I just noticed an interesting parallel today between the actions of al Qaeda, and the moonbats on the left.
The fascists of al Qaeda claim they are following Islam, that they are fighting a Hoy War against the infidel Americans, who defile the Holy Land by their mere presence. That this is a lie is amply demonstrated by the fact that their bombs, knives, and guns kill far more of their own people than they do the infidel.
The moonbats on the left do the same; albeit with less bloodshed. Michael Moore is the Baghdad Bob of the left, seeking to control the 'true believers' with a skillful blend of hate, lies, and innuendo. They invoke fear whenever possible; how often have you heard some left winger say something like, "If we don't get rid of Bush now, America is doomed!" And the people whisper 'doomed' like a greek chorus. The Presidential election has been cast by the left as a life and death struggle with the survival of the Republic hanging in the balance.
al Qaeda uses the bomb, the gun, and the knife (along with the occasional paper shredder) to silence the opposition.
The left uses the lawsuit, or the power of a compliant media to kill any information that threatens them.
This one needs no explanation as it is evident in every word that comes from their mouths, whether it be Osama bin Laden, or Michael Moore. In fact, a case could be made that Osama has more respect for his people than Michael Moore has for Americans.
al Qaeda has Osama bin Laden. The lefties have Osama bin Soros, who has pledged over 20 million dollars of his own money to defeat George Bush in November.
This is some of the most childish rhetoric I've read in a while. I'd be insulted if it wasn't so substanceless.
Is "the leftist moonbats = Al Qaeda" really the best you can offer? If so, this election may be easier than I thought.
Incidentally, since you are so focused on Soros -- I feel inclined to ask: have you ever actually read anything he's written? Do you know anything about his ideology or what he stands for? If so, I'd think you'd feel particularly foolish about comparing him to bin Laden.
Posted by: Chris Wage on August 25, 2004 9:20 PMDid I say that the fringe left was the same as al Qaeda, or did I note that they use similar tactics to achieve their goals? A comparison is not an equation; don't oversimplify my argument in order to avoid the thrust of the comparison.
I'll throw in another, even more apt comparison. Lefty hackers have announced that they are going to do everything in their power to disrupt and/or shutdown the RNC convention. Cyber terrorism has long been a concern for those who have been watching al Qaeda; and we've had warnings to expect attacks on the Internet from al Qaeda cells. DDOS attacks have been linked to some cells already. So far, they've been narrowly targetted, but there is a real possibility that they will launch a major attack at some point.
You may try and dismiss it as childish if you'd like, God knows I wouldn't like having these similarities pointed out if I were a lefty, but the comparison is apt, and as yet, unrefuted. Saying it ain't so doesn't make it not so.
As for Soros, he is actively and openly financing organizations whose sole goal is the removal of the current President of the United States. Based on the tactics of groups he's funded so far, Americans Coming Together, and MoveOn.org, it is clear that 'by any means necessary' is their M.O. His rhetoric has made it clear he considers it a matter of life and death to remove Bush, whom he has indirectly compared to Hitler, from the White House, suggesting that America is doomed, otherwise. These are the words and actions of a fanatic.
The fact that Soros's ideology is far removed from bin Laden's does not invalidate the comparison since it was based on their actions and goals, not their ideals. Fanaticism comes from what you do, not what you believe. Your argument can be easily dismissed by applying it to any two fanatics on opposite ideological sides. For example, is Stalin any more or less reprehensible than Hitler? Both are guilty of causing the deaths of millions, but I doubt seriously that any sane individual would dare to state that they had the same core beliefs.
In short, this comparison too is sound; if you feel insulted, you may want to take a look at the actions of your fellow travelers, as it they who are the cause of your embarrassment. I'm just pointing it out.
Posted by: rich on August 26, 2004 12:51 AMi think this fits better:
"The fascists of the Bush administration claim they are following Christianity, that they are fighting a Crusade against terrorists/dead enders, who defile the Holy Land by their mere presence. That this is a lie is amply demonstrated by the fact that their bombs, knives, and guns kill far more innocent people than they do actual terrorists."
here's another of your fine quotes, tweaked just a little:
"You may try and dismiss it as childish if you'd like, God knows I wouldn't like having these similarities pointed out if I were a right winger, but the comparison is apt, and as yet, unrefuted. Saying it ain't so doesn't make it not so."
No offense but I find making comparisons of two different things rather pointless and almost childish. Might want to stick to the quality writing you had before you started tip-toeing toward the line of writing that isn't worth reading. I know I am going to get an earfull from you about saying that but sometimes you need help from someone else to take a step back and look at where you started and where you are now...
