Powered by TypePad

« Democrats Want Their Constituents To Sicken And Die | Main | Chevy Chase, Stand-Up Guy »

January 05, 2007

Comments

Jeff

It looks to me that if reforming the islamofascists doesn't work, then our only remaining option is to commit genocide against 1 billion muslims.

You are an extremely ignorant person, cathyf.

clarice

Hardly. Cathy's one of the smartest poster here.And the place is loaded with smarties.

Sue

I don't know how the compassionate Left ever got to be so cavalier with human lives. We had a duty to these people that we shirked for many years. Now, when we've finally started down the path to doing the right thing, a segment of society wants to shirk responsibility again.

Because, doncha know, Darfur is calling. How they plan on Bush, or anyone else for that matter, stopping the violence there without using violence is beyond me, but Darfur is their new 'battle' cry.

clarice

Darfur is okay--like the Balkans..because we have no real national interests at stake, Sue.

Sue

Clarice,

It is beyond me how the mind of a liberal works. Thankfully, I might add.

Soylent Red

Darfur is their new 'battle' cry.

See I actually think Darfur would be a noble project. But on our list of priorities right now...

Which is why the U.S. can't always be at the vanguard on this thing. Unfortunately, with the exception of the U.K. and Australia, no one seems to give a big rat's ass about saving the world.

Anyway, somewhere, maybe here, I caught on to a link to an article about Blackwater USA, and how they had the security and logistics capability to handle the whole Darfur situation. Of course the lefties and NGOs would go bugshit at the thought...even though it would solve the problem.

But at least they care, right?

Soylent Red

Here it is.

Put your money where your mouth is George Clooney.

clarice

Heh! Can I steal that and blog it Soylent?

Read this for a glimpse of what crap has been going on at Duke.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/dowd-and-duke.html

Sue

Soylent,

I'm not saying it isn't a worthwhile cause. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. If Bush actually did something about Darfur, they would go...bugshit?...I've heard apeshit before, but not bugshit ::grin:: ...crazy. It's the preaching they like. Not the doing.

topsecretk9

Clarice...

Your article is so interesting...

The WSJ article was April 10, 2003

...That Journal editorial, which several administration officials say has sent Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on a "witch hunt" to find the leak

The date and his reaction sorta makes his "Plame" leak look like orchestrated calculated payback.

topsecretk9

--bugshit --

I'm stealing that.

clarice

Thanks.Yes it does ts--Do you know he tore the DoS up to find out who leaked that story..

topsecretk9

Clarice,
Your article is so interesting...it's also very shameful and depressing.

Pete

There are so many myths being propagated by the pro-war camp.

Myth #1 - It is the media's fault. Infact the media salivated for the war and the associated ratings, and did not question the administration in the pre-war phase. The media is simply the messenger, shoot it if you like, but that does not solve the problem.

Myth #2 - It is the fault of the lefties. Infact in the 2006 elections, Bush/Rove painted the Democrats as "cut and run" yet the Democrats won handily. It is not a minority, but a majority which wants to change course in Iraq.

Myth #3 - All will be will if we attack Syria and Iran. You folks have not been able to manage war with one country. Attacking more countries would be a disaster.

It is rather sad to see so many people in denial.

topsecretk9

Bush/Rove painted the Democrats as "cut and run" yet the Democrats won handily. It is not a minority, but a majority which wants to change course in Iraq.

Sigh.

Pillars.

Harry Reid: More Troops to Iraq! By Alexander Cockburn Dec 21, 2006

This last Sunday Harry Reid, the incoming Democratic majority leader in the US Senate, went on ABC's Sunday morning show and declared that a hike in U.S. troops in Iraq is okay with him....

Saturday, January 6, 2007; A01

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid declared yesterday that "it is time to bring the war to a close" and warned President Bush that sending more U.S. troops to Iraq would be unacceptable to the Democratic majorities that have just taken over Congress.

In other news...The Queen of Corruption ( whose approval ratings are less than McChimpyBurton much the Poll obsessed left) declares everybody doing it, what's the big deal?

..."Quite frankly, I think the Justice Department is looking into every member of Congress. I always say to everybody, 'You're now going to get a free review of your family tree -- past, present and future, imagined and otherwise,'" Pelosi said.
answering questions
...West Virginia's Alan Mollohan is under investigation by the Justice Department, but will now chair a committee which oversees that same department. And in an interview with NEWS9, newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said she's not ready to stiffen penalties against either of the men.

Less than 24 hours after taking over as House speaker, Pelosi took NEWS9 cameras on a tour of the Capitol. There, she said she will still allow Mollohan to hold his powerful position which oversees the budget of the Justice Department -- the very people investigating his financial dealings.

as a commenter said

...and the beat goes on....

Pete

The estimate of Iraqis murdered by the Saddam regime is 1 million. The number of Iraqi civilians killed in this endeavor is far smaller; occurs mostly in the Sunni Triangle; and is lower than it is in a number of big US cities.

I'd like to see some credible independent sources for these.

US is a much bigger country than Iraq. Comparing the deaths in the two is meaningless.

It is far riskier living in Iraq (outside the green zone) than in any US city.

The number of military killed is far smaller than the number of fatalities on our roads.

Another meaningless statistic.

Soylent, J.R. Dunn, a brilliant man, may have an answer to your question.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/hegemonism.html

More rhetorical than brilliant.

richard mcenroe

'All I can say is I am glad that the Republicans did not look at all the mistakes made in WW2 and say to themselves, Time to undermine Roosevelt, kiss up to the enemy and hope for defeat, it might win us the White House.'

What did FDR know about Kasserine Pass and when did he know it? This whole campaign against Hitler is a sideshow and a distraction from our real mission, capturing Hideki Tojo!

clarice

Pete:"Since then, Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people. "

**
"Some 42,636 people died on the nation’s highways in 2004, a reduction of 248 — or 0.6 percent — from the previous year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8792158/
*********

The Associated Press released an interesting set of statistics (host link stored for future ref) a couple of days ago that I would suppose were designed to suck away any optimism any fools who still support the mission in Iraq might have (bolds are mine):

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Government officials on Monday reported that 16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006, a figure larger than an independent Associated Press count for the year by more than 2,500.

The tabulation by the Iraqi ministries of Health, Defense and Interior, showed that 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police and 627 soldiers were killed in the violence that raged in the country last year.

The Associated Press accounting, gleaned from daily news reports from Baghdad, arrived at a total of 13,738 deaths.

Pretty grim, isn't it? And this is for "violence that raged in the (whole) country."

Man, what a downer. I mean, this is an honest-to-goodness Grade A bona fide quagmire.

Oops -- I started digging into US murder statistics, and what I found made me less depressed about Iraq, and more concerned about the US.

Let's put this in perspective. Below are 10 listings for US cities and years. Your mission to accomplish (so to speak), is to guess whether each particular city's murder rate in the year identified was higher or lower than the "violent death rate" in Iraq (which is, from all appearances, all-inclusive). Let's use the Iraqi government's higher number of 16,273 just for the heck of it, even though the Associated Press will "surely" be bothered that I'm exaggerating the level of violence compared to what their records show (somehow, I think they'll get over it). Using the government's figure means that Iraq's violent death rate in 2006 was 56.49 per 100,000 residents (16,273 deaths, and a population per Wiki of 28,807,000).

So here are the US cities and the related years:

1. New York City - 1990
2. Washington, DC - 1991
3. Gary, IN - 2005
4. Detroit, MI - 1991
5. Compton, CA - 2005
6. New Orleans, LA - 2006
7. New Orleans, LA - 2004
8. New Orleans, LA - 2003
9. Atlanta, GA - 1973
10. E. St. Louis, IL - 2004

Try not to peek ahead.

......

......
Done?

SURPRISE -- Every city and year listed had a higher murder rate than Iraq in 2006 -- except (surprise again) New York City in 1990 (Gotham's worst year on record for murder).

The murder rates were as follows (see related graph at UPDATE 2 below):

1. New York City - 1990; 30.7 (2,245 murders; population 7,322,000)
2. Washington, DC - 1991; 83.1 (482 murders; population 598,000 [1])
3. Gary, IN - 2005; 58.0
4. Detroit, MI - 1991; roughly 60
5. Compton, CA - 2005; 67.1
6. New Orleans, LA - 2006; 67.5 (154 murders; population 228,000 [2])
7. New Orleans, LA - 2004; 59.6 (275 murders; population 461,115 [3])
8. New Orleans, LA - 2003; 57.7
9. Atlanta, GA - 1973; 57.7 (271 murders; population 470,000 [1])
10. E. St. Louis, IL - 2004; 63.4
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Bi5WaTcnJqgJ:newsbusters.org/node/9932+Some+US+cities+have+higher+rate+than+Iraq&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1>Comparative murder rates

Pete

I don't know how the compassionate Left ever got to be so cavalier with human lives. We had a duty to these people that we shirked for many years. Now, when we've finally started down the path to doing the right thing, a segment of society wants to shirk responsibility again.

You've got to be kidding me.

When Saddam was at his worst behavior and gassing his own people, none other than Rummie went to Iraq to shake Saddam's hand and to cut deals with Saddam. That is not "shirking a duty". That is a segment of our society (the segment that you identify with) actively helping him.

War is not "the right thing". People, including innocent civilains, die too. Things are not as simplistic as you paint.

Soylent Red

OK, I'm calling bullshit Pete. I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I'd like to be one of the first.

Myth #1 - It is the media's fault. Infact the media salivated for the war and the associated ratings, and did not question the administration in the pre-war phase. The media is simply the messenger, shoot it if you like, but that does not solve the problem.

Bullshit. The media thought Afghanistan was going to be a quagmire. The word "quagmire" was first used, IIRC, in regard the very brief Taliban counterattack at Mazar-i-Sharif, which we subsequently smacked down.

The media, prior to the Iraq liberation, was wringing its collective hands over "we need to get the inspectors back in to do their jobs". Just prior, when liberation was imminent, the media was touting the distribution of "Blackhawk Down" DVDs and predicting bloody street fighting.

During the push north, the breathless CNN embeds were on all the time reporting on "tough fighting" which usually consisted of a ten minute firefight with a half a dozen Saddam loyalists.

The media has somehow "missed" a variety of positive human interest and military stories, consistently, everyday since Saddam was taken down. There are at least a half dozen websites that have chronicled the positive events, many in Baghdad and surrounding areas close to where the reporters are holed up. I personally know people who can and do refute the negativity coming out in MSM (damn their lyin' eyes). There are thousands more waiting to tell their story.

The media, both through admission and through inadvertantly getting caught, have made up parts of stories, sources, etc. Some stories were made up from whole cloth. With the exception of the new media, I haven't heard one word from any MSM source about their foul ups and fabrications.

With MSM being an important source of "information", and with that "information" being so negative or false, how then do we explain the contradiction with eyewitnesses in country who would like to see us succeed in Iraq?

I explain it as BDS-driven media bias. And so do lots of other people.

Myth #2 - It is the fault of the lefties. Infact in the 2006 elections, Bush/Rove painted the Democrats as "cut and run" yet the Democrats won handily. It is not a minority, but a majority which wants to change course in Iraq.

Bullshit. That's a nice talking point for the Party of Surrender, but name me five of the new crop of Democrat winners who ran on "Let's haul ass outta Iraq!" In fact, name me one that didn't completely hedge his/her bet by downplaying timetables. Any of them that did got beat.

As for the will of the people, I'll grant you that the majority of the country wants to see a change in direction in Iraq. That doesn't necessarily mean they want us to run away. Some of us want to see us play to win rather than playing to not lose. A fair proportion want to see us kicking more ass.

If you're such a Party of the People, why don't you trot out your glorious moonbat spokeshole Cindy Sheehan for the voters of America to see? I mean "It is not a minority, but a majority which wants to change course in Iraq." If you believe that, prove it. I triple dog dare ya.

Myth #3 - All will be will if we attack Syria and Iran. You folks have not been able to manage war with one country. Attacking more countries would be a disaster.

First of all, there is a difference between "war" and "post-war". Both "wars" have gone swimmingly.

Where the hitch comes in is when we have to conduct post-war operations under a steady barrage of kibbutzing from a group of people who didn't lift a finger during the entire decade of the 1990s to stop people from being hacked to death with machetes, or starved by al-Qaeda aligned thugs. The same group of people, I might add, who spent nearly two decades trying to shrink or defund our military and intelligence capabilities.

Further, the hitch comes in when homicidal maniacs can expect equal time and collaboration from a bunch of dope smoking leftists who only squeeked into journalism because they were too stupid to graduate in art history or women's studies.

Finally, the hitch comes in when fools who have done nothing substantive in the last 40 years foist their screwed up amoral ruleset on the party who has been trying to bring freedom and prosperity to Iraq. Why do you hate the Iraqis so much you don't want them to be free and have a thriving economy?

It's not their fault you are a party of ineffectual pussies. Quit trying to take it out on them.

Soylent Red

When Saddam was at his worst behavior and gassing his own people, none other than Rummie went to Iraq to shake Saddam's hand and to cut deals with Saddam. That is not "shirking a duty". That is a segment of our society (the segment that you identify with) actively helping him.

Yes, of course Pete. And that was wrong wasn't it?

Now will you admit that you would rather we left the poor Iraqi people to the tender mercies of Saddam?

How about we leave the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of Islamists in their country now?

Because in spite of what Rumsfeld did in the 1980s, you are advocating for the death of Iraqis during the 1990s when Clinton could have stopped it, and now when Bush is trying to.

You advocate genocide Pete. Hope you sleep well at night.

clarice

This is the cite for the million figure at the beginning. (It is a reprint of a John Burns' piece for the NYT)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773

Soylent Red

1. New York City - 1990; 30.7 (2,245 murders; population 7,322,000)

OUT OF NEW YORK NOW!

Pete

The media was for the Iraq war, and never challenged the Bush administration pre-war. Cheney had no problems leaking and planting stories in NYT. And there still are very Bush-friendly reporters and media outlets. You mean to say that Fox news is not reporting the Iraqi success stories?

Here is an article from Aug 1 2006:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2006/07/31/
AR2006073100743.html
After months of struggling to forge a unified stance on the Iraq war, top congressional Democrats joined voices yesterday to call on President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by the end of the year and to "transition to a more limited mission" in the war-torn nation.

