One of my favorite (I think original) quotes is to say that...
When you argue with a Liberal, he'll tell you why you're wrong; while if you argue with a Conservative, he'll show you why you're Liberal.
I post that (or some variant of it) on MMFA a lot. And the best part of that?
If a Liberal is arguing with a Conservative? Using this reasoning? THEY'RE BOTH RIGHT!
LOL
(That just dawned on on me earlier today.)
So... I'm sitting in what we call the "Salmon Run" - that's the long line of cars that forms at 4:30, going down the small road in front of our office that leads to the main road - today and I'm reading the various bumper stickers on the back of the truck of the guy in front of me:
"Support the Troops."
Which REALLY means: Support the Republicans.
Which I can't do, due in part to what a shitty job they do supporting the troops!
"Taxed Enough Already!"
Did you hear? Rick Perry is now picking up the Cain 9-9-9 line and is pushing a flat-tax scheme of his own. And I guarantee you this guy in front of me doesn't make enough to be one of the BENEFICIARIES of this plan. (Unless Perry's just blowing smoke when it comes to the deficit. But then... we KNOW the Republicans NEVER do ANYTHING that adds to the DEFICIT, don't we?) (Is one in the Reagan worth two in the Bush?)
"Evil flourishes when good people do nothing!"
I laugh my ass off whenever I see this one. The funny thing? Is that it's really a profoundly LIBERAL sentiment. I mean... what could be more PROGRESSIVE than that, right? And yet, it usually ends up on the bumper of Right-Wingers. (Something to do with the Iraq War, IIRC. Apparently violating sovereignty and starting unnecessary wars is GOOD, I guess.) But here's what REALLY strikes me as absurd about that sticker appearing on the bumper of a Conservative's car:
THE CONSERVATIVE'S ANSWER TO EVERYTHING IS TO DO NOTHING!
Global Warming?
Do nothing.
Shitty Economy?
Do nothing.
Entire U.S. Auto Industry about to go belly-up?
Do nothing.
Unfair trade practices?
Do nothing.
Middle Class shrinking?
Do nothing.
People Losing Jobs?
Do nothing.
Poor people starving?
Do nothing.
40 Million Americans can't get health Insurance?
Do nothing.
The only time they ever do anything is following some manner of societal PROGRESS that finally DOES AWAY will some kind of evil! Think about it:
Abolish Slavery?
Jim Crow.
Stop lynching?
Segregation.
Civil Right Act?
George Wallace.
Affirmative Action?
Southern Strategy.
Equal Rigths for Women?
KILL the ERA.
Reproductive Freedom?
Politicize Religion. (More so.)
Black man elected President?
Tea Party.
The only time ANYONE acts against evil, it's a Progressive. And the only time Conservatives do anything except money-change and power-broke is when a Progressive finally makes some Progress!
Anyway... Those are my thoughts for today... Stuck in traffic... Behind a Conservative...
BTW...
Had some fun over on MMFA today, thinking about how well former Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) might fit in over at his new gig as a contributor to Faux Snooze. In a very rare act of self indulgence (LOL) I'd like to re-post my comment here, as it kind of fits with the theme of this post:
A Liberal aspires to be right.
A Conservative aspires to be Conservative.
Argue with a Liberal and he'll tell you why you're wrong.
Argue with a Conservative and he'll show you why you're Liberal.
A Liberal bases his position on his judgement of the evidence.
A Conservative bases his judgement of the evidence on his position.
To a Liberal, a liar is anyone who knowingly contradicts the truth.
To a Conservative, a liar is anyone who is knowingly Liberal.
An honest Liberal Politician is one who cannot be bought.
An honest Conservative Politician is one who, once bought, STAYS bought.
I believe that Governor Sanford will be very comfortable in his new position.
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Cracked Nails it Again! (And: Behold your liberal media!)
Great article from Cracked about 6 B.S. Myths You Probably Believe About America's "Enemies". Good read. I highly recommend it, as I do 99.9% of what they produce. (They are to print media what John Stewart is to Broadcast Media.) And really quickly, I'd like to point out some interesting trends in these myths. I'm going to put the "Myth" next to the "Truth," in order in a moment. I'd like you to ask yourselves, just who it is that is creating and perpetuating these myths, and who benefits from them. There's a couple where you can say "both sides do it," but, as usual, there's some false equivalency at play if you do...
1) MYTH: Iran Could Start a Crazy War at Any Minute!
TRUTH: Iran's military is a joke, their Nuclear program is basically nonexistent and their REAL leaders (the Guardian Council) hos no interest in doing so, despite whatever posturing that Monkey in a Suit that they have for a President says. (He has no real power.) And what's more... they recently hired a Mexican to kill a Saudi in America. I mean... If they wanted to kill a Saudi, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to send an Iranian to kill one in Saudi Arabia?! That pretty much proves that even when they WANT to, they basically have no fucking idea HOW to!
2) MYTH: China's Economy Is Going to Steamroll America's!
TRUTH: We're the customer. They need US a LOT more than we need them.
3) MYTH: America Relies on Its Enemies for Oil!
TRUTH: 36% of our oil is domestic, 22% comes from Canada and our third biggest supplier is Mexico. As for the rest? See myth #2. Even Venezuela has no interest in cutting us off or threatening us. (We send them MONEY, after all!)
4) Al-Qaida Is Still a Huge Threat!
TRUTH: You had a 0.3% chance of dying in a terrorist attack if you were IN NEW YORK, on 9/11! Big picture? They never really were. And I'll give Bush credit for doing a few things right, because after 9/11 things only went downhill for them. (If only he didn't get this stupid obsession with Iraq, he'd could have killed Bin Laden himself, back in 2003.) But yeah... When you have to resort to guys lighting their underpants on fire? You're no longer a threat.
5) North Korea's Military Is Dangerous and Insane!
TRUTH: See Iran. Kim Jong Il might be crazy, but he isn't stupid. He's got a pretty good gig going. A decent little lifestyle for himself. There's just NO WAY he fucks that all up by getting his ass handed to him in a War with the much richer, much more militarily capable South.
6) The World Hates America!
TRUTH: Most of the world has a better view of American than most Americans do, and hold us in higher esteem than we hold our own leaders. But let me come back to this in a moment.
So... what do I see as the trend here?
Well, (1 - Iran) is just xenophobic warmongering. The same bullshit that got us into Iraq. It's the mindless pro-Isreal lobby, and pro-Oil lobby, and pro-Christian lobby, etc... IOW? Real Liberals. Just kidding. That's lies from the Right, by the Right and for the Right. Yet it's pretty much the consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(2 - China) is one that can go both ways. The Right have no love for Communism, and the Left? Well, hey: far be it for a self-admitted Working Class Warrior to ignore where all of out manufacturing jobs have gone! But think about it for a moment... Who is it that is terrified of making any kind of tough trade sanctions against China? And who is it that BENEFITS from treating China like they're some kind of Leather-Clad Dominatrix to the us, the lowly Sub? Who is that REALLY benefits from stoking the FEAR that ANY kind of tough negotiation with China will somehow RUIN us? Ding! Ding! Ding! .That would be the OWNERSHIP CLASS! AKA: Our corporate overlords. AKA: The RIGHT! And yet, that's still pretty much a consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(3 - Oil) is another one that someone who's not really playing attention might try to pin on both sides. We all know the Right's contribution - we're still fighting a damned war in Iraq over it! But one MIGHT say that the Left uses this to bolster their environmental arguments. Except that, no, we really DON'T. OK, we might, to try and convince a Righty to eat some greens, by using what he already believes against him. But in reality, Environmentalists don't NEED peripheral reasons to try and reduce our dependence on OIL, in general, regardless of where it comes form. Saving the environment is reason enough for most of them! So, again, Thank You, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and that no-good jackass who traded in all of his good reputation and credibility in support an illegal, immoral and completely unnecessary war: General Colin Fucking Powell. Thank you all for this one. (And... Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(4 - Al Quaeda) *sigh* See #3. We spend twice as much on defense as Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France COMBINED. And what reason do they USUALLY feed us to justify this psychopathy? (Oh, yeah... and behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(5 - North Korea) *sigh* see #'s 3 and 4. (And behold: You're Liberal Media!)