Posted by: Isaac on August 28, 2004 11:44 PMHi Howie. The difference between my version and yours is simple and clear: Mine is supported by the facts, yours by mindless hatred. The US invasion of Iraq has by ALL accounts been remarkable in its concern for minimizing casualties toward non-combatants, even to the point of placing more US lives at risk. In light of the above, you can consider your second version duly refuted.
Now, would you care to try and argue my point, or take a few more pot shots at stuff you make up?
Isaac, I'm not offended, but I am surprised that you find comparisons pointless and childish; knowledge comes not just from aquiring facts, but by relating those facts to previously learned facts. Wisdom, a tired overused word, comes from accurately identifying the relationships between new and old facts, creating a framework that accurately corresponds to reality. Far from being childish, making comparisons is how we learn.
I know you're aware of this, so I have to assume that it is the comparison itself that, like Chris, you find childish. So I'm going to challenge you; enter the debate. Tell me why the comparison is childish, or inaccurate, a less emotionally loaded word.
By the way, did you pick up on how Chris tried to change the debate in order to make my post look foolish? I pointed out similarities in the objectives and methods of al Qaeda and far left moonbats, similarities that continue to mount (2 leftists were arrested in New York yesterday for plotting to blow up a subway station close to the RNC site); but Chris claimed that I said leftists ARE terrorists, an easily countered claim. Note that he doesn't address the meat of the post, that the far left is using tactics associated with al Qaeda. Have you noticed that the entire Kerry campaign follows similar tactics when challenged on the facts? When the Swift Boat vets launched their book and ad campaign, Kerry didn't counter their claims; he attacked their credibility by saying that they were funded by a conservative. Isn't it important that somebody, even a nobody from Tennessee, calls them on it when it happens?
If you find this not worth reading, then don't read it. I'm putting this stuff down because I think it's important. Day in and day out, I listen to the radio, or watch TV, and I'm constantly fed misinformation, faulty analysis, and propaganda. If for no other reason than to keep my own sanity, I correct the worst of the tripe here. Will I change the world, or any minds? Doubtful, but at least I'll have had my say.
Posted by: rich on August 29, 2004 9:55 PMOk fine. In a million words or less I will tell you why these comparisons of your's are a pointless exercise.
"Far from being childish, making comparisons is how we learn."
Let us look at an apple and an orange. At first glance they look very different. What makes us all believe they are different without question? Their outward appearence. An apple is red in color, has a nonuniform shape, and has a stem on the top. The orange is orange in color, very close to being uniform in shape, and doesn't usually come with a stem.
Most people would agree that apples and oranges are very different things. Yet, what do they have in common? Well first of all, they both grow on trees. They are both fruit. Both make great juice. Both have internal seeds. When pieces of each are placed under a spectrometer, the spectra are very similar.
Of course there are more similarities and differences of apples and oranges but I could go on and on about them and not get to the point. Basically, it is a two-way street. Talking about all the similarities to a kindergartener while there is an apple and an orange sitting in front of his face won't make him stop thinking that apples and oranges are different.
Comparing leftwing people to Al Qaeda is exactly the same thing! Comparing Soros to Bin Laden is the same thing! I bet if you worked at it, you could find similarities in every single thing in the universe (100 bucks anyone? :) ). Do left wing radicals blow up buildings like muslim radicals? Yes they do but so do rightwing radicals, independent radicals, christian radicals, cultists, space aliens in movies, and normal people who go temporarily insane. Does it make it right for anyone to do these things? No. Is there a reason to say that the muslim radical is the same as a space alien? Is there a point in comparing a muslim radical to a space alien in a movie? I just don't see what the exercise would get you besides making space aliens and radical muslims angry with you.
Now look at the relevance of your "debate".
"Both seek to control the public through propaganda, lies, and inspiring fear."
This one is easy. Historicly this has been going on as long as governments were in place... You say that the left and Al Qaeda both try to control the public by lies and propoganda. Are you going to tell me that the right doesn't do the exact same thing? The right doesn't lie to their benefit or use a little propoganda, or stretched truth? If you try to tell me they dont, then you are trying the throw out more crap than my ferret. Every single person on this earth has lied and stretched the truth to their benefit. Does this make us all Al Qaeda? I think not.
Inspiring fear? Do you not think that all those terror alerts weren't inspiring fear? It is a very good way to inspire fear in people. The timing of some are the major pushes in terror alerts have also been somewhat suspicious. There wwas a HUGE ammount of noise made about terror alerts in DC right after the DNC. Anyone want to make bets on whether it happens right after the RNC? They may have been playing it totally legit but you can't really take it all as face value and think that politicians are playing fairly.