War is not just the "major combat", for which Bush declared mission accomplished years ago. We still are at war in Iraq. Before you guys start wars with other countries, finish the one in Iraq successfully.


Pete

Because in spite of what Rumsfeld did in the 1980s, you are advocating for the death of Iraqis during the 1990s when Clinton could have stopped it, and now when Bush is trying to.

You advocate genocide Pete. Hope you sleep well at night.

I am not advocating any deaths. It is simply not my responsibility to be the guardian of each and every life around the world.

That is a strange logic you have. By your logic every Iraq war supporter is advocating the deaths of US servicemen in Iraq.

clarice

Before you guys start wars with other countries, finish the one in Iraq successfully
As it has become clear that we have virtually crushed AQ and the Baathist revanchists there, we are now dealing with militias which on both side seem to be financed and advised by Iran and its running dog Syria, we have a unique opportunity for a quick three-fer..it will take more than the military, however.our intel people, propagandists (VOA)and DoS have to finally hop onboard and pull togehter.

Iran is teetering and we have to fund the opposition , increase broadcasts in, possibly destroy the nuclear facilities..

clarice

This should rad Pete:"Before you guys start wars with other countries, finish the one in Iraq successfully"

Pete

Here is a rhetorical question to ponder: If the party of surrender wins an election even while the opposing party tells people that they are the party of surrender, shouldn't the elections lead one to concude that we should in fact surrender?

Soylent Red

Pete:

By your insistence that we leave Iraq, I can only conclude that you want Iraqis to die. Because one follows the other as surely as night follows day.

Why do you hate Iraqis and want them to die? Or is it all Arabs? Are you a general misanthrope? Maybe you're an Israeli?

What happened to you Pete? Was your childhood pet run over by a falafel truck? Did your father run off to join a wandering nomadic band of oud players? Did Omar Shariff drop you on your head as a baby?

Whatever your trauma, you have to stop hating Pete. Hate only hurts the children. There's a lot of nice people up here who want to help you through your pain Pete. Stop blocking us.

Soylent Red

increase broadcasts in

Cue "Sheik Yerbouti"...

clarice

I am counting on you to use your creative talents, Soylent to switch from R/S/S to R/Sheik Yerbout

BTW

Why does anyone bother to argue with you righties. You supported a preemptive war that preempted nothing and now chaos reigns. It's your mess but nobody is about to give you a chance to make it any worse.

So fellow-anybody-left-of-Hitler-types don't bother arguing with these idiots. Instead you should concentrate on taunting them so that the dig into their entrenched and morally bankrupt position even further. They will then be easily recognized later as society exercises it's myriad subtle ways of purging itself of vile ideologies.

davod

Narciso:

The siege of Kut by the Turks during WWI was the longest siege to date.

Terrye

Pete:

I can remember ABC running a special on Saddam and Osama back when Clinton was still President. No one called them liars. However, once Bush became President all mention of Saddam's ties became bs to most lefties. This is the point.

And Chirac called Saddam a close personal friend back in the days when he was selling him a nuclear reactor. That was the world that Rumsfeld was operating in. And besides left to you that would never have changed, right? We would still be doing the realpolitick thing. Tell me if it does not matter what Clinton said, why make a point of Rummy shaking someone's hand decades ago?

When the Democrats win and the terrorists celebrate that should tell you something. That election was a real shot in the arm to the guys who are killing our troops and Iraqi civilians every day. Now, why is that?

Terrye

BTW:

You seem to forget who voted for this war. The righties are just not pretending they did not, that is all.

Bob

"You supported a preemptive war that preempted nothing and now chaos reigns. It's your mess but nobody is about to give you a chance to make it any worse."

Seems like most of your heroes such as Kerry, Clinton and Clinton, etc. would have some of this "mess" on their hands... or where they just looking for votes?

Extraneus

Perhaps some of those who have responded to cathyf with name-calling in this thread might like to comment on this.

Sue

They will then be easily recognized later as society exercises it's myriad subtle ways of purging itself of vile ideologies.

Holy Mother! You people are deranged.

Sue

Tell me if it does not matter what Clinton said, why make a point of Rummy shaking someone's hand decades ago?

Democrats operate in a vacuum of their own making. Republicans had to deal with the mess left by Carter. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all of that. Nevermind Bush had to deal with the inaction of 8 years of Clinton, 8 months into his presidency. And they preach to us about ideaologies. Pffft...

Extraneus

Here's the continuation of the discussion on The Belmont Club's 2003 Three Conjectures post liked to above.

At any rate, it's neither stupid nor immoral to consider the possible consequences of the defeat the Democrats are hoping for.

Soylent Red

You supported a preemptive war that preempted nothing

Holy smokes. BTW hates Iraqis too and wants them to live under a brutal dictator, who feeds people into plastic shredders for sport.

They will then be easily recognized later as society exercises it's myriad subtle ways of purging itself of vile ideologies.

And now he hates his fellow Americans and wants to conduct "purges" because they don't agree with him.

