Sunday, September 05, 2004

What's in a Name?

This began as a post about the Russian School Hostages. It seemed necessary to discuss it in light of the ‘black-out’ by the collective media. Again we hear the terms “freedom fighter”, “rebels” and “Chechen separatists”. I have yet to hear anyone (besides Michael Savage) describe the bomb that exploded in that gymnasium. The bomb that was loaded with nuts, bolts, screws and other various metal objects that would rip through the flesh of hundreds of children-and did. The ones that weren’t killed by the bomb, and dared to run, were found face down with bullet holes in their backs-children.

This can’t help but evolve into a larger question…What does the media stand to gain from censoring our news and consistently withholding relevant information/pictures? What can Americans possibly achieve from the false sense of security that ‘a name’ can bestow?

After twenty-five years of being attacked and killed by Muslim Extremists, it would seem a matter of simple deduction to understand that we are at war with Muslim Extremists. Terror is their method…not who they are. The ‘War on Terror’ seems to be yet another erroneous title (as a Priest who molests children is, in my eyes, a terrorist). The war is a ‘War on Muslim Extremists', who chose terror as their method of enacting a declared Jihad.

Within weeks of the slaughter of thousands of Americans on September 11th, the media, along with various civil liberties groups, were already pounding away at the Administration and demanding rights for ‘terror suspects’. In the witch-hunt for John Ashcroft and amidst the cries of this Administration using ‘fear’ to get votes…here is a fact that has gone virtually unreported…”From September 11th through the end of 2002 the Bush administration had thwarted an estimated 100 or more attacks against the US and it’s interests” (NYT 1/10/03 –way, way back on page A11). But what was the President of the ACLU saying (Nadine Strossen)? That she “saw parallels between what we are going through and McCarthyism.” There have been no internment camps, no KGB, CAIR has not been silenced and no Mosques have been shuttered…An interesting side note to that is no one has been able to cite one case to show ‘abuse of power’ of the Patriot Act.

Journalists continue to refer to Palestinian homicide bombers as ‘suicide bombers’ and ‘resistance fighters’, and they report the story of the children murdered in the Russian school and talk about the captors as “Chechens” without divulging the fact that they too are Muslim Extremists (many Arabs). The media denial goes much deeper than how they have chosen to label murderers as ‘opposition groups’…

You were not told that a Muslim named Abdul Hameed (previously called Suleyman Al-Lindh) was captured in Afghanistan fighting against US forces…you were told that was John Walker Lindh…a name that he had not used in years, but that the media reinstated…

You were never told that a Muslim named Ibrahim was attempting to make a dirty bomb…you were told that was Jose Padilla even though his name was legally changed almost 10 years ago…

You were not told that a Muslim named Tariq Raja was found with a bomb in his shoe on a trans-Atlantic flight…you were told that was Richard Reid, British Citizen…

You were also not told that a Muslim named John Mohammad, who had rejoiced after the 9/11 attacks was shooting people sniper style in DC, Maryland and Virginia…you were told that was John Allen Williams…a Gulf War Vet…

What is the angle in making these happenings all appear as random acts…by people with American names? Why report a name that is false since it has been legally changed?

The NYT, LATimes, Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Post and Dan Rather can criticize Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Cheney and Bush, and they can make claims about the Republicans campaign of fear…and they can go on distorting the truth while they do it. They can pretend that it is luck that has prevented any attack on our soil for the past three years. Some have asked why others question their Patriotism…Because you warp facts to pander to your liberal agenda. You lie to the American people about the true identities of these people to protect the liberties of those who would kill us. You cloak terrorists in American names and noble terms like ‘freedom fighter’. You deceive Americans to justify your hate of this Administration. You veil your intentions in the protection of civil liberties of our enemies…most who are not even citizens--and you jeopardize my children each and every time you do it.

The facts are what they are…we are at war with Muslim Extremists. We are the infidels and Allah will not bless them while we are alive. They don’t hate us for our freedom; they hate us because we breathe. I end with no answer to the cause of the collaborative deception. I have no idea why the media has joined hands in an effort to minimize the threat that our country is facing…

1979- US Embassy in Iran taken hostage –American held for 444 days…by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.

1982- US Embassy bombed in Beirut (63 killed/17 Americans)…by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.

1983- Marine barracks in Beirut bombed (241 marines killed)…by MUSLIM EXTREMISITS.

1985- Achille Lauro (Italian Cruise ship) seized and American killed…by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.

1986- US Military frequented W. Berlin nightclub bombed (2 US soldiers killed)…by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.

1988- Pan Am Flight 103 bombed (270 killed/189 Americans)…by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.

1993- World Trade Center bombed (6 killed)…by (Iraqi) MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.

1995- Car bomb in Saudi Arabia kills 5 Americans…by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.

1996- US Air force housing in Saudi Arabia bombed (270 injured/19 killed)…by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.

1998- US Embassies (Kenya/Tanzania) bombed (5,000 injured/258 dead)…by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.

2000- USS Cole attacked (17 killed)…by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.

2001- 2,752 killed on 9/11 in the World Trade Center…by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS.


55 comments:

Bigandmean said...

If only anyone in the Clinton administration had such a clear understanding of the problem we've been facing but avoiding for so many years. This is what happens you go sleep (around) on the job.

A few other names I've seen and heard used in reference to the terroists in Russia: insurgents, rebels, Chechen Nationalists. To admit that we have an ongoing worldwide conflict with Islamic Terrorists seems to be something the press and the democrats will continue to avoid.

Now, it seems that the Russians, Germans, Canadians and even the French are ready to admit the gravity of the problem and the wrong-headedness of their opposition to fighting the terrorists. What will it take for the democrats and their allies in the American press to finally figure it out?

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

The hard core of Muslim extremists don't even "hate" us. The word "hate" is used in the media in order to imply that if we placate whatever situation it is that causes the "hatred", they will stop killing us. That is yet another subtle lie forged by the news journalism elite in their teardown/rebuild agenda. What the Muslim extremists are really doing, is taking their pseudo-understanding of Islam, and applying it in a very logical way: you are either submitting to Allah, or you are not. If you are not, there is no way for Allah to allow anything other than a death sentence. Hence, the Sword of Jihad, to carry it out.

The news journalism elite think they can use this Sword of Jihad to just temporarily tear us down so that their candidates can build us back up when they get elected. That answers the "why" you were asking in your article, Ala71. What they don't understand is that beyond a certain point in their project, there will be no chance of rebuilding.

Paul G. said...

CBFTW is back.

Wild Bill said...

wow your right! I think we are on the same page. Or could it be we both listen to Michael Savage? good to hear from you again.

this we'll defend said...

Well, seemingly as usual ALa71 gets the facts wrong. Associated press, LA Times, and Reuters have described the perpatrators as "terrorists." The world has condemned these attacks - including the following:

Al Arabiay television, the general manager of which, Abdul Rahman Rasheed, wrote "Most perpetrators of suicide operations in buses, schools and residential buildings around the world for the past 10 years have been Muslims."

Grand Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, Egypt's highest-ranking cleric, who railed against the terrorists during Friday prayers, saying "You (the terrorists) are taking Islam as a cover and it is a deceptive cover; those who carry out the kidnappings are criminals, not Muslims."

The Islamic Repubic of Iran.

King Abdullah II of Jordan, who called the terrorists "criminal and cowardly."

The Saudi Daily Arab News, who supports Chechen independence, wrote the "guerillas put themselves in a position where no one would shed tears for them when the punishment came. They reached a new low when they chose toddlers as bargaining chips."

Lebanon's Daily Star condemned the attacks and called for better understanding of the root causes of terror.

ALa said...

TWD: Seemingly, as usual, TWD doesn't understand that not once did I say that the word 'terrorist' doesn't sneak into a story here or there. Obviously, because I would like people to make it all the way through my posts, I can't include 4,000 examples --so assume that my posts are GENERALIZED to the majority...we can assume the minority is there if it makes you feel better. The 'black out' I referred to (Russian Hostages)was not one of the names, but of the details and the graphic pictures (which I thought I wrote...). Way to ignore everything else though...