"Both try to stifle any opposition, using all means at their disposal to stamp out any dissent."
You make it sound like the right doesn't do the same thing.
"The left uses the lawsuit, or the power of a compliant media to kill any information that threatens them."
Come on now. Republicans tried the sue the crap out of Micheal Moore so that his movie would no longer be able to be shown. Does using this tactic make republicans like Al Qaeda also?
"Both believe the common man is inferior; they believe that people are little more than sheep, who must be led to salvation by those who are smarter."
This one made me chucle because there are people like this on all sides. Just look at some bible touting lunatics out there that believe everyone is going to hell and it is their job to lead everyone they can to salvation. This make these die hard conservatives like Al Qaeda too?
"Both rely on a foreign money man to fund their attacks."
George Soros did give a great deal of money to elect Kerry. However, again we must look at all sides. Republicans have been funneling money to the Nader campaign knowing very well that the more Nader votes; the better the chances of Bush getting elected.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0506-11.htm
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:IVtrXVkXaqsJ:campaignmoney.org/factsheets/bushreliesheavily/bushrelies03.pdf+large+donations+to+elect+Bush&hl=en
http://www.greatestjeneration.com/archives/001665.php
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0803-02.htm
Fundraising goes on both sides during the election... An both sides rely heavily on "foreign" money as you call it.
This all has shown what I was saying about it being pointless in the comparisons. However, you do a fine job leaving one side totally out of it while you are dogging the other... Both deserve to be dogged because both do dirty politics.
Now I had to cut this reply short because I have 8 am classes in the morning so I appologize for being brief and not hitting a million words.
Posted by: Isaac on August 29, 2004 11:32 PMRe apples and oranges:
Yep, and a biologist will tell you that, going by DNA, apples and oranges share far more similarities than they do differences. As I said, wisdom comes from defining appropriate comparisons between divers facts.
So, the question becomes, "Is my comparison accurate, and if so, does it yield usable information? You have chosen not to argue the accuracy of the comparison (instead of defining how the radical left is NOT like al Qaeda, you used the argument (without proof, mind you) that there are also radical righties who use similar tactics), instead arguing that the comparison yields no useful information.
Here's the difference. Yes, there have been right wing extremists (Timothy McVeigh the most obvious) willing to use these tactics (violence, terror, lies, distortion, etc), they've never been a part of the mainstream conservative movement. George Soros is now in the democratic mainstream. Michael Moore is now the democratic mainstream. Gary Kamiya (Salon editor who admitted hoping for large American casualties in Iraq in order to make sure Bush lost the election) is now the democratic mainstream. We're no longer talking about the fringe left; we're talking about a man who was given a seat next to President Carter at the DNC.
Re fear mongering: Have you seen a single credible piece of evidence indicating that any increase in the terror level has been politically motivated? Also, could you describe exactly how an increase in the threat is a positive for the president who has promised to reduce the threat? Isn't an increased threat level evidence of the failure of that promise? This is a beautiful example of the paranoia rampant on the left, where every action is part of a conspiracy, and nothing is ever what it appears to be. Look at yourself; you're willing to accept the idea that terror alerts are being used to manipulate public opinion without one shred of evidence. It's simply ridiculous.
Re the stifling of dissent: Name a college profesor denied tenure for holding liberal views. Name a student flunked or suspended for liberal activities. Then check out FIRE. Try to find a liberal equivalent. Show me President Bush threatening to Sue Michael Moore, as Kerry has done with the Swift Boat Vets. Check out the difference in a conservative protest and a liberal one. Fins stories where conservative protestors have heckled a liberal off the stage, making it impossible for him to give his speech. Show me a single liberal in jail for making even the most outrageous claims against the President. As long as Michael Moore walks around a free and very wealthy man, I will not buy into the notion that the right is crushing dissent.
Re inferiority of the common man: This goes to the heart of the difference between conservatism and liberalism. In a nutshell, a true conservative (note I do not say republican, because they are no longer conservative) believes that people are better off when they are allowed to fend for themselves, that each person is best qualified to make their own decisions. Liberals believe that government can make better decisions for us than we can; that it is the governments job to take care of us. Granted, there are degrees on each side, but in general, the above characterization holds true. The conservative philosophy is egalitarian at its core; liberalism is authoritarian. And yes, there are examples on both sides of the political spectrum where individuals do not act in accordance with the principles they espouse; what is more important is that the majority do follow their principles. Don't listen to Bush or Kerry;their speeches are carefully written to be as innocuous as possible. Listen instead to their supporters and see for yourself which side shows the greater contempt for the common man.
Re fundraising: Your first link shows Soros funding a group attacking the President on the environment. This supports my position, not yours. Your second link not only doesn't support your own argument, it doesn't support it's own. The report claims that the Bush campaign is lying when it claims that the fundraising data indicates they enjoy strong grassroots level support. I scanned through 1000 campaign contributers here and found only 57 contributers out of that thousand who reachde the $2000 limit. In other words, .6% of Bush's donors give the limit of $2000. The rest, some 99% give less. Your third link does support your position (finally!:)), however there is still a question of magnitude. The Arabs in this report are donating directly to the Bush campaign, not out funding other organizations to the tune of $15 million dollars and counting. Your fourth link is nothing but a hatchet piece disguised as news. But that's OK. One link supports me, two are totally off point, and the remaining one tenuously supports you, except that Soros doesn't contribute to Kerry directly.
Both deserve to be dogged because both do dirty politics.
Do you truly see no difference between the way the Kerry campaign has been run, and the Bush campaign? Let me give you an example. Look how Bush reacted to charges that he was AWOL during his National Guard service, then compare that to how Kerry has reacted to charges about his conduct in Viet Nam.
Posted by: Rich on August 30, 2004 1:02 AMhey rich,
just wanted to spout some more 'mindless hatred', in response to some things you wrote above:
___________
"Re fear mongering: Have you seen a single credible piece of evidence indicating that any increase in the terror level has been politically motivated?"
yes: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/terror030213_falsealarm.html
"False Alarm? Terror Alert Partly Based on Fabricated Information"
key quotes:
" "This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true," said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief and ABCNEWS consultant."
"Despite the fabricated report, there are no plans to change the threat level. Officials said other intelligence has been validated and that the high level of precautions is fully warranted."
__________
"Also, could you describe exactly how an increase in the threat is a positive for the president who has promised to reduce the threat?"
people tend to rally around the president when the country is deemed to be threatened. have you seen the graph correlating terror alerts with bush's popularity? http://img70.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img70&image=aproval_vs_alert_chart_NEW.gif
__________
"Isn't an increased threat level evidence of the failure of that promise?"
we can agree on that one.
Posted by: howie on September 1, 2004 8:51 PMRe your link: the fabrication was on the part of an al Qaeda member, not the administration. Are you trying to suggest that al Qaeda WANTS Bush to win, and is therefore co-operating with the RNC in timing these lies? Time to adjust the tin foil hat partner; it's not working any more.
Re approval vs alert: Your link failed. Try again. However, here's an article from the San Francisco Chronicle that says, like I do, that an elevated threat level is a negative for Bush. And going here for alert dates and here for approval ratings, I find absolutely no correlation.
But thanks for playing.
Posted by: rich on September 1, 2004 9:43 PM“Are you trying to suggest that al Qaeda WANTS Bush to win, and is therefore co-operating with the RNC in timing these lies?”
I think both sides help each other—the Bush Administration exaggerates the information it gets from every source, and our ongoing ground war helps Al Qaeda’s recruitment. Both sides need each other to fuel their ideologies. As W said recently, this war is not ‘winnable’. He promised us soon after 9-11 that we would have a long, possibly never-ending war. And look-I don’t think the one guy at the bottom of the rung telling us fabricated stories is involved in some mass conspiracy. He certainly hates the US, and wants to scare us. But the point of the ABC article, or what I took from it, is that even after the terror threat was deemed a hoax, the warning was not dropped. This will probably result in me believing the former CIA counter-terrorism chief, and you believing the officials who cite other, unnamed threats. Fine. What seems more important to me is the DHS’s rush to declare emergency, when a polygraph would have proved the source unreliable. The timing of the alert seems, to me, suspect: Powell had given his (false) presentation to the UN a week prior, the drumbeat to war was picking up, as was anti-war sentiment. What better way to scare people into thinking this (inevitable) war is necessary, than by raising the terror level?
The SF Chronicle article you cite is different than what we were talking about. It discusses the general threat of terror and folks disinterest in Bush (and only in CA, a typically Democratic state); the point that I am trying to make, and which you questioned above, is about specific terror threats, especially orange alerts, and how they are used politically. Your WaPo link is interesting, but only based on one source-the WaPo. The chart I tried linking to earlier, and didn’t work, is here: scroll down to ‘Chart: Bush Ratings vs. Terror Alerts’: http://juliusblog.blogspot.com. It has a scatter chart of different approval ratings referenced with the orange alerts. Personally, I think it is imperfect, as it disregards other events, as the WaPo chart shows. Actually, I forgot that the level was raised directly before the attack on Iraq, which likely means something different to you than it does to me. And yes, the reaction of the populace is a day or two past the announcement of the raised level.