Wow. I think there's some unresolved issues going on with you that we need to get out into the open, BTW. Please. Before you hurt yourself or someone around yound you.

We're here to help you BTW, when you're willing to face your problems,

Soylent Red

Extraneous:

I remember reading that back in '03 and being quite impressed with the posting and the subsequent discussion.

Lots of people tend to forget that when faced with problems that the system won't confront for them, the populace very often rises up to confront problems on its own. Sometimes violently.

Soylent Red

around yound you

Should be "around you".

I'm sorry. I was so verklemmt over BTW's hate speech that I temporarily lost my ability to type.

boris

Seems BTW belongs to the hegemonist persuasion. Expecting what happens after a US cut-n-run debacle in Iraq to be something like "a blanket of peace not witnessed since Eden would descend across" Iraq. After which American society would want to purge the ideologies that created the mess.

If things work out differently the ideologies society wants to purge might just land a little closer to home for BTW, Pete, and Co.

I prefer we ride out the storm to a stable peace and the cut-n-runners are simply discredited by history. Don't think they're accurate about the purge thingy though.

Semanticleo

Maguire;

I think I know which side of this you are leaning towards, but...would you tell me how you stand on making military contractors subject to Iraqi Law, or at least Military Law?

PeterUK

"Myth #1 - It is the media's fault. Infact the media salivated for the war and the associated ratings, and did not question the administration in the pre-war phase. The media is simply the messenger, shoot it if you like, but that does not solve the problem."

The idea that the MSM is a neutral conduit for information is so naive as to be retarded

PeterUK

Talking of retarded,right on cue.

windansea

Today’s approval numbers via Rasmussen are:

45% approval for Bush
43% approval for Pelosi

rejoice lefties, Madam Botox is here to save the day

PeterUK

"If the party of surrender wins an election even while the opposing party tells people that they are the party of surrender, shouldn't the elections lead one to conclude that we should in fact surrender?"

The party of surrender should at least explain the consequences of surrender,something that they have dishonourably neglected to do.In the light of 9/11 and the serious threats coming from Iran,al Qaeda and assorted gibbering fanatics, a policy with a little more to it than grabbing their ankles would not come amiss.

windansea

our lefties seem to think the little brown people in Iraq are not worthy or capable of self governance

good thing they were not in charge of the American Revolution

windansea

Dana Milbank reports on opening day of the new session of Congress. On the Senate side, Sen. Robert Byrd seems to have stolen the show. According to Milbank, Byrd punctuated the opening prayer with shouts of "yes," "yes, Lord" and "in Jesus's name." Minutes later, when Byrd was installed as Senate president pro tempore, he shouted, "yeah man" and Hallelujah."

Byrd's Democratic colleagues seemed more amused than upset by the old fool's "Christianist" display. Senator Kennedy pretended to tilt a bottle into his mouth. Either he was suggesting that Byrd was under the influence or Kennedy himself was ready for a drink.


Foo Bar

Today’s approval numbers via Rasmussen are:

45% approval for Bush
43% approval for Pelosi

rejoice lefties, Madam Botox is here to save the day

I'm guessing you got those numbers from Instapundit, who in turn got them from Don Surber .

Please go back and check those posts again for updates. They have now acknowledged that the comparison is not valid. The same poll has Bush's disapproval at 54% and Pelosi's at 39%. Bush has "higher" approval only because 18% of those polled have no opinion one way or the other of Pelosi, whereas everyone has an opinion on Bush.

Semanticleo

"upset by the old fool's "Christianist" display."

You seem to dispute his sincerity. I prefer to think of it as pure sarcasm; well earned.

windansea

cleo..you must be so proud

clarice

The figures are from Ramussen..I venture to say the hagiographic media coverage of the new speaker is behind her surge because just recently no one heard of her.

Today she's defending a federal funded S-M operation in SF purportedly an AIDS awareness program which even gay groups have spoken out against. I suspect more critical media coverage will change her rating.

PeterUK

"They will then be easily recognized later as society exercises it's myriad subtle ways of purging itself of vile ideologies."

"Jawohl mein Fuhrer"

PeterUK

"Senator Kennedy pretended to tilt a bottle into his mouth. Either he was suggesting that Byrd was under the influence or Kennedy himself was ready for a drink."

Neither,he was too ratarsed to remember the bottle

kate

The problem is that Pelosi will never get more critical coverage from the media. I remember in 2004 Fred Barnes stated that now that Kerry had the nomination the media would take a critical look at his record, never happened.

The media has always been left, but in the past there was more nuance and there was a certain protocol.

Now the media just functions as a PR outfit for the Democratic party, and the Republicans are ineffective in dealing with this new reality.