ALa said...

P.S. I was talking about AMERICAN press...
Hence the mention of NYT, LA TImes, Philly Inquirer and Washington Post....

this we'll defend said...

Well, if you didn't see the enormous amount of coverage that the newspapers and television devoted to the story, including graphic pictures and extended terrifying stories, you can either blame the left-wing liberal media conspiracy, OR

You can watch more than just Fox.

Seemingly everyone on the planet saw massive coverage except you. Including those of us in the United States, despite the "left-wing liberal conspiracy." Everyone - except apparently you.

Four full pages of the LA Times was devoted to the story today in the front news section.

And here is a website you may have heard of, Yahoo, with 149 pictures in a presentation titled "Terrorists Take Children Hostage, Troops End Standoff" - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sl&g=events/ts/090104russiaschool&e=1.

The pictures are all from Associated Press.

You say "Some have asked why others question their Patriotism…Because you warp facts to pander to your liberal agenda. You lie to the American people."

Uhh, no. We tell the truth even when it isn't simple. Even when it is unpopular. And you lie because you will do anything or say anything to win in November.

And you question our patriotism because you are uncomortable with democracy.

ALa said...

Yeah, because so many people will see that slide show...and you have to join to look at the LA Times page. This was not the point of the post and you know it....you knit-picked the smallest issue and ran with it.
I don't know what is going on with you, but you have gotten very hostile and a bit nasty lately. You comments are always attacking (not debating) someone. And before you say it -the MEDIA'S Patriotism...not yours. I mistakenly figured you would agree with the fact that we need to be more aggressive -and that we have made a lot of mistakes in the past -in all administrations.
For those that think this could never happen here -A Cleric is condoning it (and I'd bet he's not the only one)... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml

this we'll defend said...

You say: You deceive Americans to justify your hate of this Administration. You veil your intentions in the protection of civil liberties of our enemies…most who are not even citizens--and you jeopardize my children each and every time you do it.

Well, I disagree. And that seems pretty hostile and nasty - and untrue - to me.

After watching the hatefest of the RNC yes I am a bit hostile in return.

And what was your point - that the media is keeping secret the war against terrorism? hardly.

Or perhaps the media are hiding that there are Muslims attacking us? hardly.

Or just that we are at war and those who disagree with you over whether Iraq should have been part of the war against terror are unpatriotic and are weak? Well, it's not true.

BTW: Your long and incomplete list of attacks on Americans by Muslims - which were done by Iraqis?

attillathehunnybun said...

TWD's increased nastiness reflects his frusration at falling 11 points behind and and still not being able to figure out why.

I thought I just saw a post by TWD about stopping the bitter personal attacks but he obviously wasn't sincere. I thought Ala71's post was a complaint about the left and their allies in media. TWD quickly turned it into a personal attack on the author of the post.

Ala71, you can't confront the people of the bitter left with facts. If you do, expect it to become increasingly bitter and personal.

Bigandmean said...

TWD,
What part of the RNC was a hatefest? Maybe it could be characterized as a do not particularly care for-fest or even a really don't like-fest. I really don't remember any hate.

Who did it and what did they do? Was it Zell, Arnold, John, Laura, the twins, Dick or George?

Paul G. said...

I'm not going to get any awards for popularity around here, but I can't leave Bigandmean's statement unaddressed.
The liberal media outlet CNN rebroadcast Larry King's interview with President Clinton tonight and reminded me of this;
----------------------------------
CLINTON: No. What I say is I tried like the devil to take him out. I knew how bad he was. Even in my first term we were watching him. And we worked hard on terrorism. We had to.

Keep in mind, we had the first World Trade Center bombing in '93. We had the Oklahoma City bombing in '95. We finally passed the big anti-terrorism legislation I'd been pushing for a year and a half in '96. We averted all the terrorist attacks planned for the millennium, plus earlier attempts to blow up the Holland Tunnel and the Lincoln Tunnel and the U.N. building in New York, the L.A. airport. Planes flying from the Philippines to the L.A. airport.

KING: There were plans to blow up the L.A...

CLINTON: Absolutely. All those things.

And after the African embassies were blown up, there was a plan to blow up our embassy in Albania. We did that. There was a plan by many of bin Laden's allies from the mujahideen in Afghanistan, the Afghan War, to take over Bosnia after the Bosnian War and we stopped that.
------------------------------------

Yep, that looks like asleep. The womanizing SOB didn't do a darned thing.

I've been accused of being sanctimonious around here before, I'll get it again for this.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you are not safe, you have never been safe and you will never be safe.
America needs to grow up and get over it before it destroys itself.

this we'll defend said...

Paul,

Since "you can't confront the people of the bitter left with facts" your facts (and mine, and Lefty's, usually with citations) won't help. This post being a superb example - ALa71 alleges that the true nature of our enemy is being hidden. She says "What does the media stand to gain from censoring our news and consistently withholding relevant information/pictures?" I responded with numerous citations showing the obvious nature of our enemy with a twist - I used Muslim media to do it. She responded "I meant US Media" so I responded with US media (LA times and Yahoo slide shows because I WAS READING THEM AT THE TIME.) She again responds, claiming my sources aren't really valid since few will see them (note she hasn't provided ANY factual support for her claims that the "liberal media" have "warped the truth.")

I just did a yahoo query with the words "Russian," "School," and "attack." I show 1,420,000 results (the search took 0.18 seconds.) The first 20 include CBS, CNN, ABC, FOX, and ABC. I read all of them - they all give the facts, many of them from Associated Press wire reports (remember those photos ALa71 says nobody will see? AP photos). Oh, and ALL used the word "terror" or "extremist" and all note possible connections with Arab Muslim Fundamentalists. ALa71 says the media reports "the story of the children murdered in the Russian school and talk about the captors as “Chechens” without divulging the fact that they too are Muslim Extremists (many Arabs)." Even the ARAB media condemned the terrorists, noting that they were Muslim and were using Islam as an excuse to commit evil.

But I don't use facts, remember? As Atilla says, you can't confront the bitter people of the left with facts. Even though no facts have been provided in this post to support ALa71's argument that the media is Thus your Clinton interview won't help Paul. Facts mean nothing. 9/11 was all Clinton's fault. I mean, as soon as Bush took office he had a plan to address Al Queda. He immediately.... Uhhh, well, he started to.... Uhhh, well,... he cut taxes, didn't he? What are we complaining about Paul?

Ashcroft addressed terrorism though.

"Ashcroft's May 2001 "budget goals memo" outlined the Attorney General's top seven priorities. Counterterrorism did not appear anywhere on the list. After 9/11, Ashcroft released a revised strategic goals memo in November 2001 that inserted a new priority at the top of the list – "Protect America Against the Threat of Terrorism." source: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45491

Attorney General Ashcroft specifically cut counterterrorism spending prior to 9/11 by more than $476 million.

Here are some more FACTS that we on the left apparently have a hard time dealing with Paul:

Bush & Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 – By The Numbers

0 – Number of meetings held by Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force (which was created in May 2001)

0 – References to Al Qaeda in Dr. Rice’s 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush’s top foreign affairs priorities

0 – References to Al Qaeda in Secretary Rumsfeld 2001 memo outlining national security priorities

0 – References to terrorism is Justice Department's top seven goals for 2001 (already mentioned above)

0 – Number of National Security Council meetings held by Bush administration before invasion of Iraq was discussed (i.e., it was discussed at the VERY FIRST MEETING AFTER BUSH TOOK OFFICE!!!!!)

1 – Number of times the Bush administration mentioned al Qaeda prior to 9-11. This was in a notice continuing an executive order issued by PRESIDENT CLINTON.

1 – Number of hours President Bush and Vice President Cheney agreed to allow in their joint meeting with the 9-11 panel.