Also, look forward to September 9th, the declaration of National Security Month: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0481.xml
Nice of the AdCouncil to provide all that free publicity. And all those great tie-in events: http://www.americaprepared.org/pdf/NPM_calendar.pdf. Parade Magazine? Starbucks? NASCAR? But don’t worry, I’m just being cynical. Of COURSE I think it’s important that we all know what to do in case of an emergency attack, but I find the timing (3 years exactly after 9-11, right after the RNC and right before the Nov. election… why didn’t we have this in, say, 2002?) suspect. And, yes, politically motivated.
"As W said recently, this war is not ‘winnable’."
Really? He said that? You have a quote to back this up? Or are you taking his comment to Matt Lauer out of context, like the rest of the lefty lemmings?
Read the entire quote, in context, and then try to tell me how he says the war is unwinnable.
As for National Security Month, what better month than the one where we saw our security breached? It's not a conspiracy or a coincidence, just sound planning.
And as for your chart, it's even worse than I thought. Out of the six orange alerts plotted, only one precedes a jump in Bush popularity. In 5 of the 6 alerts, Bush's popularity was on the way up when the alert was announced. How can you possibly claim that Bush raises the terror alert to boost failing ratings when his ratings were already on the way up in 5/6 cases?
Your cynicism is blinding you to reality.
Posted by: rich on September 2, 2004 4:59 PM"I don't think you can win it," Bush said. "But I think you can create the conditions that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
that's the full quote. to break it down for you, it means war without end, since if you can't win, you quit or keep fighting (obviously, we won't quit). and to squash an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, it means a stronger military presence in areas that people don't want us to be. and how do people respond when they don't want the military there? through terrorist action. since we've started a war that creates even more enemies than it eliminates, we're going to be in this for a long, long time. which jibes with my reading of it above. but i forgot, he said the next day "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win." oops, never mind!
"In 5 of the 6 alerts, Bush's popularity was on the way up when the alert was announced."
a good point. although i still maintain that much of the timing of the alerts or arrests has been politically motivated. and i still ask: why did we wait 3 years for 'national security month', and not have something sooner? the information they'll be handing out won't be anything new, i assure you. just like the convention, everybody's putting on their best smiles right before the elections.
"Your cynicism is blinding you to reality."
as is your misplaced trust.
First a quote from history:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
In essence, this is the point President Bush was making, as I'm sure you'll agree. However, I think you sell short the many routes to "create the conditions that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
Miltary intervention is only one tool, and it is the tool of last resort. As Bush said in the same Matt Lauer interview, when asked why we weren't invading Iran, he considers military force a last resort, and will exhaust all diplomatic means first. Additionally, if military intervention becomes necessary, maintaining a military presence only one part of the solution. If all we do is station troops where they aren't wanted, then you'd be right, and we would make more terrorists than we remove. But that isn't all we are doing. Iraq is a great experiment in remaking the world. Can a liberal democracy flourish in the Middle East? Can we begin a transformation in the Middle East that ends tyranny, and outrageous human rights violations? Can we help the Iraqis create an island of prosperity and freedom, one that will stand as an example to other Middle Eastern countries? If we can, then we reduce the number of countries where terrorism can flourish. If we can remove the causes of terrorism, oppression, repression, and poverty, then we can end the threat it poses.
It's not so different from the liberal plan, actually. The biggest difference is that Republicans realize that even as you work to prevent the conditions which spawn terrorism, you still must fight the actual terrorists.
As for my trust, I trust facts. I asked you to show me data supporting your belief that the terror levels are politically motivated; you give me a chart that clearly demonstrates that they aren't. Yet in spite of the evidence you yourself provided, you still believe they are. That's why I said you are blinded by cynicism.
Posted by: Rich on September 2, 2004 11:53 PMAs Bush said in the same Matt Lauer interview, when asked why we weren't invading Iran, he considers military force a last resort, and will exhaust all diplomatic means first.
PLEASE! The Bushies were so ancy to go into Iraq, they could barely contain themselves. Ever hear of a guy named Scott Ritter? Probably not. He’s the former UN head weapons inspector who disagreed with the WMD claims. He’s a card carrying Republican, voted for Bush, and can tell you why 98% of Iraq’s weapons were destroyed, and why the other 2% are most likely destroyed as well. However, despite his attempts at making this known before the invasion, he was soundly ignored. By politicians, by the ‘liberal’ media, by any agent of consequence. True diplomacy means objectively looking at the facts.