Ranger

Well, here are two of the most enlightening quotes from this thread:

And if you have a reason why one American should die to keep Taiwan free, do tell.
Posted by: Don | January 05, 2007 at 01:48 PM

I am not advocating any deaths. It is simply not my responsibility to be the guardian of each and every life around the world.
Posted by: Pete | January 05, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Spoken in the true tradision of the copperheads during the Civil War. Why was it the concern of any Northerner that people in the South held slaves? And why should any Notherner lay down their life for the freedom of a black in the South?

So, basically, the ideology of the Democratic party has never changed. They are, at their core, selfish people who could care less about the welfare of anybody else, unless they see personal or political advantage to caring.

Semanticleo

"unless they see personal or political advantage to caring."

Is the caring you espouse universal, or selective? Just curious.

Were you of age to be cognizant of the Salvadoran Death Squads, or the assassination
of Allende and the subsequent military rule
of Chile? A foolish consistency might display
a measure of credibility.

Soylent Red

Were you of age to be cognizant of the Salvadoran Death Squads, or the assassination
of Allende and the subsequent military rule
of Chile?

Speaking of consistency, since you are so obviously against death squads and dictators, you must have been 100% behind invading Iraq, right?

Just as I thought. Another hater.

Semanticleo

"They are, at their core, selfish people who could care less about the welfare of anybody else,"

"Just as I thought. Another hater."

Just thought the projection was worth noting.

AAMOF, I did support the invasion, based upon my good faith that no responsible person would use WMD as a pretext to fraudulently obtain necessary public support.

Soylent Red

based upon my good faith that no responsible person would use WMD as a pretext to fraudulently obtain necessary public support.

So it was the WMDs that got you aboard? Not your aforementioned outrage at dictatorships and death squads dating back into the 1970s?

OK, I'm starting to get a picture here...

Doing the right thing is only a requirement when your own self preservation is a factor. Otherwise, it's just a talking point against Republican administrations.

What about Darfur?

"No threat to me in middle America. No WMDs in the Horn of Africa. F*ck 'em."

You're making George Clooney cry, Semanticleo.

Ranger

AAMOF, I did support the invasion, based upon my good faith that no responsible person would use WMD as a pretext to fraudulently obtain necessary public support.


Posted by: Semanticleo | January 06, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Damn that Bill Clinton for decieving us all.

Is the caring you espouse universal, or selective? Just curious.

Were you of age to be cognizant of the Salvadoran Death Squads, or the assassination
of Allende and the subsequent military rule
of Chile? A foolish consistency might display a measure of credibility.

Posted by: Semanticleo | January 06, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Well, mine is pretty universal. I wish we would get rid of Mugabe, take out the government in Sudan, and work towards getting rid if the regimes in Syria and Iran, but we have only limited resources and have to choose our fights.

As to El Salvador, of course I am old enough to remember, but I also remember that in El Salvador both sides committed atrocities and that while the right did murder many people they suspected of supporting the Communists, the left murdered civilians at random to sow terror (but I'm sure that's ok in your mind because they were fighting against capitalism and American imperialism, so a few dead random civilians are a small price to pay).

Also, Allende made the coup against him possible by allowing the "poor" in Chile to murder, rape, and steal from the "rich" with impunity (but once again, I'm that's ok in your mind because class war is only wrong when it is engaged in by the "rich").

PeterUK

Whilst hesitating to accuse you of being economical with the actualite Septic,I would conjecture that i am not alone in wishing to see see some cites for that.

Semanticleo

"So it was the WMDs that got you aboard"

Deposing Saddam was your hot button? Please.

And, the American Public, by far, listed WMD's
as theirs.

"by allowing the "poor" in Chile to murder, rape, and steal from the "rich" with impunity"

Your reference is to his being a communist.

He WAS elected, you know?

And you fail to note the role of the US in Salvador, Guatemala, et al, as well as in
Chile. Convenient exclusion, don't you think?

Semanticleo


As always, PUKe, you are clear as mud.

boris

You should know.

Semanticleo

>simpleton>

boris

cleverton

PeterUK

It's English Dear,perhaps you can get someone to translate,no I'll be kind,give one reference where supported the invasion of Iraq.

Semanticleo

"give one reference where supported the invasion of Iraq."

Wait for the mud between your ears to settle.
Then try again.

Ranger

"So it was the WMDs that got you aboard"

Deposing Saddam was your hot button? Please.

And, the American Public, by far, listed WMD's
as theirs.

Well, it was my "hot button" but then I have a very idiosyncratic view of the whole Iraq situation (i.e., I view the entire period from 1991 to 2003 as war, just that most of it was a war of attrition, which means that by opposing invation you were, in fact supporting, not oppsing "war", you were just supporing a different kind of war).

"by allowing the "poor" in Chile to murder, rape, and steal from the "rich" with impunity"

Your reference is to his being a communist.

He WAS elected, you know?

