Daily Ramblings:
Mail Bag! ...06/28/2005 10:11:22 pm
Received this message from someone signing himself as Ted Walish.
Subject: Just as bad
You're just as bad as Rove these days. Every Democrat
I know, every liberal I know, wanted to get Bin Laden.
I supported the Afghanistan conflict and was dismayed
when I saw focus being shifted to Iraq. I still
remember those days, and the sinking feeling in my
stomach. I knew were headed to utter disaster.
Why aren't you in Iraq? Are your kids in Iraq? You
support the Iraq war, you go fight it. You wingers
always bitch about taxes, well you're flushing a lot
down a rathole that was losing battle from the start.
As far as I'm concerned you wingers should fight this
war, and you should pay for it.
Cowards, the lot of you. Cowards and disgusting
fascists who re-write history to suit your own ends.
You're hero Ronnie sold Saddam a lot his weapons when
he was filling up those 'mass graves' you wingers cry
crocodile tears over. Hypocrites. You people disgust
me.
I guess he was responding to this post. Every so often this kind of tirade should be answered. Let me attempt to find responses to his crushing criticisms.
First, "You're just as bad as Rove these days." To that, I can only respond, "I do hope so."
Second, "Every Democrat I know, every liberal I know, wanted to get Bin Laden. I supported the Afghanistan conflict ..." Well, congrats on your patriotism - actually supporting action against the regime that sponsored the mass murderers of thousands of Americans. However, apparently the only other liberals you know are the mild-mannered, apple-pie variety, like, um, Joe Lieberman. Which is rather surprising considering your own penchant for throwing out words like "fascist," against people with whom you disagree. Well, I guess you just don't get out much, so let me give you a refresher on some of what liberals have said on this subject:
Noam Chomsky, in November of 2001 (while in India), described the U.S. action against the Taliban as "a bigger terrorist act than what happened on September 11th."
"Like a mafia leader the US chose Afghanistan and struck at that country because it could not strike back," he said.
"It was America's military establishment that controlled the power centre," he contended at a discussion on Where is the World Heading on Saturday evening.
...
Continuing his criticism, Chomsky said, "The five countries who support America's action are all terrorist states themselves."
He has modified his arguments somewhat since then, of-course, but the U.S. safely remains the root of all evil in the world, according to his analyses.
And Dennis Kucinich (D-OH, and candidate for the Presidential nomination in 2004) told the Washington Post in November 2003 "that U.S. military action against Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was not justified and has proved to be a 'disaster' and a 'nightmare.'"
Cleverer than Chomsky, it took him only two hours to call back and say that his "misspoke," that the war against Afghanistan was justified as a "philosophical question," but it's just that the tactics were all wrong.
"We needed to take advantage of the moment and go to the world community and say, 'Work with us collectively to track down these terrorists.' Now, if a state resists, then that's up to the community of nations. . . . When a nation or a government refuses, and the people who are directly responsible for an attack on this nation, then we have an obligation to go through the United Nations to work at providing an effective response," he said.
"The government of Afghanistan itself didn't attack us. That's the thinking. That is a major point here in terms of the community of nations."
Colonel Kucinich, there, explaining his no-holds-barred philosophy of war.
Michael Moore, who rallied liberals across the country with his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," and who sat beside President Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention, wrote this in the days following September 11th:
"Declare war?" War against whom? One guy in the desert whom we can never seem to find? Are our leaders telling us that the most powerful country on earth cannot dispose of one sick evil f---wad of a guy? Because if that is what you are telling us, then we are truly screwed. If you are unable to take out this lone ZZ Top wannabe, what on earth would you do for us if we were attacked by a nation of millions? For chrissakes, call the Israelis and have them do that thing they do when they want to get their man! We pay them enough billions each year, I am SURE they would be happy to accommodate your request.
But I beg you, Mr. Bush, stay with the tears. Go today to comfort the wounded of New York. Tell the mayor, a guy most of us have not liked, that he is doing an incredible job, keeping the spirits of everyone up as high as they can be at this moment. Being there for a city I believe he loves, his own cancer still with him, he goes beyond the call of duty.
But do not declare war and massacre more innocents.
...
Keep crying, Mr. Bush. Keep running to Omaha or wherever it is you go while others die, just as you ran during Vietnam while claiming to be "on duty" in the Air National Guard. Nine boys from my high school died in that miserable war. And now you are asking for "unity" so you can start another one? Do not insult me or my country like this!
And of-course he conveniently changed his opinion when it suited him (for his multi-million dollar film) to say that the war in Iraq was "a distraction" from the all-important military action against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Finally, the Democratic nominee for President, Senator John F. Kerry, in a January, 2004 debate, said this about the war on terror:
But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.
Indictments and therapy - that's what Karl Rove said that liberals offered. "Law enforcement" and "engagement ... socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced." That's what Kerry said. You tell me where the air is between those concepts.
Today, John Kerry said this, in an Op-Ed in the New York Times: "The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq." In who's interest is it, exactly, that the United States should preemptively and unilaterally give up the ability to have a base in a friendly Iraq (from which to deter threats in such potential hot spots as Iran, Yemen and Saudi Arabia)?
