then endlessly repeated on the lefty blogs).
So, Terry, you better watch out because if you can’t get your facts straight you might have to come after yourself.
You picked a great quote from Mr. Bush and should read it again and ask how, when Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden, Bush did not consider that nation a hostile regime? While Bush may have not specifically said he considered persons who disagreed with him as sympathetic to terriorists, he sure as hell implied it. Disagreement to him was, in all but direct accusation, greeted as if it were treason. The effects of his poor government and incompetence will be felt for years and the criticism should not cease until the detrimental effects on America are no longer hurting us. Even then, historians will not forget Mr. Bush and his misbegotten minions.
Wait… Terry’s a dude?!?
TERRY: “Facts” backed up from a 9/11 ‘Troofer’ site hardly gives you credibility.
I’ve read the transcript of the State of the Union address you so thoughtfully provided, and there simply is no challenge of “You’re with us or against us” directed by President Bush at the party across the aisle. As StageRight correctly points out, the text of this and every other speech by W makes the assumption that Democrats and Republicans are united in fighting a common foe.
Hate makes you stupid. The difference between Dumb and Stupid is that Dumb really doesn’t know better, but Stupid chooses not to. I’m afraid that your hatred for Bush and conservatives drives you to select only the facts which fit your template, and throw invective at any who challenge your assumptions. Wipe the foam off your lips before you launch your next sally.
Ya know, if we all ignore Terry’s ramblings MAYBE he’ll go away!!!
Ronald –
Beg your pardon, but Packistan never harbored bin Laden. Bin Laden was IN Pakistan, the lawless regions that the government cannot control. But, he was never a guest of the regime like, say, al Zarqawi in Iraq.
Leftist historians will not forget. And, neither will the 28 million people in Iraq who just had the most free elections they’ve had for 35 years.
You just keep complaining about that nasty ole Bush.
Political sides/parties are for sheep.
Yeah, Bobbo, but here’s the thing. We gave Pakistan billions of dollars in aid presumably to keep them from going full Taliban, but Musharraf (sic) didn’t exactly go out of his way to aggressively go into the Pakistani provinces where Bin Laden was rumored to be. In fact, no one in the Bush camp really held his feet to the fire to justify the continuing aid.
titov the feebleminded says:
“So, what about Rich’s main points that the tax rebates in previous years had virtually no effect on consumer saving and that the rate of job growth the last eight years has been the weakest in several decades.”
Main point 1- relevance please? Main point 2- not accurate, or do you have a cite to back it up?
Frank rich, in addition to being a big fat liar, is a complete imbecile. The democrats have a majority in the Senate. Every single Republican senator could vote against this hideous monstrosity of a bill, and if jugears the moron can get his own party in the senate to back it- it passes. It’s hardly the fault of Republicans if the unicorn rider can’t even get his own party to fall in line, now is it?
Bobbo said:
“Beg your pardon, but Pakistan never harbored bin Laden. Bin Laden was IN Pakistan, the lawless regions that the government cannot control.”
Yeah, which is why jugears had that predator drone fire on eight different villages in Pakistan a week or so ago. Even killed a few children, according to witnesses.
Ah, me- barky is a war criminal already. When do we impeach and try him for his war crimes?
“Frank Rich is alarmingly close to the character Ellswoth Toohey”
Good call. You may be giving Rich too much credit though. Toohey was smart and talented (both supplied by Rand, of course).
Stergeye
Let me rephrase your definition of dumb and stupid. Dumb can be corrected; stupid goes all the way to the bone.
Titov –
“We gave Pakistan billions of dollars in aid presumably to keep them from going full Taliban, but Musharraf (sic) didn’t exactly go out of his way to aggressively go into the Pakistani provinces where Bin Laden was rumored to be. In fact, no one in the Bush camp really held his feet to the fire to justify the continuing aid.”
Agreed that we gave him tons of cash. He did do a pretty aggressive push or four, got pretty aggressively pushed back and then proceeded to complain about the U.S. Dunno whether feet were/were not held to the fire.
Suffice to say, Ronald was using this as an example of how Bush was a hypocrite, blah, blah, for not attacking Pakistan, because that country “harbored” bin Laden. My point was simply that the notion the Pakistani government was “harboring” Bin Laden was simply not true. Not doing all in their power to find him . . . true. But, Musharraf was no fan of the Islamists.
Holy cow.. someone here still believes the 9/11 truther crap?
Easy rebuttal
http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
The Lefties have been in “attack Bush” mode for so long, they don’t know what else to do anymore. They gave up on rational argument long ago.
And I’m telling you guys that Terry isn’t a “dude” (as stated above) or a “gal.” He’s a Trollbot (postBot, TerryBot, whatever). He’s an AI construct slapping together wornout leftie phrases, and Big Hollywood is his Turning Test.
Terry — Try saying “Bush” one time out lod. Now, does that sound remotely like “Giulianni”? Can you hear the difference? Do you know that they are two different people? If you can tell the difference, why would you try to put the words of one in the mouth of the other? Surely, you cannot be that stupid — can you? Well, you are a leftard. I guess you can be.
Terry, I thought I was clear. I don’t think you’re a “leftist,” I think you’re a computer. Your programming does throw in some good-old right-wing Jew hating once in a while to mix things up however.
Hmmmm you use attack lines from the left to attack from the right? Wow. Whomever is programming you has my deepest respect.