“Can a liberal democracy flourish in the Middle East?”
Gimme a break. The current set up is not going to foster that. A proxy government, who still takes it’s orders from the occupying force? Real democratic. Democratic change comes from within. But our government has a way of disrupting real democracies—see Iran in the 50’s, earlier this year Haiti, or the 2000 election, to name a few.
“Iraq is a great experiment in remaking the world.”
Been reading those Project for a New American Century pamphlets again? If it’s an experiment, than it’s like that baking soda and vinegar volcano.
“Can we begin a transformation in the Middle East that ends tyranny, and outrageous human rights violations?”
Let’s start with our bestest friend Israel. Or our military prisons. Oh wait, that’s not torture, that’s abuse.
“If we can remove the causes of terrorism, oppression, repression, and poverty, then we can end the threat it poses.”
I would change that by adding a colon: after ’terrorism’. Those are some of the exact causes of terrorism,
“It's not so different from the liberal plan, actually.”
You’re equating liberal and Democract.
“The biggest difference is that Republicans realize that even as you work to prevent the conditions which spawn terrorism, you still must fight the actual terrorists.”
Who doesn’t think terrorists need to be fought? It’s the manner of fighting that differs. Getting out the soldiers to fight people that are by their very methods hidden, is futile. We need to infiltrate these groups from the inside. You didn’t mention it, but that whole ‘fighting them there so they don’t attack us here’ line that gets thrown about is absurd.
“As for my trust, I trust facts.”
You talk a lot about facts—do you know how heavily this administration distorts and lies? I’m assuming not, otherwise you wouldn’t be defending them. That’s why I say you’re blinded by your misplaced trust.
“I asked you to show me data supporting your belief that the terror levels are politically motivated; you give me a chart that clearly demonstrates that they aren't.”
The chart doesn’t demonstrate that they are or aren’t. There’s no data that can say conclusively that the raised levels were politically motivated—that information, if it exists, is top secret. All I can do to support my argument is show the correlation between the alerts and what was occurring at the time, as well as anything we’ve found out in hindsight.
“Yet in spite of the evidence you yourself provided, you still believe they are. That's why I said you are blinded by cynicism.”
Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth. -Lillian Hellman.
sorry, the spacing on the previous posting is hard to read. here's a better version:
"As Bush said in the same Matt Lauer interview, when asked why we weren't invading Iran, he considers military force a last resort, and will exhaust all diplomatic means first."
PLEASE! The Bushies were so ancy to go into Iraq, they could barely contain themselves. Ever hear of a guy named Scott Ritter? Probably not. He’s the former UN head weapons inspector who disagreed with the WMD claims. He’s a card carrying Republican, voted for Bush, and can tell you why 98% of Iraq’s weapons were destroyed, and why the other 2% are most likely destroyed as well. However, despite his attempts at making this known before the invasion, he was soundly ignored. By politicians, by the ‘liberal’ media, by any agent of consequence. True diplomacy means objectively looking at the facts.
“Can a liberal democracy flourish in the Middle East?”
Gimme a break. The current set up is not going to foster that. A proxy government, who still takes it’s orders from the occupying force? Real democratic. Democratic change comes from within. But our government has a way of disrupting real democracies—see Iran in the 50’s, earlier this year Haiti, or the 2000 election, to name a few.
“Iraq is a great experiment in remaking the world.”
Been reading those Project for a New American Century pamphlets again? If it’s an experiment, than it’s like that baking soda and vinegar volcano.
“Can we begin a transformation in the Middle East that ends tyranny, and outrageous human rights violations?”
Let’s start with our bestest friend Israel. Or our military prisons. Oh wait, that’s not torture, that’s abuse.
“If we can remove the causes of terrorism, oppression, repression, and poverty, then we can end the threat it poses.”
I would change that by adding a colon: after ’terrorism’. Those are some of the exact causes of terrorism,
“It's not so different from the liberal plan, actually.”
You’re equating liberal and Democract.
“The biggest difference is that Republicans realize that even as you work to prevent the conditions which spawn terrorism, you still must fight the actual terrorists.”
Who doesn’t think terrorists need to be fought? It’s the manner of fighting that differs. Getting out the soldiers to fight people that are by their very methods hidden, is futile. We need to infiltrate these groups from the inside. You didn’t mention it, but that whole ‘fighting them there so they don’t attack us here’ line that gets thrown about is absurd.
“As for my trust, I trust facts.”
You talk a lot about facts—do you know how heavily this administration distorts and lies? I’m assuming not, otherwise you wouldn’t be defending them. That’s why I say you’re blinded by your misplaced trust.
“I asked you to show me data supporting your belief that the terror levels are politically motivated; you give me a chart that clearly demonstrates that they aren't.”
The chart doesn’t demonstrate that they are or aren’t. There’s no data that can say conclusively that the raised levels were politically motivated—that information, if it exists, is top secret. All I can do to support my argument is show the correlation between the alerts and what was occurring at the time, as well as anything we’ve found out in hindsight.
“Yet in spite of the evidence you yourself provided, you still believe they are. That's why I said you are blinded by cynicism.”
Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth. -Lillian Hellman.
Scott Ritter. He's the guy who rabidly believed that Iraq had hidden stockpiles of WMD, so much so that he was kicked out of the country while head of the inspection team. Then, something happened, and he did a complete 180, becoming equally rabidly certain that there were no WMD. Journalists in Iraq could not fathom the change in his attitude, and he never explained it.
Until the arrest records became public.
Until Ritter explains why his point of view shifted so radically, his statements are suspect.
And the fact that I do know of him, and followed the story of his conversion fairly closely, proves that his story was not ignored by the media. It simply wasn't judged as credible.
"A proxy government, who still takes it’s orders from the occupying force? Real democratic. Democratic change comes from within. But our government has a way of disrupting real democracies—see Iran in the 50’s, earlier this year Haiti, or the 2000 election, to name a few."
Yep, there's no way that plan could work. That's why Germany and Japan are still total dictatorships.
Oh, wait...never mind.
"Let’s start with our bestest friend Israel. Or our military prisons. Oh wait, that’s not torture, that’s abuse."
Certainly! Let's ignore the folks being mass murdered, fed into paper shredders, gassed, tortured, and raped as a matter of government policy because we have a few thugs going off on their own, and taking dirty pictures of prisoners. The difference is clear; the men who carried out the torture under Hussein we're following orders and were rewarded. The men who abused the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are going to jail.
Your moral equivalency is repugnant. It's like ignoring a rapidly spreading cancer to treat a hangnail.
Your anti-Semitism is equally repugnant. When Israel starts blowing up busses filled with school children, then we'll talk.
"You’re equating liberal and Democract."
Well, duh! Democrats are liberal, although to be fair, not all liberals are democrats. Some are anarchists, communists, socialists, etc.
"We need to infiltrate these groups from the inside.
Interesting you should mention that, given John Kerry's proclivity to slash intelligence spending, not to mention Carter's hamstringing of our Human Intelligence capabilities.
"You talk a lot about facts—do you know how heavily this administration distorts and lies?"
The only facts presented so far in this discussion have all supported my point of view. Even your own chart supports me. Find some facts that support your side. Show me a lie by the administration. Hell, I'll settle for an inadvertant distortion at this point. Every claim made by President Bush in his State of the Union speech has been borne out by the facts.
"The chart doesn’t demonstrate that they are or aren’t."
Wrong again sir. The chart clearly demonstrates that the trend in approval ratings had already reversed prior to the alerts being upgraded. Since time only moves in one direction, the only correlation that can be drawn is that every time President Bush's approval ratings started to climb, the terror threat was increased to orange. Are you accusing the Democrats of having a mole in the homeland security department, or is there a cozier relationship betwen the DNC and al Qaeda than we've previously suspected?
Posted by: Rich on September 4, 2004 12:09 PMYeah, too bad one thing confirms Ritter’s stance: the fact that no WMD have been found; that whatever remnants have shown up support his assertions. For all intents and purposes, the administrations own appointee, David Kay, has supports this view as well. As far as Ritter’s arrest record, all that can be said is that the case has been dropped, so until there is an indictment, not much can be made of it. Innocent til proven guilty, and all that.
“"A proxy government, who still takes it’s orders from the occupying force? Real democratic. Democratic change comes from within. But our government has a way of disrupting real democracies—see Iran in the 50’s, earlier this year Haiti, or the 2000 election, to name a few."
Yep, there's no way that plan could work. That's why Germany and Japan are still total dictatorships.
Oh, wait...never mind”
This is not WWII, hate to break it to you. Germany and Japan both retained a large part of their existing government structures, while Iraq’s is being built from the ground up. And in what countries have we actually “brought” democracy since 1948? As I said before, we’ve hindered democracy more often than we’ve fostered it.
“Certainly! Let's ignore the folks being mass murdered, fed into paper shredders, gassed, tortured, and raped as a matter of government policy because we have a few thugs going off on their own, and taking dirty pictures of prisoners. The difference is clear; the men who carried out the torture under Hussein we're following orders and were rewarded. The men who abused the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are going to jail.”
Then neither should we ignore Colombia, Angola, and Uzbekistan, all guilty of official torture—in which the government sponsored torturers are, no doubt, rewarded. But they’re part of the Coalition of the Willing, so perhaps it’s different. And the abuses at Abu Ghraib and in Afghanistan are much more severe than what we saw in the photos, for example:
“A Sunday Herald investigation has discovered that coalition forces are holding more than 100 children in jails such as Abu Ghraib. Witnesses claim that the detainees – some as young as 10 – are also being subjected to rape and torture”
http://www.sundayherald.com/43796
It’s just one example of many.
There are two main points regarding this treatment. One, is why this is occurring. The answer lies with leaders who have expressed blatant disregard for the Geneva Convention, and have passed down orders to ‘take the gloves off’. And two, why this treatment matters. Because the international laws regarding POW’s protects captured Americans as well, and our disregard of such endangers anyone who may be end up in this compromising situation.
"Let’s start with our bestest friend Israel”
which, I should have added, has broken scores of UN charters, far more than Iraq.
“Your anti-Semitism is equally repugnant. When Israel starts blowing up busses filled with school children, then we'll talk.”
Decry “moral equivalency” if you like, but it’s just as easy for me to cite Israeli strikes, which do indeed kill children.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1007051,00.html
And I’m not anti-Semetic, I’m anti Zionist. Big difference. Confusing the matter is very common, however. You wouldn’t know it from the US media, but there is actually a large amount of the Israeli population which does not support Israeli development in the West Bank, and supports a workable peace with Palestine. As with many situations, there are minority extremists on both sides who fight each other, with everyone else stuck in the middle. I am against extrimism on both sides.
“Well, duh! Democrats are liberal, although to be fair, not all liberals are democrats”
Not really. Democrats have moved away from the left in recent years. As you said, not all liberals are democrats. If you had a line, with left on one side, right on the other, more democrats would be towards the center, while more republicans would be to the right of center. Progressive politics, being ‘left’, are hard pressed to be found. Clinton, for example, was one of the most economically conservative of politicians, as NAFTA and HMO’s show. I found this site, which is not perfect of course, but interesting nonetheless: politicalcompass.org. Their test takes a few minutes, but it’s worth it. Also, click on ‘US Election 2004’. The only ‘left’ politicians are Kucinich and Sharpton, all the others are on the ‘authoritarian right’. I’d be curious to know what you think.
“"We need to infiltrate these groups from the inside.
Interesting you should mention that, given John Kerry's proclivity to slash intelligence spending, not to mention Carter's hamstringing of our Human Intelligence capabilities.”
As you may have figured out by now, I am not John Kerry. Even under an alias. Although he might say differently. I think you’re referring to the meme about Kerry’s lack of commitment to intelligence and weapon spending. According to FactCheck.org, in reference to a distorted attack ad,
“The statement that Kerry voted against a long list of mainstream weapons is misleading. He didn't vote against those weapons specifically, and though he did vote against the entire Pentagon budget on occasion he voted for weapons spending far more often than not. Furthermore, Republicans including Bush's father and Vice President Cheney also proposed cuts or elimination in several of the same weapons at around the same time Kerry supposedly "voted against" them.”
“Show me a lie by the administration.”
Oh, where to start. All the buildup to war b.s. aside, a few well documented ones are here: http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm
One that perhaps seems inconsequential, but was long believed, and even made it’s way into that HBO movie, is that Airforce 1 was being targeted on 9-11. The White House later admitted to this.
“The chart clearly demonstrates that the trend in approval ratings had already reversed prior to the alerts being upgraded. Since time only moves in one direction, the only correlation that can be drawn is that every time President Bush's approval ratings started to climb, the terror threat was increased to orange”
I can also show you the charts relating economic growth to how often Bush gets his hair cut. What’s wrong with the chart, as I’ve mentioned before (only, of course, after I posted it to begin with) is that the popularity curve itself should not be the issue, so much as what was occurring at the time. And again, the fact is, we can never conclusively know whether terror alerts are being used for political gain.
“or is there a cozier relationship betwen the DNC and al Qaeda than we've previously suspected?”
Just a reminder, Al Qaeda wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the administrations of the 80s.