That's right, kids: it's in the interest of our Islamic jihadist enemies.
So, while the professional Democratic politicians are more careful about their public statements, it's clear that you can draw a straight philosophical line from Chomsky through Moore and Kucinich and Kerry, and right up to Senator Durbin and his anguish over the treatment of murderous jihadist detainees by American Nazis. The theme is that we should do as little as possible against our enemies - and first and foremost, we should condemn ourselves and our own country. There are endless other examples, but Googling them is so time consuming.
Does anyone think that the war in Afghanistan would have been pursued with the same kind of resolve by people with thought patterns such as these?
I applaud my email friend Ted, for saying that he supported (supports?) that war. Please, Ted, speak to your fellow liberals and convert them if you can.
Third: "Why aren't you in Iraq? Are your kids in Iraq? You support the Iraq war, you go fight it."
This is of-course the argument that you're not allowed to advocate for military action unless you are actually in the military, or have children in the military. It is an infantile argument, but one which rears its head over and over again - no matter how times it is refuted. Well, one more time. If you must be in the military (or have children in the military) in order to have an opinion on the use of military force, then it follows that the same criteria should apply to the right to vote in Federal elections. After all, it is Congress, along with the President, who decide issues of war and peace. So, our friend Ted would take the right to vote in Federal elections away from anyone who doesn't meet those criteria. Be careful what you wish for, Ted: if only the military and military families voted in Federal elections, there would be nary a Democrat in office in Washington, DC in this year of our Lord, 2005.
Ted also makes a reference to taxes - as in, "we're wasting so much tax money by fighting this war, and isn't that such a terrible thing." Well, the preamble to the Constitution of the United States Of America states that the purpose of the whole shebang is, among very few other things, "to provide for the common defense." I'll earmark my taxes for an F-16 long before I'll earmark them for any of the other innumerable items that Ted Kennedy would spend them on - thank you very much. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to earmark our taxes for specific purposes. That's what elections are for. Oh, by the way: we won the last one. Big time.
Finally, "You're (sic) hero Ronnie sold Saddam a lot of his weapons when he was filling up those ' mass graves' you wingers cry crocodile tears over. "
I guess that putting "mass graves" in inverted commas implies that Ted doesn't believe they actually exist - yet he's willing to use them in his argument anyway. Fair enough - a usual tactic of liberals is to argue on facts that they don't even themselves accept. Well, firstly, Saddam's genocidal tendencies generally became clear in the years after the United States gave him some support in his war versus the mullahs of Iran. It was in 1988 that Saddam used poison gas against Kurds; it was in 1991 that he that he killed tens of thousands of Shiites who rose against him in the south (after the United States had deferred to the wishes of the international community by simply ejecting his army from Kuwait, rather than advancing to Baghdad and eliminating his regime).
As for the limited support that the Reagan administration gave to Iraq in the war versus Iran, it has no meaning without context. Iran had in power a militant Islamist regime which had just seized and held 52 American hostages for 444 days. The implications of such a regime taking over Iraq - with its vast oil reserves and strategic importance - were terrifying. Iran certainly seemed to harbor the greater long-term threat to American security, and indeed it is arguable that the entire modern Islamist threat originated there and persists to this day. In addition, there was a Cold War going on with the Soviet Union (for those too young to remember, this meant that we were all minutes away from being incinerated by thermonuclear weapons, every day). So, having influence on major players in the Middle East, for better or for worse, was crucial. All the choices were bad, in other words, but choices had to be made.
For those who are uncomfortable with these kinds of moral compromises, it should be remembered that it is the current administration of George W. Bush which has been the first to concede America's past mistakes and now says this:
For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.
And it is people like you, Ted, who oppose this (finally) morally straightforward policy, in favor of some kind of "hands-off, let them kill eachother and us as much as they want" point-of-view.
So, every point is answered, Ted. Nevertheless, I don't expect you to be converted. You will probably just come back at me with an email with 20 more points. That is the style of argument of what passes for the American Left these days. Simply overwhelm your adversary with the sheer volume of illogical assertions that you can spew out. If one point is refuted, just ignore it, and move on to the next one. Tomorrow, you can use the one that was refuted against someone else. These things are endlessly recyclable. Never let the fact that one of your "facts" was wrong cause you to rethink the source of all of your thinking. Never concede the moral high ground in your own mind. Always remember that you are better than everyone else - everyone else is just somehow too stupid to realize how smart and good you really are.
One more thing, Ted - if you must use such an epithet, please come up with something more descriptive than "wingers." That doesn't tell anyone if you're referring to left-wingers or right-wingers. Same with "wing-nuts." Believe me, there are not only right-wing-nuts in this world, though they certainly exist. There are also left-wing-nuts. Far be it from me to suggest a glance in the mirror, but ...
You are viewing an individual item from RightWingBob.com - click here to view the main page.
Original text copyright © 2005 by RightWingBob.com
Quotes from the works of others are linked to their source or are as otherwise attributed, and are used in accordance with Fair Use guidelines. Contact: rightwingbob(at)gmail.com
Email: RightWingBob@)gmail.com
RSS Feed: http://rightwingbob.com/weblog/feed/rss/