Open the pod bay doors Terry, open the pod bay doors.
Rich is about as relevant and esteemed as a maggot.
I, for one, welcome our new Terry 2.0 overlords. However I’m waiting for Terry 2.0 SP1 at least before I recommend adoption by my clients.
Obama barada nikto
It takes a strong stomach to read the garbage that Rich writes. I don’t know many who do, hence why the NY Times is soon to be history (we can only hope).
Ronald Roston – “You picked a great quote from Mr. Bush and should read it again and ask how, when Pakistan was harboring Bin Laden, Bush did not consider that nation a hostile regime? While Bush may have not specifically said he considered persons who disagreed with him as sympathetic to terriorists, he sure as hell implied it. Disagreement to him was, in all but direct accusation, greeted as if it were treason. The effects of his poor government and incompetence will be felt for years and the criticism should not cease until the detrimental effects on America are no longer hurting us. Even then, historians will not forget Mr. Bush and his misbegotten minions.”
Ok, a few lessons in foriegn policy and geopolitics are moste definately in order here, your ignorance of the topic of which you speak is astounding. The government of Pakistan isn’t harboring Bin Laden, and never really has through this entire ordeal. It’s true Bin Laden is most likely holed up somewhere in the mountainous regions of Pakistan that border with Afghanistan, but the government of Pakistan has almost no control over that portion of the country whatsoever.
It cracks me up that for all the spouting off that libs do about “understanding other people’s cultures” the truth is most of you don’t understand squat in this regard and have no desire to educate yourselves.
Ok, if Bin Laden were in our country, holed up in say Wisconsin, yes, we would have a fairly easy time of going in there and getting him out. But this isn’t Wisconsin, this is a backward rural area in which almost everyone is heavily armed and fairly hostile towards the central government. There are no police officers there, no government troops, nothing but a lot of ill mannered folks with machine guns and assualt rifles who don’t take kindly to anyone they think of as an outsider coming in and telling them what to do.
Also one must consider that while the government of Pakistan has been cooperating with us as much as they can, the truth of the matter is that the central government is incredibly weak and terribly unstable. A really bad situation considering the fact that Pakistan is a country that has nuclear weapons.
So yes, we have had to be very careful on how this thing is approached because if we overplay our hand it is entirely concievable that Pakistan’s central government could collapse completely. It’s already come close to doing so twice now without any interference from us whatseover, and in fact if it weren’t for our assistance it probably would have crumbled completely by now, leaving a whole lot of hot headed reactionaries in charge and giving them nuclear capabilities. To suggest this as a proper course of action in regards to foriegn policy is in a word, retarded. We’ve dealt with Pakistan the way we have because we have few other choices.
In the future you really might wish to educate yourself about a topic before spouting off about it, it will prevent you from looking so completely foolish. Do yourself a favor, cut back on you kool-aid consumption and get over yourself, Bush isn’t in office anymore. Move on there, dot org.. lol..
And to get this discussion back on topic, I don’t find it at all suprising to find lies being printed in the New York Times. I think it’s far more an unusual occurance to find anything they print in their paper that isn’t either an outright lie or a carefully constructed obfuscation of facts to support their political viewpoint. In fact to call the Times a “newspaper” at this point is ludicrious, it’s merely a propoganda sheet for the Democratic party and has been for years. Small wonder their readership has declined so much.
Ken in Irvine – February 5th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
“The Pakistani government has no real sovereignty there, but we cannot literally invade Pakistan – again, a nuclear power – without their consent.”
Seems like the perfect admission that all countries need to have nukes to ward off an interventionist rogue empire like the US invading them!!!!! The rest of the world is watching while the typical American watches junk on tv.
How does an assertion that the GOP demanded and used the “with us or against us” meme turn into a great Rich blunder because Bush didn’t specifically say it. He wasn’t quoting Bush. He didn’t even credit the assertion to Bush. Criticizing a straw-man is easy. Read the quote:
“(Though that’s exactly what the G.O.P. demanded of Democrats with Bush: You were either with him or with the terrorists.)”
I think it is certainly arguable that the GOP used terrorism and a “with us or for the terrorist” theme for some purely political purposes in several of the 2002 and 2004 elections. Like I say it is arguable but not a totally insane assertion.
Not to quibble but… – February 6th, 2009 at 8:41 am
“How does an assertion that the GOP demanded and used the “with us or against us” meme turn into a great Rich blunder because Bush didn’t specifically say it. He wasn’t quoting Bush. He didn’t even credit the assertion to Bush. Criticizing a straw-man is easy. Read the quote:”
Exactly!!!!!!! And that was pointed out by a poster yesterday repeatedly but it looks as if his posts were deleted. I guess that happens when the author proven incorrect?
“And why is a theater critic allowed to write an editorial on economic policy?”
Good point. Why IS Mark Steyn writing in American political magazines about anything?
Guywho’sanut, have you read the news lately. Your Obama is spreading the fear on pretty thick.
And Europe?
Who cares what Europe thinks, They don’t think much of themselves.
Jay B. – 2 words. Arianna Huffington
You trolls really need to check your work.
[...] Stage Right: Frank Rich wrote something that got me so mad that I couldn’t see straight and now I’m stuck with this post that is fundamentally wrong and now I fucking hate Frank Rich. [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.