No, I am refering to the fact that he simply refused to allow the police from protect the "rich" (actually, mostly middle class) from murder, rape, and theft. This is why Pinche was view as a savior by so much of the Chilean population at the time, and why the death squads were accepted by so much of the population, because after three years of being subjected to the most violent of class was tactics, the death squads were seen as both nessessary and just by many. But you might have to actually know some Chileans to get that part of the story(the Chilean expats I know happen to be center-left, anti-Pinoche, but they also will admit that Allende brought the coup on himself by refusing to respect the rule of law and polarizing the politic of Chile to the point that a right wing coup was acceptable to the vast majority of the middle class), since the US media and academy have totally ignored what Chile was like under Allende before the coup (disrupt the narrative to see both sides of the story). But of course, you are right, Allende was ellected, and he had the right, as a leftist, to ignore any law he saw as inconvenient (like murder) to his project.

And you fail to note the role of the US in Salvador, Guatemala, et al, as well as in
Chile. Convenient exclusion, don't you think?

Hmmm... That's an ironic charge coming from someone who completely ignores the deprevations of the left when you raised the charge. But it is illuminating because it shows that you feel the opponents of the US have the right to engage in any attrocity they want, it is only America that must be judged by its actions.

You also have taken great pleasure in confronting my argument with counter examples, but you have yet to address the core of my original argument, which is that the "anti-war" crowd's arguments are basically the same as the copperheads during the civil war, which wanted the North to give up the fight and let the South go. I guess you'd be happy to see an independent, slave holding Confederecy still kicking around.

Soylent Red

Deposing Saddam was your hot button? Please.

Actually it was, and had been since 1991.

But my attitudes are beside the point. You're the one who wanted to leave Saddam in power, and who now want to leave so Islamists can take over.

And, the American Public, by far, listed WMD's
as theirs.

Listed where? I never saw that figure, and I'm not finding it anywhere on the internet. Was it an actual percentage or just "by far"?

boris

Not only does cleo want to lose this war, she also wanted to lose the cold war.

PeterUK

So you haven't got a cite for your support of the Iraq invasion then Septic,could it be like so many little lefties, you are lying through your teeth?

Semanticleo

Ranger aside from your dissembling and moral justification for the overthrow of Allende,
you Copperhead analogy is non-sequitur.

Internal complexities of Civil War are not a blueprint or harbinger of Nation Building and external mischief. Sorry.

Semanticleo

"it is only America that must be judged by its actions."

Oh, I forgot this most salient of exclusions.

The US should be judged for it's meddling in other countries governance.

Soylent Red

Semanticleo:

Why do you want Iraqis to die?

Just like Pete, you have a sickness that some of us want to understand and help you with.

Ranger

Ranger aside from your dissembling and moral justification for the overthrow of Allende,
you Copperhead analogy is non-sequitur.

Internal complexities of Civil War are not a blueprint or harbinger of Nation Building and external mischief. Sorry.

Posted by: Semanticleo | January 06, 2007 at 12:03 PM

Well, I was not attempting to justify Allende's coup, simply explain it (something that those on the left in the US have never attempted to do by the way). Allende brought the the coup upon himself by refusing to provide the simple protections the law provided. By going outside the law to advance his agenda of social transformation he left an opening for those who would go outside the law on the right to oppose him. When a person can be murdered simply because of their social class, then consitutional order looses it air of authority.

As to the the argument about the copperheads, the arguments are very similar:

Now: "I supported the war when it was about WMD, but not now that it is now about democratizing Iraq."

Then: "I supported the war when it was about preserving the Union, but not now that it is about freeing the slaves."

Now: "Why should I care about the freedom of the Iraqis?"

Then: "Why should I care about the freedom of the blacks in the South?"

Oh, and since you oppose nation building, I take it you would have been one of those arguing against the Marshal Plan and probably agaisnt the war against Germany in 1941 (after all, Gernmany never directly attacked the United States, why should we care who rules Germany?).

PeterUK

"Internal complexities of Civil War are not a blueprint or harbinger of Nation Building and external mischief. Sorry."
So you should be,what on earth does this gibberish mean?

BTW

Righties

Keep digging in losers.

But hey do me a favor and drop the "we did it to liberate Iraq" nonsense. Folks stopped believing that silliness a long time ago. It looks like many of you would like to relive the heady days of March 2003 but the we are in the reality-based world now.

In the reality-based world more and more Americans see that BushCo's actions led to the slaughter of 100s of thousands of Iraqis. He will be the next tyrant to head to the gallows.

Besides you have gone to the well with the "liberation" argument one too many times and it is not serving my purpose of helping you dig yourselves in deeper to your position. You have reached the point of diminishing returns on that argument. So please try harder.
Get creative. Come on, give a guy a hand would ya!

PeterUK

"In the reality-based world more and more Americans see that BushCo's actions led to the slaughter of 100s of thousands of Iraqis. He will be the next tyrant to head to the gallows."

George Bush "the next tyrant to head to the gallows",is reality based? Sounds like acne poisoning to me.


"Get creative. Come on, give a guy a hand would ya!"