2 – Number of National Security Council meetings on terrorism prior to 9-11 (out of approximately 100).

2 – Weeks into administration when Energy Task Force announced (FOR COMPARISON TO SHOW BUSH'S STEADFAST FOCUS ON TERRORISM PRIOR TO 9/11)

2 – Number of public statements by the Bush administration mentioning Osama bin Laden prior to 9-11 (excluding press briefings and press questions which would raise the total to 19)

4 – Minimum number of Al Qaeda millennium attacks thwarted by the Clinton administration (only plots to bomb Seattle, Los Angeles, Brooklyn and Jordan have been specifically identified)

4 – Number of hours Bush spent with Bob Woodward as part of his book, “Bush at War.”

4 – Months into Bush administration when aid to the Taliban was restored.

4 – Months into administration when Energy Task Force report was released (NOTE THAT THIS WAS STILL FOUR MONTHS FROM 9/11 - SURE GAVE TERROR TOP PRIORITY, DIDN'T HE?)

6 – Months that it would take for Vice President Cheney to respond to draft counterterrorism and homeland security legislation sent to him on July 20, 2001 by Senators Feinstein and Kyl, as stated by his top aide.

6 – Months before 9-11 that Paul Bremer - current Iraq administrator and former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism - claimed that the Bush administration was “paying no attention” to terrorism. “Bremer stated that the Bush administration would “stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this.’” PRETTY GOOD CRYSTAL BALL MR. BREMER

8 – Months the administration sat on an “urgent” request from its counterterrorism chief (Clarke) to meet about al Qaeda.

9 – Percentage cut sought by Bush in FY2005 budget for Nunn-Lugar program to secure Soviet nuclear material and prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists, while pushing for billions in spending to deploy an unproven missile defense system.

10 – Number of meetings of Cheney’s Energy Task force prior to 9/11

12 – Number in thousands of US troops in Afghanistan Winter 2004 (compared to 150,000 in Iraq)

36 – Months passed without any meeting of the Cheney terrorism task force since its formation in May 2001

101– Number of public statements by the Bush administration on his missile defense (aka Star Wars) program from January 21 to September 10, 2001.

104 – Number of public statements by the President Bush on Saddam Hussein from January 21 to September 10, 2001

150 – Number in thousands of US troops in Iraq Winter 2004

700 – Millions of dollars Bush administration diverted from war against Al Qaeda to prepare for Iraq war (some of it illegally as Congress had appropriated the money to other projects and had NOT approved it for use preparing for Iraq - but that pesky CONSTITUTION didn't stop our fearless leader).

800 – Millions of dollars Congress sought to shift from missile defense to counter-terrorism programs prior to 9/11, but Bush threatened to VETO any such measure.

President Bush admitted to Bob Woodward that “I didn’t feel the sense of urgency,” about terrorism before 9/11.

In April 2001 the administration released the government’s annual terrorism report with no extensive mention of Osama bin Laden as in prior years. A State Department official told CNN that "the Clinton administration had made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.” YEP, IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT.

Similarly, at an April meeting of deputies Clarke urged a focus on Al Qaeda. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz responded, “No, no, no. We don’t have to deal with al-Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.”

In addition, General Donald Kerrick, the deputy National Security Advisor under Clinton who stayed on for a few months with the Bush administration, wrote a memo to his successor (Stephen Hadley) that the administration needed to pay attention to al Qaeda since they will strike again. “They never once asked me a question nor did I see them having a serious discussion about it. They didn’t feel it was imminent the way the Clinton administration did.”

The Bush administration terminated a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the U.S. and even provided aid to the Taliban in 2001.

So you see, Paul, we lefties just don't understand facts. 9/11 was Clinton's fault, Bush was always focused on terrorism, the war with Iraq is because of terrorism, and we have always been at war with Oceania, not Eurasia.

tescosuicide said...

I found TWD’s source - www.bushlies.net – Newsweek, Washington Post, ABC Worldnews, David Shuster, George Stephanopoulos….

BUSHLIES CONTEXT:

KING: What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going on further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places.

KERRY: Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein. I think we.

KING: We should go to Iraq?

KERRY: Well, that -- what do you and how you choose to do it, we have a lot of options. Absent smoking gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the immediate events of September 11, the president doesn't have the authorization to proceed forward there. But we clearly are he ought to proceed to put pressure on him with respect to the weapons of mass destruction. I think we should be supporting an opposition. There are other ways for us, clandestinely and otherwise, to put enormous pressure on him and I think we should do it.

That’s all BUSHLIES has to say……..How about the whole story??

INTERESTING CBS CONTEXT

GLORIA BORGER: “Do we have any information that chemical and biological attacks were part of this? We got news this morning about the crop-dusting manuals.”

KERRY: “No, no, no, n--at least I don’t and not to my knowledge do any of my colleagues. But it is something that we know--for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them. That’s why it’s so vital that we get the global community to be part of this effort to begin to make their lives miserable …”
(CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/23/01)

INTERESTING FOX CONTEXT

KERRY: “I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on no matter what the evidence is about September 11. But I think we have to do it in a thoughtful and intelligent way.”
O’REILLY: “Which is what? I mean, look, you know, the guy … the guy is simply -- he is an out of control guy …”
KERRY: “Absolutely.”
KERRY: “I have not seen any evidence yet with respect to the 11th. But there are avenues of -- to pursue there. The important thing is that Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein fired weapons on Israel. They took some -- I think it was 29 or more scuds without even responding during the war. In addition to that, he has refused to live by the terms of the treaty that he signed at the end of the war in which he agreed to do certain things.”
(Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” 12/11/01)


INTERESTING CNN CONTEXT

KING: “What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places …”

KERRY: “Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein. I think we …”

KING: “We should go to Iraq?”

KERRY: “Well, that -- what you do and how you choose to do it, we have a lot of options. Absent smoking gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the immediate events of September 11, the president doesn’t have the authorization to proceed forward there. But we clearly ought to proceed to put pressure on him with respect to the weapons of mass destruction. I think we should be supporting an opposition. There are other ways for us, clandestinely and otherwise, to put enormous pressure on him and I think we should do it.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 12/14/01)

BUSHLIES – Stop here……

Everyone else – Continue…..

INTERESTING CNBC CONTEXT (if there is such a thing)

MATTHEWS: “Do you think that the problem we have with Iraq is real and it can be reduced to a diplomatic problem? Can--can we get this guy to accept inspections of those weapons of mass destruction po--potentially and get past a possible war with him?”

KERRY: “Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. But he would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We’re precisely doing that. And I think that’s what Colin Powell did today.”

MATTHEWS: “Call his bluff.”

KERRY: “It--well, if it is a bluff. I think you have to begin there no matter what. Whether Saddam Hussein began that process today or we begin it, you have to put the challenge of the inspections on the line. Why? Because that’s the outstanding issue unresolved from the war. That’s what he agreed to do. And that’s where we left off with Ambassador Butler and his--his rejecting it. I mean, it’s astounding, to me, frankly, that our country, as well as the United Nations, have allowed these years to go by with just a simple stonewalling.”
(CNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/5/02)

INTERESTING CNN CONTEXT

KERRY: “I believe that over time, as people realize why we voted to go with a legitimate threat of force and to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, it was in fact important to the security of our country. The vote was correct.”
(CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 9/2/03)

INTERESTING CBS CONTEXT

MCMANUS: “Senator, let me--if--if I could go back to Iraq for--for just a moment. You said that when you voted back in October to authorize military action, it ended up being on the basis of information that turned out to be untrue. Let me just put it as plainly as this. If you had known then what you know now, would you have voted the same way?”

KERRY: “Well, it wasn’t only on that basis. If you read my speech, I was very clear. Saddam Hussein could not be left to his own devices based on everything we learned about him for seven and a half years while we were inspecting in Iraq. People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction. We were, the United States of America, together with Ambassador Butler, and the United Nations.”
(CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/14/03)

Should we trust his source??