So far, the trend for who is perpetuating these myths, and benefiting from them, is pretty clear. In his last comment, in my "Occupy Reality, Part 2" post, Classic Liberal said that "The American conservative elite has waged a relentless war on the notion that there is any such thing as an objective fact" and had gone on to say that their refusal to simply ACKNOWLEDGE reality (and their preference to try and shape or re-define it) is "a serious problem," one he's called "our most serious problem." And I'm inclined to agree with him. Our semantics may have differed, but my previous post, and my reason for posting this one are pretty much the same: It's not about Liberal-Conservative anymore, or even Progressive-Regressive. Those issues are secondary to the far greater problem of Reality vs. Whatever World the Conservatives Think they Live in or Exists. He is (as usual) SPOT ON. The year is 1984. And for the foreseeable future? On the Right? It will continue to be.
Now... as for #6...
Cracked brings up a very salientpoint that, at first blush, seems like a very valid "both sides do it" argument:
THEY use this myth to JUSTIFY doing horrible things.
WE use to try and STOP US from doing horrible things!
Think about that! Let that sink in for a moment. It just ain't the same! Once we accept that both sides are wrong in this case? At worst? WE are still advocating for peace and diplomacy and a continuation of ALL THE GOOD that our country has done for the World! And at BEST? They end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy! I mean, fine: Maybe the World DOESN'T hate us. Great. But drop enough bombs? Invade enough countries for no good reason? Kill enough innocent civilians? Continue to act like the arrogant School-Yard Bully? And eventually?
They will.
Now... Can ANYONE tell me why ANYONE who not an integral part of the Right-Wing Power or Money Structure would call themselves "Conservative?"
Oki?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
1) MYTH: Iran Could Start a Crazy War at Any Minute!
TRUTH: Iran's military is a joke, their Nuclear program is basically nonexistent and their REAL leaders (the Guardian Council) hos no interest in doing so, despite whatever posturing that Monkey in a Suit that they have for a President says. (He has no real power.) And what's more... they recently hired a Mexican to kill a Saudi in America. I mean... If they wanted to kill a Saudi, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to send an Iranian to kill one in Saudi Arabia?! That pretty much proves that even when they WANT to, they basically have no fucking idea HOW to!
2) MYTH: China's Economy Is Going to Steamroll America's!
TRUTH: We're the customer. They need US a LOT more than we need them.
3) MYTH: America Relies on Its Enemies for Oil!
TRUTH: 36% of our oil is domestic, 22% comes from Canada and our third biggest supplier is Mexico. As for the rest? See myth #2. Even Venezuela has no interest in cutting us off or threatening us. (We send them MONEY, after all!)
4) Al-Qaida Is Still a Huge Threat!
TRUTH: You had a 0.3% chance of dying in a terrorist attack if you were IN NEW YORK, on 9/11! Big picture? They never really were. And I'll give Bush credit for doing a few things right, because after 9/11 things only went downhill for them. (If only he didn't get this stupid obsession with Iraq, he'd could have killed Bin Laden himself, back in 2003.) But yeah... When you have to resort to guys lighting their underpants on fire? You're no longer a threat.
5) North Korea's Military Is Dangerous and Insane!
TRUTH: See Iran. Kim Jong Il might be crazy, but he isn't stupid. He's got a pretty good gig going. A decent little lifestyle for himself. There's just NO WAY he fucks that all up by getting his ass handed to him in a War with the much richer, much more militarily capable South.
