Fever Swamp Legends Debunked
Quick, we have to pull out before the Iraqi government solidifies!Revisionist History
BY PETER WEHNER
Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
These, then, are the urban legends we must counter, else falsehoods become conventional wisdom. And what a strange world it is: For many antiwar critics, the president is faulted for the war, and he, not the former dictator of Iraq, inspires rage. The liberator rather than the oppressor provokes hatred. It is as if we have stepped through the political looking glass, into a world turned upside down and inside out.A looking glass fixed around the Downing Street memo. Too late to stop the chimpeachment now.
Here's a guy who finally had enough of the Left and deprogrammed himself:
Goodbye, Left-Wing Idiocy
By Ron Rosenbaum
The New York Observer | October 10, 2002
Here’s the analogy: Heidegger’s peculiar neutrality-slash-denial about Nazism and the Holocaust after the facts had come out, and the contemporary Left’s curious neutrality-slash-denial after the facts had come out about Marxist genocides—in Russia, in China, in Cambodia, after 20 million, 50 million, who knows how many millions had been slaughtered. Not all of the Left; many were honorable opponents. But for many others, it just hasn’t registered, it just hasn’t been incorporated into their "analysis" of history and human nature; it just hasn’t been factored in. America is still the one and only evil empire. The silence of the Left, or the exclusive focus of the Left, on America’s alleged crimes over the past half-century, the disdainful sneering at America’s deplorable "Cold War mentality"—none of this has to be reassessed in light of the evidence of genocides that surpassed Hitler’s, all in the name of a Marxist ideology. An ideology that doesn’t need to be reassessed. As if it was maybe just an accident that Marxist-Leninist regimes turned totalitarian and genocidal. No connection there. The judgment that McCarthyism was the chief crime of the Cold War era doesn’t need a bit of a rethink, even when put up against the mass murder of dissidents by Marxist states.Friedrich Hayek. The Road to Serfdom. He predicted it and laid out why it is inevitable that any centralized planning eventually come under totalitarian control. It's been demonstrated empirically enough times, you would think, to get through to the "reality-based" community.
Both stories via SOXBLOG.
posted by Tanstaafl at 5/26/2006 08:10:00 AM
8 Comments:
Close.
1) We spent trillions defending ourselves from the Soviets. The Islamic threat is real, whether you realize it or not, and I'm damn glad the Bush administration realizes it, even partially. Who the Iraqis align themselves with eventually is their business. We're trying to make sure it's our side, and I support that effort.
Amen on Bolton.
2) Your definition of lie is a novel one I don't agree with. Sorry. The Constitution is under threat - not from Bush or his cronies but from "progressives" foisting their leftist agenda on the country via the Supreme Court because they can't get their way democratically.
3) Who is the Left? Are you serious? Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, Clinton (both), Pelosi, Durban, Jackson, Sharpton, Feinstein, Rangel, Waters, Boxer, Conyers, ... dozens more of national stature. It's hard to label them because they give themselves so many names. Progressive. Democrat. Liberal. They get offended at the stigma that comes to be attached to their ideals and so they change their name every few years. Yes extremism is the problem. Among the extremists I count the activists constantly demonstrating in the street, stridently puffing themselves up to appear bigger and stronger than they really are.
Shitting on your country certainly isn't patriotism my friend.
Nothing you said sounded like treason to me.
Some select quotes:
"Congressman Moran, a couple of things that are in my mind. Number one is the president has really failed to lay out before the American people the reasons why we need to be involved militarily. That's number one.
And then we go back to Henry Kissinger's test, which is number one, is there a vital U.S. national interest? And do we have a plan to disengage? What's the exit strategy? I don't see that we've met that test either. And why does it have to happen this second, this hour? Why don't we have a national debate first?"
"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?"
So it seems that we're talking about a very ill-conceived military action here. And now the question is, do you go in further and deeper, or do you pull back and rethink what the strategy's going to be here, because there has really been no stated goal, mission or objective."
"We've hurt the people we thought we were going to help."
If you havent figured it out yet, its Sean Hannity in March-April 1999 spewing traitorous right-wing propoganda regarding the war in Kosovo.
"Joint chiefs doubted the strategy from the very beginning. And the outline, they didn't think the air campaign would work.
And they turned out to be right. They didn't prepare for the refugee problem. They didn't prepare that Milosevic would up the ante against the ethnic Albanians, none of this. There was no preparation at all here."
"Slobodan Milosevic is a bad guy. He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Is Bill O'Reilly then saying we go to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2,000 -- and I'm not minimizing death. It's horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers -- 2,000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the United States should go to all those places?"
Deja Vu all over again. So lets not suggest the "Left" ignores leftist atrocities and the "Right" ignores far right atrocities. This is clearly political bantering.
Addtionally, lets not suggest this is a "post-9/11 world". Clearly, the evidence and history points out that the pre-9/11 world was just as dangerous as the post-9/11 world.
Pre-9/11 - How many times did I hear Clinton "wag the dog" with a missile strike on an empty tent and an aspirin factory...
Post-9/11 - The right has reviewed the CIA data and determined the aspirin factory was manufacturing VX AND there was links between Osama and Iraq...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp?pg=1
I dont see anyone in the right corner revising history to say Clinton was fighting the war on terror. All I remember about the Admin's view on Clinton was ABC - anything but clinton...
And where exactly did that get us?
One trap I see both of you falling into is Left vs. Right & Liberal vs. Conservative. Post 9/11 and until January 2002, the Bush Admin had the support of nearly every politician and every person in the country. In 2002, the Admin redirected from Afghanistan to the "axis of evil" and the "naysayers" began to speak up.
1) This is not about whether to wage war on terror but how. Consistent with other posts, you allude the war on terror will not end in truce, but extermination of Islam and the Koran since ultimately strict accordance to the Koran will conflict with non-Islamic beliefs. We part ways in our definition of the end of war (and in some cases the start).
2) As far as the Constitution under threat, I put far greater support behind the legislative and judicial branches in its interpretation than the president and his atty general. How anyone cannot see the "threat" by a "war-powers" president is mind-boggling. Unfettered powers regardless of the reasons is an affront to the very principles of this nation.
from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html
Clearly, the president's (and 'bert's) interpretation that the Congress authorized (just about everything and anything) actions in the 9/18 war resolution did not give the president unfettered powers - clearly, you deem congressional ignorance (that would be republican controlled ignorance) in the face of this threat as acceptable - I do not.
Left or Right
How does one define left? Opposite of right (ie, ant-Bush; anti-GOP; anti-Christian; Anti-war; Commie; Traitor)? Do you give equal weight to the left-wing spin that the right is Delay, Dukester, Ney, Abramov...
3) Liberalism is anchored in the concept of liberty and change. Conservatism to preserve and improve (in essence improve without need for change). How the hell anyone in the US political arena can corner the market on either term is absurd. Its like determining one's belief on their voting record. Devil's in the details.
Rhetoric is the easy, fool-hardy way.
You think Hannity said something offensive or wrong about Yugoslavia? Go read what leftist champions Chomsky or Vonnegut or Belafonte have to say about anything. Sure they're looney. Which is what makes that fact that so many leftists idolize them so disturbing.
Congress is far from ignorant about what the Bush administration is doing with Gitmo, Iraq, or the NSA. They are informed, even though it causes great political disadvantage for Bush. Partisan traitors like Reid and Rockefeller pretend they aren't informed even as they scheme to use the information they're given to damage a sitting president during war.
How does one define the Left? There are many traits. You don't have to exhibit them all to be a Leftist. Hillary being a military hawk doesn't cancel out her rob from the rich collectivism.
Here are two pictures that illustrate the difference between Left and Right by what they fear:
Blasphemy and wire tapping. I've picked my side and I'm comfortable with it.
The way I read the scheming was that the Admin spoon fed the case to go to war 9Late 2002 thru March 2003), they (Congress)fucked up by not looking at the label of the baby food jar and now (November 2003) they want to go back and look at what was in the jar.
"The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]
Sounds like the Chairman is in league with the conspiracy but wishes to stay on the sidelines. At this point, your traitors dont have all the intel, they want it, they want to compare it to what Admin officials spewed before the war and YES, if the facts bear out (that the Admin "misled the Congress, the American people and the UN), let the public in on it.
"SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.
"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives." [End of Memo Excerpt.]
The revelation that Democrats are using the intelligence committee to conduct opposition research for the coming presidential campaign demands an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, Hannity said.
An important role? Damn understated in my mind, they have an obligation!
Opposition research? What is this data mining and poll-taking. Hannity obviously doesnt care for congressional oversight except when democrats are in the White House.
In support of your theory that they "knew" more than they say: note the reference to "exposing the Admin's dubious motives" - that does appear like they already know.
I would consider them traitors if they knew and did not tell the people. I have equal distaste for those that choose to ignore all in the name of partisanship.
Blasphemy: Your muslim comrades in Egypt and Pakistan have banned the movie out of mutual respect for the prophet Jesus.
Responded in kind with a cartoon via email.
On wiretapping: You're turning into quite the Hobbesian.
Shit. Now I have to read up on Hobbes.
I agree with Hobbes that civilization is fragile and requires sacrifices to preserve, but I do not take that latter point to the extreme he did.
I admire more John Stuart Mill's ideas on liberty. He, even being an extremist on that point, did not insist it be complete and unqualified. Surely the government is within its bounds to monitor or suppress the speech of some citizens if it threatens others.
Post a Comment
<< Home