ALa said...

TWD 'quotes': "President Bush admitted to Bob Woodward that “I didn’t feel the sense of urgency,” about terrorism before 9/11."
This is a half quote (what Coulter is always accused of doing)...I know because I own and have read the book...
TWD -Have we talked about your sources before? WWW.bushlies.com? How can we trust you ever again? Are you quoting Farenhate 9/11 too...or maybe using Stuart Smalley's research? Sheesh....

Paul: I did not blame ONE administration...I said all administrations for MANY years...so why bring up Magical Me? And why use his own words as a source of defending him?

"ALa71 is SO great...she does a lot of work for the posts and doesn't get things wrong ever. People respect her all over the world." Quote by ALa71, 9/6/04

Seems a bit silly huh...especially in light of the fact that they have Clinton ON TAPE (much to his chagrin) saying that he was offered Bin laden and didn't take him. I have provided the link once before...

TWD: Did the list of the names that the media 'changed' come up invisible on your monitor? (Heading you off again...I am sure that at one point they said their Muslim names...but let's say it was 23 to 1....)

www.bushlies.com....HOW LAME!!!!!!!!!!

this we'll defend said...

Yes, ALa71, by all means attack the source while not disproving ANY of them because they are ALL true.

And the partial quote? Please put the entire quote in so that we can see how I "twisted" things. Please, by all means, show it in context.

As for the "changed names" - it is a bigger news story when Americans join Al Queda than when Arabs do so. But all news stories told that John Walker Lindh was working with the Taliban (not AQ) and that he was a convert to Islam, and all news sources about Padilla mention he was converted to Islam and is alleged to be an AQ member. So was your point that the media was "hiding" the Muslim nature of our enemy?

The FACT (oh, those lefties don't know facts, do they?) is that both parties want to fight and win the war on terror and make the world safer for the United States. We disagree how to do it - the left wanted to hunt down and kill Osama and all his henchmen, seek world cooperation in hunting down and killing all Islamic extrememists, and overthrow the Taliban to show the world what happens to governments that cooperate with those who would attack us. The right wanted to do all that too, but considered invading Iraq part of the war on terror and thought that occupying Iraq, enraging the Islamic world, angering long-time allies, and ignoring/destroying international cooperation was the way to win.

One side is wrong.

And the republican's characterization of the democrats as weak, disloyal, naive, and unwilling to fight is wrong, but when did being wrong ever stop George W. Bush?

Bigandmean said...

TWD

New York Times Headline for Monday, September 6, 2004: "Russian Rebels Had Precise Plan". RUSSIAN REBELS? Advantage Ala71. Your turn.

ALa said...

I don't need www.johnkerrylies.com to prove that one side is wrong...history has already proved that...MOST of the leadership on the left are the embodiment and re-incarnation of Neville Chamberlain...
Chamberlain decided not to oppose Hitler because of "the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one other again" He went on to tell the British people, "My good friends, for the second time in our history; a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time...Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." (1938) I am sure the Jews really appreciated his distaste for war and pacifist nature…
Contrast and compare: Churchill vs. Chamberlain / Reagan vs. Carter...the difference has been a constant theme throughout history.
There is a reason that Democrats are dubbed 'weak on defense'...as even the most degrading of stereo-types are grounded in truth. Abraham Lincoln even commented on this way back when...talking about the ineffectiveness of Dems during the Civil War he said, “They can nominate a Peace Democrat on a War platform or a War Democrat on a peace platform and I personally can't say that I much care which they do." (Never Call Retreat, Bruce Catton)...because it's all talk and procrastinating and ultimately --appeasing.

ALa said...

P.S. There is a taped interview with Condie Rice (on Russert or the like) from 2/2001 that has been widely played with her stating that Bin Laden & Terrorism were top priorities... This was widely reported after Richard Clarke's assertion that she didn't know who Al Qeada was -around the time his 'on background' tape (praising the administration's efforts and saying they had increased funding and resources against terrorism FIVE FOLD after the Clinton Administration) was played to discredit almost all that he had said.

~Jen~ said...

A snipit from the New York Times article

Russian Rebels Had Precise Plan
By C. J. CHIVERS and STEVEN LEE MYERS

Published: September 6, 2004

"Like militants of Al Qaeda, which President Vladimir V. Putin and others contend provides succor to Chechnya's separatists, the militants believed to be behind all the attacks have managed to deploy cells of ideologues who spend extended periods organizing and carrying out spectacular, unnerving attacks, often suicidal ones. Their tactics, complex and flexible and carried out by guerrillas who control no real territory where they could operate freely, have left the police and security forces guessing where the next attack will be."

Jericho Brown said...

ALa,

If nothing else, your posting exposes just how indoctrinated you are by the NEOCON media. The "liberal media" is a myth constructed by and perpetuated by the radical right. And I quote:
"The conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be UNOBJECTIVE. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it, too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it, actually." --conservative dickweed Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard

Saying that the media doesn't want people to know that Muslims are behind all the attacks you listed is ridiculous. EVERYONE know that it's Muslims. The right and the left can both agree on that fact. What happened in Russia is a tragedy of unbearable proportion. It makes me hate the motherfuckers who perpetuate these kinds of attacks even more than I already do. But the only way to force an end to the constant petty bickering between both sides of the American political system is to stop pointing fingers at the other guy and acting like they don't want the same things that you want: security, freedom and freedom from fear. These are natural human desires. But you're not doing anything to bring it any closer to fruition by acting like Ann fucking Coulter. She's a divider, plain and simple. And although we live in a time where everything is polarized in this country, it seems to me that the best way to change that reality is to listen to the facts, the facts that matter, and figure out some way to come together to face the common enemy.Stop fooling yourselves, people, you're more delusional than the non-Neocons. WAKE UP.

Paul G. said...

"There is a reason that Democrats are dubbed 'weak on defense'...as even the most degrading of stereo-types are grounded in truth.", says ALa71

I can't really believe you said such a thing.
I could list a host of stereotypes that have no grounding in truth.
Anyone with blonde hair knows one of them.
You personally provide the evidence against your own statement.

tescosuicide said...

Oh boy.... back to helping Paul - I would say this statement is one of regarding MOST of modern dems, as Zel Miller (in case you don't know, is a Democrat) is quite obviously strong on defense. Let me know if I can help you in the future Paulie.

tescosuicide said...

JB,
It does seem like a small argument but one thing we do all know is, the popular media is usually the only source for most Americans - not all of us watch cable news - So how they classify an individual or group is probably going to be how most will perceive it. I must also point out, as I mentioned before, foul language makes one sound ignorant.

Jericho Brown said...

tescosuicide:

FUCK OFF. Is that ignorant enough for ya? Who the fuck died and made you in charge of what does and doesn't sound ignorant? What makes one sound ignorant is one's proclivity toward spouting off shit about which there is no empirical information. Even Shakespeare used profanity. Are you smarter than fucking Shakespeare? Is that what you're fucking saying? What about Chris Rock? IS he a dumb fuck? Is tescosuicide's grammatical perfection the benchmark by which all should evaluate themselves in order to sound less ignorant? Thank you, disco Stu-icide, for making a brilliant contribution to the discussion.

tescosuicide said...

You're in high school aren't you....

Paul G. said...

Tesco, how nice to see you again.
I trust the housebreaking is going well.

tescosuicide said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul G. said...

Ala71,
tescosuicide said...

Paul -my blonde hair is courtesy of my hairdresser...so it doesn't disprove anything...
I also forgot the best example of all-- Lincoln vs. McClellan --in a time when the nation was TRULY divided...
I do believe that the parties have to come together to beat this (but that means more than "striking back swiftly after EACH ATTACK") --but I am also realistic and know that that will not happen before November. At this point it is plain to see that we don't even 'get' each other, so 'coming together' seems a bit unrealistic...I said in my last post "Cake or death?"... That's how un-nuanced it is in my mind...

Jericho -You sure bring up the beautiful Constitutional lawyer, Ann Coulter, quite a lot....do I detect a slight bi-partisan Matalin/Carville crush?
5:23 PM
You just blew your cover.

ALa said...

I didn't blow my cover...I used my husband's computer...LOL...

ALa said...

Sorry baby...I blew your cover...I have a feeling most people knew anyway...

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul G. said...

Well true or not, you can't blame me for this little bit of fun.

One way; You can both bleach your hair at the same time, a real bonding occasion for manly men and their wives.

The Other; You both need to add 'Sybil' to your profile under Favorite Movies.

ALa said...

Obviously, lil' ol' ALa71 is not the ONLY one to notice this "What's in a name?" thing...turns out 'National Lampoon' now has a piece that says 'terrorist' will be removed from the dictionary as it isn't getting used by the national press/print media (except when quoting George Bush) --inspired by Russian incident...It usually isn't very effective to lampoon something that isn't happening...
Developing...

this we'll defend said...

JB: grow up. I mean it. There was no call for that whatsoever, and it is not what people who believe in democracy and informed debate should do. ALa71 is a right-wing ideologue in my opinion. I am a left-wing ideologue in her opinion. AND - we talk to each other without profanity, learning about each other's opinion. So grow the F up. I like your support and your comments when you are mature, but not when you resort to childishness. You are smarter than that and better than that I am sure. Read lefty's blog for an example of how the best bloggers disagree without profanity.

ALa71: Neville Chamberlain? Who is saying "Peace in our Time" or "compromise with Al Queda?" NObody except for the liars on Fox who tell the dittoheads what the left is saying - even thought they aren't saying any such thing.

Lincoln v McClellan? Lincoln didn't invade Mexico. Bush would have while pulling resources from the fight against the rebels. And we would have lost the Civil War. And those that disagreed with him and demanded we fight the secessionists would have been branded "anti-union" and "Southern Sympathizers."

WWII? FDR didn't invade the Soviet Union. Bush would have, and anybody that disagreed with him would have been branded a Nazi sympathizer, and we would have lost WWII.

Today and the war on Terror? Bush invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and anybody who thinks that world-class stupid (like the weaklings at the Army War College or the highest ranking Army general, Chief of Staff Gen. Shinseki) are branded weak on terror and unwilling to fight the terrorist enemy. And if we keep up this stupidity of attacking the wrong way we could lose the war on terror and sacrifice our freedoms at the same time.

You and your fellow right-wingers are weak on defense and weak on the war against terror Ala71. I want Osama's head on a pole, I want AQ and sympathizers tracked down and killed, and that you felt Saddam was a bigger threat and supported pulling resources from the war on terror to invade Iraq hurts our national security.

Again, despite the right-wing's continued lies about the weakness of the Democratic party and their false and baseless charges that the Democrats don't want to fight terror, the truth is DEMOCRATS DON'T WANT TO FIGHT THE WAR ON TERROR. THEY WANT TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR.

Vote for Bush if you don't want to win the war on terror. It's that simple.

ALa said...

TWD: I HONESTLY believe that you do...I KNOW that you are tough on defense (which is why I referred to you as a Lieberman Democrat a long time ago --that is a compliment when coming from me...) BUT, I don't think your party feels the same --not only the leadership BUT the HUGE anti-war contingent and special interest groups that dictate it's moves. Do I think Kerry would be tougher than he is being portrayed if it were up to him...maybe, but he can't because that's not where the big money in the party comes from ...Soros is anti-war, all of Hollywood was even against going into Afghanistan. It's great to be idealistic and think that it can be different, but even in times of peril -money talks.

Paul G. said...

Well, here's another tough on defense Democrat.
Do we need a poll to dispel the myth(stereotype)?

I don't think so.
After September 11th, 2001 this country was united more than any time since Perl Harbor.
What changed it?
An invasion of Iraq that couldn't be sold to a clear majority of the country.
Some saw it as an attempt to finish daddy's war, many saw it as an oil grab, others saw it as the only means to stop a mushroom cloud from decorating Miami.
If you concede that a war on Iraq was vital to the larger war on terror, you still have to acknowledge that the administration failed to communicate that to allies and it's own citizens.
To blame that failure of communication on the Liberals, the media, or pacifism is to ignore the failure of the administration to do it's own job.

ALa said...

Paul -That would be great if it were true...but it's not. The protests started before Afghanistan...I took pictures of the protesters in front of the Liberty Bell (as I have mentioned before)...all that Hollywood 'Not in Our Name' stuff was for Afghanistan too, A.S.W.E.R. was against Afghanistan...Maybe more of the party was lost after Iraq, but it started WAY before that...

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

ALa71, I can vouch for that. I remember in December of 2002 seeing another parent at a hockey match wearing a "Code Pink" button. I asked her what it was, what it meant. She said "It's to put a stop to the war in Afghanistan".

When the Iraq war started up, in 2003, she never again mentioned Afghanistan, but consistently harped on Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, as if she never said what she said before, about Afghanistan.

Had there been no war in Iraq, they'd have still be protesting just as hard, and still would have been just as horribly wrong about the possibility of schmoozing Muslim Extremists and others of our enemies, out of attacking us.

this we'll defend said...

Wow, there were "some" protestors against Afghanistan, therefore ALL democrats, or even the majority, must be LYING when they say they are in favor of fighting terrorists. Even though the democrats were in favor of invading Afghanistan, since there were some protestors against it they must speak for the entire party, right?

Except when the party platform clearly states the Democratic Party position - fight and WIN the war on terror. When the most viable anti-war candidate (DEAN) was rejected by the party in favor of Kerry. When I AND Lefty and Paul just on this post alone all vehemently state in no uncertain terms we are angry about the lack of focus in fighting the war, not that we are angry about fighting the war in the first place. When even the right's most hated film, F9/11, takes Bush to task for NOT concentrating our resources against Al Queda. When the Chief of Staff of the US Army says Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time. When the Army War College comes to the same conclusion. As the President said, you can't separate the war in Iraq from the war on terror - and those who try are traitors and hippies anyway, right?

See, it doesn't matter what we say. It doesn't matter that I worked a phone bank with an Army infantry veteran of three wars - WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and he has never voted Democratic in his life, and he helped me campaign for Kerry today because, as he says, "my party has gone crazy and I love America and my Army too much to give Bush another chance to hurt either one." He is a hippie traitor too. It's so simple that way - vote Republican, it's easier than thinking. Just figure out which guy gives you the simplest solutions and go for that. It doesn't matter if he is telling the truth anyway.

For instance, the much lauded "You are either for us or against us." Tough talk, and America cheered. Not me. I want to fight against those who attacked us, and those who helped the attackers, but if a nation isn't sure if they want to help I would rather they stay out of it instead of joining the fight against us. But that doesn't sound "tough" and "macho," and all it does is help us to victory and keeps more soldiers alive. It doesn't help win elections.

Bush would have invaded Switzerland in WWII. He also would have attacked the Soviet Union, taking them on as well as Japan and Germany. After all, they were all evil (or at least not "with us" so they must be "against us").

So who cares what the Democratic party is very clearly saying. What matters is what the Republicans say the Democrats are saying. Still with me here on Airstrip One, Winston? Say it - 2 + 2 = 5. We have always been at war with Oceania.

The right doesn't want to argue with reality, they want to fight a chimera, a shadow. They want to campaign against the hippies and those who hate America and everyone who wants Al Queda to win. It is easier that way because, like our President, they can't count past two. There can only be two options in their world, and if the republicans want to fight terror then the democrats must want to surrender, right? For us or against us. Good v evil. Right v wrong. Appeasement or invasion. And don't listen to what the democrats actually say, listen to Fox News and let Bill O'Reilly tell you what the democrats actually mean.

There are more crayons in the crayon box than just white and black.

Bush hijacked the 9/11 hijackers and committed us to war based on lies and false pretenses and, at best, gross mistakes. The responsibility belongs to him, and blaming Tenet and the CIA is weak and wussy - not what a MAN would do. He needs to return to Crawford. We need to fight and win this war. Bush has made it much more difficult for us to win through his ineptitude and lack of wisdom, and he will do more damage in the next four years. We must elect Kerry if we are to remain strong and if we are to win the war that Bush is losing for us.

And if that is "weak on terror" then up is down and love is hate. Taking advantage of 9/11, or of the tragedy in Russia, to trumpet your candidate's imagined (but false) successes is the lowest of the low. But it doesn't surprise me from this candidate. He is quite simply the worst president we have ever had in the short history of our Republic.

ALa said...

I'm going to re-post this because you obviously didn't read it the first time...(and for the record, I don't believe what ANYONE says...I look at what they do --see tomorrow's post). You keep arguing points that no one made...You guys should have stuck with Dean -I don't know ONE PERSON who had Kerry as their first choice (this is why all primaries should be held on the same day...no group sway)
TWD: I HONESTLY believe that you do...I KNOW that you are tough on defense (which is why I referred to you as a Lieberman Democrat a long time ago --that is a compliment when coming from me...) BUT, I don't think your party feels the same --not only the leadership BUT the HUGE anti-war contingent and special interest groups that dictate it's moves. Do I think Kerry would be tougher than he is being portrayed if it were up to him...maybe, but he can't because that's not where the big money in the party comes from ...Soros is anti-war, all of Hollywood was even against going into Afghanistan. It's great to be idealistic and think that it can be different, but even in times of peril -money talks.

Paul G. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
this we'll defend said...

As I said, it doesn't matter what the party says or does, but only the perception of what it says or does as portrayed by Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. Thank you for your understanding that I am not weak on defense, but with respect neither is my party.

I am the party, ma'am. Not pink power, or protestors in NY that are against both parties, or Nader. We didn't nominate them or put their beliefs into our platform. I represent the party, my party's platform is what we believe, our nominee speaks for us. When he says he wants victory in the war on terror he is saying what the majority of democrats think. If he were not he would not be our nominee. Of course you would prefer Gov. Dean. Nixon preferred McCarthy. You don't get to choose our nominee, and O'Reilly and Rush don't get to say what the democratic party stands for. The Democratic party can do that for itself, it has, and that is why I support it. Implying that the democratic party doesn't want victory because you saw some protestors is interesting coming from a party that disowned a renowned Republican for saying if we had elected Strom Thurmond president "we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years." Did he speak for the Republican party? Or can the Republican party speak for itself?

Since Pink Power, Nader, the anarchists in the street, and the protestors you saw aren't the nominees of the Democratic Party I would appreciate a little more accurate presentation of what my party stands for and a little less "they are weak and want to lose the war on terror" Fox news disinformation. My party is clear on what it stands for, and I am proud to be a member of it. And it is strong on defense. Bush is not. He has weakened our national security through his mismanagement and misunderstanding of geopolitical relations, and we can ill afford more mistakes and neocon ideology. Ideology runs this white house, not reality. For that alone George W. must go.

Both major parties want to win the war on terror. One has been in power (both the house and senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court) for over three years and our nation is in a mess - occupying Iraq, Osama free and laughing at us, record surplus turned into record deficit, job deficit, political polarization not seen since possibly the Civil War, tearing down of the wall between church and state, and on and on and on. And you cheer because you are told what you want to hear - "we are strong. We are winning. The democrats are weak and want us to lose."

Well, I don't buy it. I want to win the war on terror and I support the nominee of my party because I think... I KNOW he will do a better job. I KNOW what my party believes so when I hear the disinformation I KNOW the right is lying.

I think you could do a better job as president. So could Lefty. CB. Vrangel. My postman. The guy at Trader Joe's that sold me a premium bottle of scotch a few hours ago (I am actually quite happy right now)... ANYBODY could do a better job. A block of wood could do a better job - which is, come to think of it, an apt description of Kerry's personality. And I have no doubt he will do a better job. An actual block of wood can't do the damage this president has done.

So please be careful before you tell me what nominee my party should have chosen. I honestly believe that your party would have had a hard time doing worse than nominating George W. Bush.

ALa said...

Now re-read that and tell me who sounds like the Party Kool Aid drinker...I only have that kind of faith and allegience to God and my family...Are you for real with Kerry? I think even Lefty and Paul are shaking their heads --though they won't admit it...
Damn insomnia.....................................

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD: I am the party, ma'am.

Ciggy: That sounds creepily like "L'etat, c'est moi" to me.

TWD: Not pink power, or protestors in NY that are against both parties, or Nader. We didn't nominate them or put their beliefs into our platform.

Ciggy: But they do form a perceivable majority of the constituency that is driving to put John Kerry in office. Code Pink is a major nationwide activist group against all wars, all the time. They think a "feminine, motherly" approach to the Muslim world will cause it to just settle down like a colicky baby. Even while Kerry subtly insists, to a more rational audience, that "pssst, that's not really ME, guys", he's going to have little wiggle-room in office to be able to just disregard the demands of his own constituent groups. They will insist on their agenda, and to try to sit here and claim they won't, is disingenuous.

TWD: When he says he wants victory in the war on terror he is saying what the majority of democrats think.

Ciggy: Assuming for argument's sake that the millions of people protesting against any violent action whatsoever can just be disappeared by pretending they're not there, what we're still left with between the "hawk" faction of the Democrats and the Republicans, is a fundamental disagreement over how victory can be possible. It seems that to a Democrat hawk, victory can only be possible if we restrict ourselves to a set geographic location and set all other locations "off-limits" for military activity, and ignore threats from all areas that aren't directly linked to the one threat we're focusing on at a given time. This attitude applied in World War II would have us refuse to fight Germany and focus purely on Japan--and meanwhile Germany would roll up the U.K., eventually prevail against Russia, and then start coming after us while we're still bogged down in Guadalcanal. In hindsight, the "one track mind" of defense strategy seems not to be appropriate, to Republican and Independant hawks.

And apart from just geographic restrictions, there is a litany of other restrictions on military action that Democrat hawks demand which they think are required for victory, which Republican and Independant hawks think are more a part of the problem than part of the solution. Those would be: attaining U.N. (i.e., Chirac and Schroeder) approval before acting on anything at all; requiring absolute 100% positive without-a-doubt confirmation of intelligence before allowing action to proceed (hence the major complaint about Iraq regarding WMDs); and perhaps most laughable, the requirement that foreign aid be used to try to buy off the terrorists. This is substantiated by John Kerry's election campaign platform which reads:

"Today, our leadership has walked away from more than a century of American leadership in the world to embrace a new - and dangerously ineffective - American disregard for the world." (This is Orwellian double-speak for "we didn't get U.N. approval before acting".)

and:

"The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging." (More doublespeak for saying, "drown them in money and kind words, and maybe they won't hate us so much".)

SOURCE, for TWD who claims we never use SOURCES:
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

TWD: O'Reilly and Rush don't get to say what the democratic party stands for.

Ciggy: You seem to expect to be able to have your hawkish cake and eat it too in front of the (arguably majority) dovish faction of your own party. Well when you eat it, prepare to be called on the fact that your cake is disappearing.

TWD: My party is clear on what it stands for

Ciggy: Actually no, it's not. You have millions on the street contradicting a handful of voices in the blogosphere, and you demand that the handful are the "real Democrats" and the millions are nobody. Pay no attention to that pathologically hateful mob behind the curtain!

SOURCE, for TWD who claims we never use SOURCES:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=57050

TWD: Ideology runs this white house, not reality. For that alone George W. must go.

Ciggy: Ideology also runs this flowery, poetic grab-bag of half-truths and innuendo...
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

It isn't an assertion of "expediency requires this" or "pragmatism requires that" or "this is the REALITY, folks"... it's a lofty, ivory-tower oration that we can join our national security objectives at the hip with the United Nations and then everything will be alright--problems will just take care of themselves.

The Bush pragmatism was that there was a madman in Iraq, and intelligence reports stating he was meeting with al Qaeda and pursuing a program of developing nuclear weapons. No "ideology" behind that other than hearing from friends of yours that a neighbor is aiming a hunting rifle at you, after said neighbor has repeatedly threatened to find one and kill you with it. So now that neighbor is under arrest and the hunting rifle is nowhere to be found, but he did have dozens of little children tied up and tortured in his basement. And now Kerry and his supporters, say you (Bush) are the criminal here. Some of us consider that accusation to be specious, at best.

TWD: One has been in power (both the house and senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court) for over three years and our nation is in a mess

Ciggy: Yeah, I passed so many soup lines on the way to work today, you just wouldn't believe it. Oh, wait a minute, that wasn't for soup--that was for $6 cups of coffee at the Starbucks, by people with big shiny flashy cars, going to the corporate jobs you say don't exist. Silly me.

TWD: occupying Iraq

Ciggy: We occupied Germany and Japan, too. Were FDR and Truman dragging our country into a "mess"?

TWD: Osama free and laughing at us

Ciggy: You have a point there. This would be the "you have a point" that you claim we never admit to, by the way.

TWD: record surplus turned into record deficit

Ciggy: You have a point there. This would be the "you have a point" that you claim we never admit to, by the way.

I wouldn't say an anti-Bush critique is 100% without merit or some bullet points of reason. I only think most of it is haywire, not all.

TWD: political polarization not seen since possibly the Civil War

Ciggy: It definitely takes two to tango there, dude.

TWD: tearing down of the wall between church and state

Ciggy: Only mildly, at best. Some religious symbols that have been on county courthouses for over a century are suddenly now a great big distopian threat to all that is humanity, according to the ACLU, and some Republican activists don't really see it that way. And some think that if you "abort" a live, born baby, that that's "murder", and it's difficult for some of us to fault that as an unusual intrusion of religion into politics.

TWD: And you cheer because you are told what you want to hear - "we are strong. We are winning. The democrats are weak and want us to lose."

Ciggy: Well ripping apart our own country just to rip apart the president isn't the way to show us you want us to be "strong". When liberal news columnists vent about "America the Arrogant", they're painting all of us with a broad brush, not just a single politician. The news media is employing propaganda techniques designed to assassinate the president's character, but the implementation thereof is to undermine the war effort. How should FDR's supporters have reacted if Republicans started calling WWII an "act of aggression against an innocent European country which never attacked us"? Call them "Patriotic"?

TWD: I KNOW he will do a better job.

Ciggy: And that's not "arrogant" at all. That's the nuanced, "life is complicated", prevaricating, morally relative liberal viewpoint for you. Subtle, to boot. Sophisticated. Enlightened.

TWD: I KNOW what my party believes so when I hear the disinformation I KNOW the right is lying.

Ciggy: We're back to a discrepancy between what is said in a hawkish context to a hawkish audience, and what is chanted and repeated out on the street by millions to a dovish audience. I don't know the exact demographic breakdown between the "peace at all costs" constituency, and the "war but only under these sets of restrictions" constituency, but both of those are distinct from the Republican constituency of "war under restrictions only set by U.S. and international law", and that's with the understanding that the cease-fire treaty of 1991 was broken by Iraq, thus invalidating the ceasefire and reinitiating hostilities between the foregoing Coalition powers and Iraqi forces. That some of those previous Coalition partners chose not to be partners this time around, doesn't make the ink on that document magically disappear.

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
this we'll defend said...

"Well ripping apart our own country just to rip apart the president" - that pretty much says it all. THe false talk of permission slips, UN bashing (a UN that we created to foster international cooperation, but what did the WWII generation know anyway?), all the rest of it is a smoke screen.

In your world if you criticize Bush you are criticizing the state. That is not democracy, that's dictatorship.

And thank you for your "interpretation" of what Kerry "really meant." If that is accurate, by the way, then the senior leadership of the US Military and the Army War College and Foreign Affairs/Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department all feel the same way since that language is based on what they have been saying. Thanks for showing me the light. Kerry is weak, wants a "permission slip," and only Bush is brave enough to stand up for what is right.

Fact is, you can't or won't address the platform or the valid criticisms the Democratic party makes without dragging in Pink Power or Nader or the Dixie Chicks. You don't want a real debate. You only want to debate the obviously wrong-headed.

code pink. Good lord, I can't believe I wasted my time debating people who think code pink speaks for the democratic party. Millions in the streets? Assuming there were 1 million protesters in NY during the RNC, what was their message? Peta, anti-WTO, down with capitalism, communism works, BOTH parties are corrupt, industry is BAD, corporations are BAD, Fur is murder, nuke the baby whales for peace, war is bad (duh), we should hug the terrorists, legalize drugs, the US is bad, blah blah blah.

That is not the democratic party, but man you really, really really want it to be. So you simply continue to insist that it is. Lie all you want. I'm sick of it.

When we win in November will you stay here in the land of the free, or will you flee the rabid commie pinko hippie dope-smoking flag-burning traitors when they come to power and begin to do enormous damage to the United States? Just like they did from '92-2000? Boy, those were some sucky years, huh?

this we'll defend said...

Your final point about the cease-fire? You are wrong there as well. We fought the 1991 war under the auspices of the UN. The UN security council has consistently stated they will "remain seized of the matter" and that any resumption of hostilities would require security council approval before any forces could claim they were acting with UN authority. That did not happen. Instead, when this was pointed out, it was twisted into "seeking a permission slip to defend America." We didn't get UN authorization for Kosovo but bombed anyway. The point about the ceasefire is that the breach of it was a breach between Iraq and the UN, not Iraq and the US. If the US had valid reasons to invade (disputable but you believe so) that is one thing, but under absolutely no circumstances did we have any legal or moral authority to invade over breaches of a ceasefire that we in fact were not a party to. We can't claim we were justified based on the ceasefire. We need something else (something that I DO think we have - I think legally we did have the authority to invade without breaching international law norms. I just think it was STUPID.)

Thus, as in my blog, you seem to think that "The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our highest national priority is enforcing U. N. resolutions against Iraq."

ALa said...

TWD: I would like to see some polling/statistics on the divide in your party...how many are for staying in Iraq...how many want the troops home tomorrow...how many put terrorism as the number one issue...I want RELIABLE data...not bushlies.com or the DNC...independent information... Maybe you too can learn something in the progress. Even heralded DNC statagist Bob Beckel said that the platform presented at the DNC convention was not representative of the party --I am pretty sure he knows a bit more than you...

Paul G. said...

Ala71,

From what I read TWD's post appears to measured, dedicated, and quite sane.
Far more than I can say of yours.
Please we on the so called 'Left' grow tired of being stereotyped, labeled, dismissed, and demonized.
If the extreme left has it's nut cases they are not the model but the exception.
Attempts to win argument through stereotyping is the model of hate and not the entire Republican party , just the more visible members ready fan the flames of hate.

My problems with the Republican Party are manifold but I think I can date my distrust of the current incarnation to the Republican National Convention of 2000 in your fine city, Philadelphia and the military exhibit across the street identified the candidate as endorsed by the military.
This demonstration by the Pentagon violated a long standing tradition of neutrality by the American Armed forces and in a BIG WAY, not as a comment from an individual but the co-opting of the entire Militia in support of a specific party.
Specific violations of DOD Directive 1314.10.
No this is not the first time someone violated DOD1314.10 but is in my opinion the most egregious example of abuse of the military image and influence in modern American history, more like May Day in Moscow than a gathering of Democracy.
DOD1314.10 directive specifically prohibits officers and possibly enlisted of the military from overt involvement or appearance in partisan politics.
Further prohibition exists in UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice) article 88.

If one is prohibited from public disrespect or criticism of the a superior officer (the commander and chief) then one is also at fault for making a statement of support while his/her counterpart is not afforded the opportunity of counterpoint.

These events and the encouragement of continued violations alone make the Republican Party and it's nominee 'Unfit for Command'.

I love these soldiers (Army, Air Force, Navy) as much as you, possibly more I served with them.
I do not want them drawn into the fold of politics where the good that they are intended for is subsumed and destroyed by people with political motives.

CSM and I were starting to address this before your 'husband' and advocate of the punk wing of the Republican party, entered the conversation and distracted the entire conversation.
Most military members have no idea of the details of the UCMJ until they violate one of them.
I asked for access to a copy while I was enlisted and was denied on the grounds that it was too large.

ALa said...

Paul- My comment was written with no malice -nor was it intended to lend a 'bitchy' tone. It was asked out of a serious interest. TWD claims that his (your and lefty's) views represent most of the Democratic party. I disagree...Bob Beckel (DNC god) disagrees. I am not stereotyping you/your party --I am simply pointing out that a lot of the big money comes from very anti-war groups (Soros, Hollywood, Moveon, ANSWER, NOW, NARAL, etc etc. etc.). Just like Bush has to go further right than he normally would to pacify his base...so does Kerry. That is the nature of politics my friends. What he personally wants may become irrelevant -depending on how many favors he has to call in on his bid to win.
I was asking for something to substantiate TWD's claims of a party united behind 'staying the course'...that's all.

ALa said...

P.S. 'Free' left either you or TWD (or both) a post under The Movie Hero Quiz post...

Tom said...

TWD:

If the freaks do not 'reflect' the true face of the democratic party, how do you account for Michael Moore (characterized by you as one of the "hateful" democratic counterparts to talk radio, Dick Cheney etc), was given a place of honor next to "senior statesman" Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention and was treated like a rock star by the delegates each and every time he lumbered onto the convention floor?

Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files said...

TWD: In your world if you criticize Bush you are criticizing the state. That is not democracy, that's dictatorship.

Ciggy: You chose not to address the example given of FDR during WWII. If Republicans had slammed FDR by saying our involvement against the Germans was "illegal" and "naked aggression" against an "innocent regime", how do you propose FDR's supporters should have reacted to that?

TWD: the senior leadership of the US Military and the Army War College and Foreign Affairs/Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department all feel the same way since that language is based on what they have been saying.

Ciggy: Well, next time the US Military and the Army War College and Foreign Affairs/Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department, all start to run for President of the United States, I'll vote against them too--that is, assuming they march in lockstep with Kerry in his demand that the U.S. not do anything militarily without international micromanagement.

TWD: Kerry is weak, wants a "permission slip,"

Ciggy: Actually, what I said was that your idea and Kerry's idea of strength, be it a "permission slip" spinning it one way, or "building international consensus" spinning it the other, is a fundamental issue to discuss and resolve. It may be fair to claim that such consensus-building and permission-slip-getting IS the stronger approach. It's just that some of us believe that there may be cases where a consensus can't be built; that foreign powers can't be schmoozed into agreeing with our plan to defend ourselves; and the choice then will come down to offending snooty Europeans or letting terrorists murder us. Now, if Kerry comes down for the former as you implicitly claim, he has yet to vocalize that at all over the course of his campaign--and if he does so he'll have to rework the whole basis of his critique of the Iraq war. The more he tries to "have it both ways", the more he'll look like the flip-flopper he is.

TWD: and only Bush is brave enough to stand up for what is right.

Ciggy: Or spun another way, impulsive and unwise enough to carry out our defense without building an international consensus. If you want to argue from that spin though, at least save us some argument energy here, and OWN it. Once you'll have been fully candid about what your side of the foreign affairs argument really is, then we can get even deeper into the finer points than we already have. I do think we've made progress here, though, in identifying where the real rubber meets the road in our disagreements. Consensus versus speedy self-reliance. Each side of the "versus" can be spun different ways, but can we at least agree that that's the basis of the disagreement?

TWD: Fact is, you can't or won't address the platform

Ciggy: Let's hear you spin it. How exactly does Kerry propose to make actions predicate on French and German consensus and respect for our actions, at the same time as NOT making actions predicate on French and German consensus and respect for our actions? Will he ask them to vote FOR our actions before they vote AGAINST it? Or vice-versa?

TWD: Good lord, I can't believe I wasted my time debating people who think code pink speaks for the democratic party.

Ciggy: I'll let their founder know you said that. A friend of mine knows her. "Code Pink, you have no voice whatsoever and John Kerry will pay absolutely NO attention to what you say!" *smirk*

TWD: That is not the democratic party, but man you really, really really want it to be. So you simply continue to insist that it is. Lie all you want. I'm sick of it.

Ciggy: I think it's clear to folks with an ability to be objective about these things, that they protested the Republican convention far more heavily than they did the Democratic one. It's pretty futile to deny the obvious there.

TWD: When we win in November will you stay here in the land of the free, or will you flee the rabid commie pinko hippie dope-smoking flag-burning traitors when they come to power and begin to do enormous damage to the United States? Just like they did from '92-2000? Boy, those were some sucky years, huh?

Ciggy: I'd say lucky rather than sucky, but y'see, Kerry's not going to have an empty dot-com bubble to artificially inflate his economy numbers the way Clinton had. In terrorism policy, I'm not yet convinced that Kerry would be as willing as Clinton was to do certain things "off the books" to get after al-Qaeda. This is from Kerry's own speeches. He places how we're seen, how we're "respected" by other nations, above keeping us alive. Not even Clinton vocalized his priorities in that fashion.

TWD: Your final point about the cease-fire? You are wrong there as well. We fought the 1991 war under the auspices of the UN. The UN security council has consistently stated they will "remain seized of the matter" and that any resumption of hostilities would require security council approval before any forces could claim they were acting with UN authority. That did not happen. Instead, when this was pointed out, it was twisted into "seeking a permission slip to defend America."

Ciggy: Good that you noted that the U.N. didn't abide by the cease-fire agreement that the U.N. itself originally approved. It was the U.N. that was violating its own legalities, not the U.S. Kerry would have held us hostage to the U.N.'s inability to abide by its own measures, and I'm rather glad Bush didn't.

TWD: We didn't get UN authorization for Kosovo but bombed anyway.

Ciggy: Clinton did. I highly doubt Kerry would.

TWD: absolutely no circumstances did we have any legal or moral authority to invade over breaches of a ceasefire that we in fact were not a party to.

Ciggy: You're pretty handy with the "moral authority" business when it was American blood shed for the U.N. in that desert. We were the leading body of that U.N. coalition. "Cease fire" with the "U.N." means essentially to stop shooting at U.S. forces. They went eight years in violation of that. Failure to do its part in authorizing a continuation of the consequences, via use of force, was a failing on the U.N.'s part... for eight years. Now talk to me about "moral authority".

TWD: I think legally we did have the authority to invade without breaching international law norms. I just think it was STUPID.

Ciggy: Well then "stupid" got Saddam out of the picture as a potential threat so that we CAN place greater focus on fighting al-Qaeda, without worrying about a Baath nexus of any future attacks. With him down and Lybia saying "my bad" on the whole terrorism thing, that just leaves ALQ and Iran and North Korea as the hottest steaming piles of doodoo to clean up. Question is, do we wait for another 9/11 to begin?

TWD: you seem to think that "The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our highest national priority is enforcing U. N. resolutions against Iraq."

Ciggy: Our highest priority is to prevent us becoming crispy critters. Your highest priority is apparently which line item in which pile of paperwork authorizes such protection. If you don't find your line item in some future crisis, shall we just bend over and grab our ankles?

If the U.N. is more a part of the problem than the solution, and if after all we've done for the U.N. they still treat us like dirt, then yes, maybe it IS time to hand them an eviction notice from New York City. What do they think we have to lose at this point? And to put it in Boston terms that even the Boston Backstabber might understand, how would they like them apples?