How Wrong Can One Site Be?

Democrats.com has this drivel (I know it's fish in the barrel easy but it's Sunday and I'm tired):

In the 1970s, the "neocon" movement defined itself by its relentless opposition to the Soviet Gulags. While Soviet leaders tried keep their oppressive prison camps secret, neocons championed the exposes of former prisoners like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Not any more.

That's not a complete definition of a neocon. Yes, they did (and still do) champion the cause of freedom through democracy and the elimination of gulags. What our little essayist fails to point out is that the left in the US fought to allow the oppressive Soviet regime to continue to operate these gulags. They were against anything that would expose the communist experiment for what it truly was. They act the same way with Cuba today.

Now neocons are running their own Gulags, scattered across the planet from Guantanamo, Cuba to Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. And in the middle of the American Gulag are former Soviet Gulags!

The EU this week dispelled any proof that such prisons existed. But because Dana Priest wrote it and Mary McCarthy leaked it, it must be true. Hell, Priest won a Pulitzer and they are non-partisan, right? Nice link by the way. The far left links that use "gulag" and "Guantanamo" such as Common Dreams and some site known as "Peace Moon Beam" sure as hell don't help to further the evidence.

Mary McCarthy had the moral courage to expose the secret American Gulags. Are today's neocons applauding her heroism, as they did Solzhenitsyn's? No, they are viciously accusing her of Treason.

Please don't embarrass yourself by comparing a partisan hack such as McCarthy to Solzhenitsyn. She leaked a probably false story because she was pissed the Bush administration didn't keep promoting her as the Clinton cabal did.

By the way, she did commit treason as defined in several documents. Her actions had a detrimental effect on the US and may have caused horrendous damage to intel efforts. But it was for a good cause. Give me a break.

Contemporary conservatism is beyond bankrupt. Rather, it has become what it once despised: totalitarianism.

Blah, blah, blah. Contemporary conservatism freed millions who were living in abject fear of murder and rape on a daily basis. We destroyed a regime that stoned suspected adulterers and pushed walls on to homosexuals.

Perhaps the left would've preferred the Taliban and Saddam were still terrorizing their populations. I for one do not. The lefts unwavering support of Castro, Hamas, Chavez, Kim Jung Il and other vile regimes would qualify as "beyond bankrupt."