Are you requesting applause,or personal services?

clarice

Iran's oil industry is in such bad shape that it was unable to meet its gas contract with Turkey this month and hasn't reached its OPEC quota. The "reformists" are attacking the mullahs for the imposition of sanctions due to their focus on nuclear weaponry.

There is widespread unemployment.
There is widespread disatisfaction with the regime.
The people are angry with these nutters.
Faster please!

And OTOH we now have Reid who was just asking for more troops in Iraq threatening he will block a deployment of more troops there.

PeterUK

Last paragraph sounds like cheque in the post.

Soylent Red

BTW:

You're blocking again. You need to get honest with yourself about the causes of your hatred for Iraqis. Only then can we help you to help yourself.

Please stop hating Iraqis. Can't you see that your hate will only cause more suffering and pain? Think of the children.

Jane

Did you guys read the Melanie Phillips piece linked by Instapundit. (Sorry I haven't weeded thru all the posts so far today) It's one of the best on the war I've seen.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1429

Ranger

Sparing with the selective moral outrage of the left is entertaining, but in response to the topic of the original post, I will point out that the American people will support great sacrifice if they beleive there is a plan for victory. Most of the disaffection with the war is the lack of faith that there is a strategy for victory at present. American's did not vote for defeat in Iraq, they voted for a change in policy that will lead to victory. The democrats harvested votes by campagning for chage, but never clearly stating that what they wanted was defeat.

If the democrats now position themselves as opposed to any change in strategy that could lead to victory, they will set themselves up for defeat in 2008.

clarice

Jane, I don't recall if it's posted. PUK sent it to me last night and, as usual , I found it great. She is remarkable.

Terrye

Meddling? The US is meddling they said as they demanded America save Darfur. The US is meddling they said as the demanded the stingy Americans do more for those suffering from Aids. Meddling they said as they created the ICC and gave themselves the right to try just about anyone anywhere based on their post modern sense of moral superiority.

The Shining Path, lefties, killed 60,000 Peruvians and the left could care less. The truth is FARC and their ilk have intimidated, tortured, and stolen from the poor of Latin America for decades. But the left does not care. So spare me the moral lectures.

And if we are just meddling by enforcing force resolutions passed by the UN, maybe it is time we shut the UN down and just said, hey every man for himself. Screw the women and children.

PeterUK

It should be realised that the Democrat strategy is nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with destroying the Republican party for generations,if another Vietnam can be hung round the neck of of the Republicans it will be an albatross of epic proportions.
We are witnessing political cynicism of Julio-Claudian proportions.

Bob

Out of New Orleans Now! ...our meddling has caused sectarian violence!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2775582>New Orleans Eyes Curfew After 8 Slayings

where's sam on this!

lurker
aybe it is time we shut the UN down

I agree!

Iran's oil industry is in such bad shape that it was unable to meet its gas contract with Turkey this month and hasn't reached its OPEC quota. The "reformists" are attacking the mullahs for the imposition of sanctions due to their focus on nuclear weaponry.

There is widespread unemployment.
There is widespread disatisfaction with the regime.
The people are angry with these nutters.
Faster please!

Surely, their nuclear program is in deep trouble, since Iran had demanded that IEAE assist them in developing "peaceful" (yeah, right) nuclear programs.

lurker

"it is only America that must be judged by its actions."

Oh, I forgot this most salient of exclusions.

The US should be judged for it's meddling in other countries governance.

Even our founding fathers WANT our own country to meddle with other countries' governance. John Quincy Adams and Thomas Jefferson helped Spain fight against the Barbary (Islam) pirates. Why should US be judged in this case? UN is the one that really needs to be judged.

Specter

Pete, BTW, Tic,

None of you has explained why the latest AP/IPSOS poll on the subject had 56% of Americans stating that DEMOCRATS HAVE NO PLAN FOR IRAQ! Stop patting yourselves on the back. You won on "we will fix Iraq" and after that the majority of Americans stated they don't believe you have a plan. That is the funniest thing I have heard. People are starting to see through your empty rhetoric and promises.

PeterUK

Lurker,
There were no brownie points for Bosnia,despite the fact it was Muslims who were saved.

PeterUK

Of course the Democrats have a plan for Iraq,the plan for Iraq is to have no plan for Iraq,thus enabling greater flexibility.

lurker

Remember the fall of Saigon?

Patterico is going to remind us over and over.

A Prediction I Wish I Didn’t Have to Make Will Re-pete and ali-cleown appreciate being reminded of this "repetedly" (mis-spelling intended)?

PUK, and Clinton did it using his executive powers AND without Congress's "approval".

Semenfilledcleo

I don't care how many Iraqis are slaughtered, since I'll just blame it all on Bush.

You guys are fools to try to pin me down on anything, I'll say whatever needs to be said to spread the current Townhouse propaganda.

Idiots.

lurker

So typical of ali-cleown making idiotic statements.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame