Wednesday, December 21, 2005

The Defense of the Nutz, and a Retort

Well, the previous socialist liberal jabber went out to multiple readers (as did my response), and we get a defense. So of course I have to reply to that!

Please read where you will discover that less than 1% of Iraqi's think Allied military involvement is helping to improve the security and over 65% support full out killing of Allied troops. The source - the Ministry of Defense for the United Kingdom.

You jump on the author for saying that Sadam[sp] had "Utopia". I didn't read that anywhere.. Nope, instead he said that there were 1) no weapons of mass destruction (as him[he] and I were stating in the months leading up to the war - we at least deserve the concession that we were right), 2) they were not a threat (our own CIA assessments told the Prez that much before the attacks even started). and 3) that the deaths and killings of Iraqi people were carried out with the support of Dick Cheney and Rumsfield[sp] during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Your arguments would lead me to believe that you support the US involvement in spreading democracy around the globe and the US involvement in the stopping/prevention of genocide. If not, then what justification is there for staying in Iraq (duh, can you say Oil). If that was the case, would you support the US fully engaging in the Sudan or Ethiopia. Shame on Clinton and the US for not doing more when they could of but Bush is equally as guilty for standing on the sidelines while thousands are being killed now. You can follow all the current killing we are ignoring on

Then you mention the "The Iraq Liberation Act" with no purpose or point. That act was passed by a Republican controlled House on Oct 5, 1998 by an overwhelming majority and the Senate passed it unanimously Oct 7, 1998. The most important part of this act was the last line - "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces". I'm not sure there is anything else to make out of it other than a lot of hot air from a Congress looking for a little line they could put into their campaigns in the days leading up to the 1998 elections.

Here is a very good piece of info on Bush and the Republican's tax cuts and how they are just for the richest of the rich: Sure, the top 50% of income earners in this country pay almost all of the income tax. But my chunk has much more of an impact to my life than the chunk that Bill Gates pays and the impact it has on his life.

Your attempt to discredit liberals as a small minority really does show how far out to sea you have become out there on the island. The Bill O'Reilly's and Rush Limbaughs's[sp] are the laughing fodder of America or have you just missed seeing an episode of the Daily Show (my favorite is the 7 minute appearance of O'Reilly earlier this year). Air America, on the other hand is growing in audience size with 84 stations across the US and a National satellite audiences. Then there is the machine that is The trend right here in Washington state is overwhelmingly towards ideas supported by the Democratic party, Progressives, and Liberals who now have control of the legislature and the governor's office. It is the Neo-cons finding themselves isolated as the fiscal conservatives are turning away from GW and his politics of spending that are driving the country down the toilet. Just look at the recent elections in California where each and every referendum put to the people by the Arnie failed. Now, he has appointed a Lesbian Democrat to be his Chief of Staff in Susan Kennedy.


You start with the one poll. The one I impugned in my palaver. Of course I know about it. So you going to hang your hat on a double super secret poll, that you have no access to, and have no validation of, to make your point? Not even close to convincing, and even the glorious left wing socialist journalist won't touch this. Notice how they don't investigate Murtha's happy number? There are many other polls, with documented statistics, that you can access. And they aren't all roses, but none of them even come close to that garbage. I like this ABC poll, even though it is from the mortal enemies of freedom. Oh, wait, that is CBS, not ABC. What, are all the other polls, done in the open, documented and validated, lying? And a single double super secret Ministry of Defense poll is gospel?

On the Utopia reference, its just rhetoric against the Fascists Apologist who argue against the war with statements of a glorious world under Saddam, and a vicious hell now that we are there. Nothing else, been used in this argument before, so I should have thrown in context since you were reading as well. As far as the liberal belief that our country supported Saddam's policy of killing his own people, no facts to support that. Convenient of you to saddle Cheney and Rumsfeld with that, fits the liberal world view, and discards any context. Not a strong argument.

You may have stated that there were no WMD pre-war, but the leaders of both parties believed it, and so did the liberal mass media. Moot argument, again, toss out context to fit current liberal agenda. If you mean personally, I will grant you any concession, no problem. Again, I am not intending to 'jump' on anybody, we are having fun here, otherwise, there is no point.

Interesting that you bring up the spread of democracy. I am in full agreement with you, and in complete disgust with the corrupt and ineffective UN regarding many of the horrors happening in Africa. I would support US involvement in actions for that region, provided that we could be part of a regional security force, and not the sole supplier of force projection. However, comparing that region to the goals and risks of the Arab States is disingenuous. It is not "all about oil", its about Israel, its about rampant Wahabism, its about a Stalinist Dictator. The justification for staying in Iraq is so obvious, unless you are a liberal who believes that we are creating the terrorists. But that is a separate thread, we have addressed before, and can again, but lets table it here.

Regarding the more hypothetical debate (minus specific partisan policies) we can probably find some surprising agreement. This is a interesting debate on democracy world wide and the perception of democracy among nations. We have not discussed this yet. Could be fun.

So you move on to pooh pooh the "The Iraq Liberation Act", and claim it as a political stunt? So the idea was immensely popular, yet they didn't have the guts to put teeth in it? You say I mention it with no purpose or point, what are you missing? I think it is much more indicative of what everyone perceived than replaying the innumerable quotes of Clinton, Rockefeller, Durbin, Daschel, Kennedy, blah blah, stating how big of a threat Saddam was and his weapons of mass destruction. And don't go down the ridiculous reinvention path that they didn't know what the President knew. Come on, all the usual suspects made the same statements before 2000.

Ok, the quick switch to taxes. You correctly state that the debate is about immoral socialistic policies and class warfare vs pro-growth capitalism under the more pure Union (its rhetoric). You want to legislate lifestyles by punishing the most productive members of society. Yet I would contend the we already are suffering economically from overburden of this corrosive philosophy (more rhetoric). But, lets do the tax thing later too, its fun, yet I need to go back to slaving away for peanuts.

Now, you finish by defending liberals, and claiming some sort of equivocation with types of media and the respective political content. Not good enough, as, for one, the majority of the media is still in the hands of socialist liberal dinosaurs, and secondly, media does not reflect demographic. If I am out on my own island (granted, these islands constitute the most liberal state in the union) how come Bush got reelected? And you claim elections in California as indicative of success? It was not a hotbed of conservatism, and still isn't. Neither is WA. Your not jumping on the homosexuality bait here, are you? If you really think the evidence you have sited as a healthy and vibrant emerging liberal majority, conservatives have nothing to worry about.

As for the specific cut of red meat you offer, I don't think you could call Air America much of a success, as Byron York points out. Lets work the numbers on your other example, hmmm John gets a Nielson of 1.4 vs what? O'Reilly rates around 2.4? Yet of course these are apples and oranges, different markets, different formats. But still piddly compared to network news coverage, which is horribly liberal (yet juvenile in content), and print media (THE elite), which thinks it defines the world. So if I went just on media, all of America must be liberal? No, it doesn't break down well like this, but I think your getting into the spirit of things!

No comments: