Thursday, May 27, 2004
KERRY GETS IT WRONG AGAIN. John Kerry, the un-candidate, to justify his delay in accepting the Democrat nomination, claimed that Harry Truman was not at the convention to accept his nomination. This is dead wrong. He was there, he accepted, and it is recorded on film. The real tradition here is for John Kerry to make up whatever story justifies his actions. We call that lying in West Texas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
"to make up whatever story justifies his actions."
Not unlike the President's justifications for the war in Iraq.
From Anonymous II -- so I am not confused with the anonymous who posted previously. I am wondering what made up story you are referring to. Was it the WMD made up story? Oh wait, what was that nerve gas that was found recently. It was a WMD, so it couldn't be that. Maybe it was the Iraqi link to the terrorist attack on the U.S. Oh wait, the Wall Street Journal had an article just today linking people in Sadam Hussein's organization to the planning meeting for those attacks. Guess it can't be that story either. Okay, anonymous I, here's the challenge. What made up story are you referring to?
I cede to you the title "anonymous."
Yes, surely you are correct. A single artillery shell containing sarin gas is a weapon of mass destruction. Nevermind that the dispersion pattern of such a shell is totally dependent upon which way the wind blows.
But if WMD is the reason for invading Iraq, why do we no longer hear a word about it from the administration? I referred to making up stories as justification to highlight the fact that once it appeared that our troops weren't going to find WMD, the justification became "making the Iraqi people free." (whatever that means)
Just a word about links to 9-11, etc., etc. W's stated position is that there is no link between Sadaam and the 9-11 attack. As far as garden variety contacts with terrorists, it is difficult to find any nation in the middle east, save Israel of course, that does not provide subisdies to families of suicide bombers. Why don't we go ahead and take Syria, if that is an adequate justification for war.
-Publius
Typical liberal response to the facts. First, they don't understand the facts. How many people can even a small amount of Sarin nerve gas kill? Well, I would not want to be anywhere near. And terrorists do not care which way the wind blows when they just want to kill. Drop it in the middle of a group and see which way the wind blows.
Then, they obviously cannot win on facts so they divert the discussion to something else. I didn't say WMD was the reason for invading Iraq. I was commenting on what others have said the reason for the invasion was so they could point out that WMD did not exist. (When again it is fact that Hussein had WMD and used it in the past.) Come to think of it, your first response had nothing to do with the original post. Why don't you respond to the original issue?
I find it really interesting that you don't know what it means to be free. Of course if more people like you had their way, none of us would know what freedom means -- other than it was something we had and then lost.
I think I will consider that Monday when we remember those who gave up their freedom and their lives so that we could keep ours.
Typical conservative response: 1) assume the political identity of the person with whom you converse, 2) assume ignorance.
Perhaps some societies need time to develop before a foreign political ideology is imposed upon them. And, by the way, that is the traditional conservative thought: non-interference where we are not wanted.
Why don't we free some nations where we have no strategic interest?
-Publius
The amount of Sarin gas found will kill 50,000-60,000 people. Don't we have to concede that it a WMD? I'm not saying that find alone changes the course of history, but 50,000 deaths is mass, whether they are ours our Iran's.
I'm not sure what you meant by the strategic interest comment, but I'd like to. Could you offer a little clarification for me?
The strategic interest comment referred to "Anonymous' " discussion about how we're setting the Iraqi people free. It just seems to me that if our foreign policy is really about setting people free, then to remain consistent we should set some people free in a part of the world where we do not have a strategic interest; thus far the administration only concerns itself with setting people free when that objective correlates precisely with a major strategic interest. I don't think that's a good idea, but I think that is the logical extension of the position that our invasion of Iraq is the product of the world's great "do-gooder" helping out an oppresed people.
-Publius
Oh, Anon I, I do apologize. I did make one assumption. I assumed you were liberal. However, since you were giving the standard liberal line, I thought you must be. The ignorance, on the other hand, was obvious.
If we were to take action in a country where we "have no strategic interest" would you be championing our cause or complaining that their way of life was none of our business? I have an assumption. But again, you are off the original topic.
Oh wait, I think I have it figured it out. You are both in favor and against action in another country if we do or if we don't have a strategic interest. Wait, who else do we know that would have such opinions?
I'll leave you to others to debate with. I'd rather find someone with a little more integrity. You could at least go back to the original posting and respond to it since you still haven't.
I don't find liberals or conservatives to be typical. There seems to be a wide spectrum of both. Also regarding the original post and response, making up stories to justify actions is wrong no matter who is doing it. Even if you believe that this is what happened with the president, pointing to someone's bad behavior doesn't justify anothers bad behavior. I tend to think that presidents (Clinton or Bush) aren't naive enough to believe they can start a War based on lies and put an entire country at risk without serious consequence. I hope we can let go of our predispositions and look at the facts before making allegations toward either side.
someone amused by the debate
You, sir, are quite rude. I don't think it is conducive to an intellgent discussion to impune another's integrity, particularly when you do not know him.
With reference to your original comment on my comment. I understood your "challenge" to be to explain what I referred to about "making up stories." My response was that the administration's justification for the war varies depending upon political expedience.
I don't think it is unusual for a conversation to end up in a place not contemplated when it began.
If you do no longer wish to address my comments, I leave you to your opinions.
Sorry, I fogot to sign my last post. The post 1 up from this one is by Publius.
Post a Comment