6) The World Hates America!
TRUTH: Most of the world has a better view of American than most Americans do, and hold us in higher esteem than we hold our own leaders. But let me come back to this in a moment.
So... what do I see as the trend here?
Well, (1 - Iran) is just xenophobic warmongering. The same bullshit that got us into Iraq. It's the mindless pro-Isreal lobby, and pro-Oil lobby, and pro-Christian lobby, etc... IOW? Real Liberals. Just kidding. That's lies from the Right, by the Right and for the Right. Yet it's pretty much the consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(2 - China) is one that can go both ways. The Right have no love for Communism, and the Left? Well, hey: far be it for a self-admitted Working Class Warrior to ignore where all of out manufacturing jobs have gone! But think about it for a moment... Who is it that is terrified of making any kind of tough trade sanctions against China? And who is it that BENEFITS from treating China like they're some kind of Leather-Clad Dominatrix to the us, the lowly Sub? Who is that REALLY benefits from stoking the FEAR that ANY kind of tough negotiation with China will somehow RUIN us? Ding! Ding! Ding! .That would be the OWNERSHIP CLASS! AKA: Our corporate overlords. AKA: The RIGHT! And yet, that's still pretty much a consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(3 - Oil) is another one that someone who's not really playing attention might try to pin on both sides. We all know the Right's contribution - we're still fighting a damned war in Iraq over it! But one MIGHT say that the Left uses this to bolster their environmental arguments. Except that, no, we really DON'T. OK, we might, to try and convince a Righty to eat some greens, by using what he already believes against him. But in reality, Environmentalists don't NEED peripheral reasons to try and reduce our dependence on OIL, in general, regardless of where it comes form. Saving the environment is reason enough for most of them! So, again, Thank You, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and that no-good jackass who traded in all of his good reputation and credibility in support an illegal, immoral and completely unnecessary war: General Colin Fucking Powell. Thank you all for this one. (And... Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(4 - Al Quaeda) *sigh* See #3. We spend twice as much on defense as Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France COMBINED. And what reason do they USUALLY feed us to justify this psychopathy? (Oh, yeah... and behold: You're Liberal Media!)
(5 - North Korea) *sigh* see #'s 3 and 4. (And behold: You're Liberal Media!)
So far, the trend for who is perpetuating these myths, and benefiting from them, is pretty clear. In his last comment, in my "Occupy Reality, Part 2" post, Classic Liberal said that "The American conservative elite has waged a relentless war on the notion that there is any such thing as an objective fact" and had gone on to say that their refusal to simply ACKNOWLEDGE reality (and their preference to try and shape or re-define it) is "a serious problem," one he's called "our most serious problem." And I'm inclined to agree with him. Our semantics may have differed, but my previous post, and my reason for posting this one are pretty much the same: It's not about Liberal-Conservative anymore, or even Progressive-Regressive. Those issues are secondary to the far greater problem of Reality vs. Whatever World the Conservatives Think they Live in or Exists. He is (as usual) SPOT ON. The year is 1984. And for the foreseeable future? On the Right? It will continue to be.
Now... as for #6...
Cracked brings up a very salientpoint that, at first blush, seems like a very valid "both sides do it" argument:
The right wing will tell you that everyone from France to Iraq hates our freedom, or our democracy, or our ability to get chili cheese fries added to any meal. The left will tell you with a grim fatalism that the developing world hates us because we've been occupying their countries, damaging their culture and our reputation for years.Now... Once we accept the reality that, in fact, most countries DON'T hate us, it might be easy to conclude that "both sides" us this for their own political agenda. But I think this serves as a pretty shrewd example of how both sides think, and explains why I am perfectly happy to demonize the Right and proudly wear whatever label they want to pin on me, "Progressive," "Liberal," "Commie," whatever...
THEY use this myth to JUSTIFY doing horrible things.
WE use to try and STOP US from doing horrible things!
Think about that! Let that sink in for a moment. It just ain't the same! Once we accept that both sides are wrong in this case? At worst? WE are still advocating for peace and diplomacy and a continuation of ALL THE GOOD that our country has done for the World! And at BEST? They end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy! I mean, fine: Maybe the World DOESN'T hate us. Great. But drop enough bombs? Invade enough countries for no good reason? Kill enough innocent civilians? Continue to act like the arrogant School-Yard Bully? And eventually?
They will.
Now... Can ANYONE tell me why ANYONE who not an integral part of the Right-Wing Power or Money Structure would call themselves "Conservative?"
Oki?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
Monday, October 10, 2011
One Tin Soldier
(NOTE: I put this up last night, and them imediat;ey took it down. And now, I'm like, "Fuck it, I'm putting it back up." I really need to just stick to my guns and post whatever I type. This is just brain-droppings anyway, not some profound political and social endevour.)
So, here I am blogging, listening to music, trying for the 1000th time to sing all of "The War Was in Color" without my voice faltering (becasue I'm on the verge of tears) and I came across THIS rather interesting AMV for "One Tin Soldier."
It's certainly not perfect. Not at all. It makes the tragic mistake of depicting Saddam Hussien as a sympathetic character. Well, no. That much is bullshit. [***actually, see note below!] BUT, aside from that, it really uses some cool images, and draws some very apt symbolic parallels between this song and how it applies to the Iraq War. It's not my favorite cover of the song, not by a long shot, so I don't know yet if I'll put this one up on my music page, but I think it's worth a listen. (And if you really want to gag, go read some of the comments on the original YouTube page. It's amazing how the Right just so consistently manages to get it wrong.)
I find this to be a much better interpretation, by several orders of magnitude, than any of the other goofy, jingoistic, war-mongering, anti-Islam videos that I found that placed pictures of 9/11 in the background of the song, along with the faces of the terrorists, as if the whole point is that somehow the wars that resulted were justified. Don't get me wrong, you can certainly argue it... (well, Afghanistan anyway, not Iraq...) but you can't use THIS SONG to do it!
This song is not about rationalizing war, but rather a criticism of those who would rationalize it. (Like the very morons making anti-Islamic, 9/11 videos from it!)
[NOTE: I just noticed something. That picture of Saddam that comes up? On the line "pay the price and we wiil share?" That's a much EARLIER picture of him, and that guy he's shaiking hands with is DONALD RUMSFLED! So that was beck when Saddam was our BUDDY. So much for the AMV creator depicting him as a good guy! Shit, that was REAGAN and CHENEY and RUNSFELD'S doing! I take back what I said: This AMV IS perfect!]
So, here I am blogging, listening to music, trying for the 1000th time to sing all of "The War Was in Color" without my voice faltering (becasue I'm on the verge of tears) and I came across THIS rather interesting AMV for "One Tin Soldier."
It's certainly not perfect. Not at all. It makes the tragic mistake of depicting Saddam Hussien as a sympathetic character. Well, no. That much is bullshit. [***actually, see note below!] BUT, aside from that, it really uses some cool images, and draws some very apt symbolic parallels between this song and how it applies to the Iraq War. It's not my favorite cover of the song, not by a long shot, so I don't know yet if I'll put this one up on my music page, but I think it's worth a listen. (And if you really want to gag, go read some of the comments on the original YouTube page. It's amazing how the Right just so consistently manages to get it wrong.)
I find this to be a much better interpretation, by several orders of magnitude, than any of the other goofy, jingoistic, war-mongering, anti-Islam videos that I found that placed pictures of 9/11 in the background of the song, along with the faces of the terrorists, as if the whole point is that somehow the wars that resulted were justified. Don't get me wrong, you can certainly argue it... (well, Afghanistan anyway, not Iraq...) but you can't use THIS SONG to do it!
This song is not about rationalizing war, but rather a criticism of those who would rationalize it. (Like the very morons making anti-Islamic, 9/11 videos from it!)
[NOTE: I just noticed something. That picture of Saddam that comes up? On the line "pay the price and we wiil share?" That's a much EARLIER picture of him, and that guy he's shaiking hands with is DONALD RUMSFLED! So that was beck when Saddam was our BUDDY. So much for the AMV creator depicting him as a good guy! Shit, that was REAGAN and CHENEY and RUNSFELD'S doing! I take back what I said: This AMV IS perfect!]
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Shit my Mother says...
(FYI - This was originally written ~April 2nd)
Ah. Today we set sail for the Western Caribbean aboard the beautiful Crown Princess. Although there is Internet Access from the boat, I am probably writing this at least a few days before I post it. So we’re on Vacation. And that’s good. As is life, for the most part. And taking a vacation like this means leaving the kids with my parents which is good for two reasons. (1) NO KIDS! Yay! And (2) Inevitably one of my parents is going to say something that ends up being worth writing about – either my dad, who gives insight into the mind of a staunch Republican, who actually has enough money to almost making BEING a Republican a rational thing (not really, I know, but in his case, I can at least see why he IS); or my Mother who gives insight into the mind of the absolutely clueless conservative who votes Republican and buys into all the Fox-News Republican propaganda simply because she has no clue. No fucking clue at all. No ability to think, analyze, debate, learn or understand. She is the quintessential example of the kind of person who “reasons” on either of the four level or ten-point scales that I’ve written about before. I love her. I really do. And she’s watching my kids right now. But Politically? Philosophically? She’s brain-dead. So, not much of a spoiler at this point, but this week’s gem comes from my mother.
See… My father got the movie “Fair Game” from Netflix. Hey: He was curious. Now, my mother didn’t know what it about. For those of you who are also scratching your heads (and that’s forgivable – it wasn’t in theatres for very long) this is the story of the outing of CIAgent Valarie Plaime, told from the POV of Valarie Plaime (played by Naomi Watts) and her husband Joe Wilson (played by Sean Penn.) I’ll get to the movie’s strengths and weaknesses in a moment, but my mother’s reaction to that revelation, IMHO, was nothing short of priceless in revealing how conservative “think.” (I’ll just put that in quotes, but I swear it’s like I should spell it differently – ‘thynk’ maybe – because it doesn’t resemble any kind of real of rational thinking that I’ve ever come across!)
“Oh, I don’t want to watch that! It’s just going to be a bunch of Bush-bashing!”
What I unfortunately can’t convey in supplying that quote is all the dismissiveness, derision, condescension, distaste and indignation that was present in her tone. Basically? The movie sucks, because these two “traitors” want to make a point about Bush. Seriously.
And this is what I’ll never understand about conservatives. Valerie Plaime really does represent the ultimate pinnacle of IOKYAR. Apparently it’s her fault for getting outed, and his fault for… What? I don’t know? NOT finding a record or evidence of a sale of yellow-cake uranium that NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED. I suppose by that same logic it’s Albaerdai’s fault that Saddam wasn’t developing weapons of Mass Destruction. It’s really insane. Putting aside any distortions that the movie may put forth - and while it would hardly be the first time Hollywood embellished something for dramatic sake - it really wasn’t at all that far out on a limb with what we now know, and all but the dimmest among us could clearly see then, to be the FACTS. There is pretty much no denying any of the following:
1) There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
2) There was scant EVIDENCE of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
3) THE CIA sent Joe Wilson to follow up on a lead. (And who exactly sent him is completely irrelevant. Remember: At this time no one could know what he might have found! )
4) Joe Wilson found NO EVIDENCE of a massive sale of Uranium.
5) The Bush Administration lied about this, and about the possible used of several aluminum tubes in their case for going to war.
6) Joe Wilson called them out on their bullshit, when he realized they were lying.
7) His wife was outed in petty retaliation for this, as well as to squelch any and all other information that might have shown that the case for going to war in Iraq was based completely on bullshit.
8) Doing this was a crime. That’s a matter of fact, not opinion, BTW. For all the bullshit that followed, someone WAS convicted of this crime. Justice was never served, but there is no denying that what was done was, in fact, a crime… by definition.
9) When Joe Wilson didn’t take this nonsense lying down, the Right Wing press repeatedly slandered him and his wife, making the story about them rather than the fact that Bush was lying.
None of the above are matters of opinion. None of these points can be seriously debated. One can try argue that this was all somehow justified, due to the threat possessed by Saddam, but there’s a fundamental problem with that: What Joe Wilson, and pretty much everyone else involved in following up every one of Bush and Cheney’s bullshit leads was that Saddam didn’t pose a threat AT ALL! His infrastructure was crumbling, his economy was in shambles, he could barely muster enough spare parts to keep a few tanks running! And nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G, was ever presented that countered any of this! Bush and Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld and Powell could make all the claims they wanted, but they FACT is that no one was finding ANYTHING! And the result of them vilifying anyone who dared hold a view that even slightly resembled REALITY (which, remember, has a long-established liberal bias!) our country was led down the rod of the single most disastrous piece of foreign policy in history.
Now THAT’S an opinion, I’ll grant you. But the facts simply aren’t there to debate it: There was no justification, no threat, and no reason to go to war. None. Much was lost, and the estimates of the costs of the war, both in terms of military casualties and tax-payer dollars given to us by the War’s REPUBLICAN cheer-leaders might be the single greatest example the Right has in terms of the Government underestimating something’s price tag. And can ANYONE tell me, what exactly we were supposed to GAIN from all of that? What was the BIG PLAN here? Because to me it’s like trying to figure out what the Villains original plan was in “Total Recall” – not only did the reasoning keep changing, but when you go right back to the start? There’s nothing there! It made Iran stronger, spread our troops too thin, destroyed out budget, destroyed our moral standing in the world, destroyed our credibility, hampered our military readiness - we saw that when Katrina hit, removed a SECULAR leader from power in a war against RADICAL RELIGIOUS THEOCRACY, so… WHAT THE FUCK WAS IT ALL ACTUALLY FOR?!
I’d say “blood for oil,” but I KNOW that can’t be right, because Dick Cheney said that was ABSURD, and I know Dick Cheney would NEVER LIE. (I mean… he swore an oath!) Of course, the same man, by the time the war was won and the peace was proving to be frustratingly out of reach, the new tune was “We can’t let these oil reserves fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda!”
So… yeah, it pretty much WAS, according to the guy who viciously attacked anyone ELSE who suggested it was. And, uh… IIRC, he was an oil man, right? Something to do with developing oil fields? Just sayin’.
So… consider all that for a moment. And let come back to the two people involved: Joe Wilson and Valrie Plaime. Why do Conservatives hate these people so much? Because they found out Bush was lying? OMFG! Really?! Of course… Bush gets a pass for the LIE and Wilson and Plaime are “traitors” because, this was such good foreign policy, right? I mean… it HAD to be! Because a Republican was driving it! And I’d love to take this insanity farther, but I really can’t. It’s just too absurd. What these people did, their great crime against humanity, was to FAIL TO FIND EVIDENCE THAT WASN’T FUCKING THERE.
And somehow… that makes THEM bad, rather than the guy who went to fucking WAR with a Sovereign Nation, based on the evidence that he insisted he had, but which no one could find. THAT GUY? That lying piece of shit? That war criminal? That mass fucking murderer? HE’S a fucking hero to these morons!
I’ve said it so many times, but THIS is why I’m liberal. It has nothing to do with any particular positions, but rather HOW THEY THINK. (Or THYNK, in the case of Conservatives.)
Liberals evaluate the evidence and then form a position based on it.
Conservatives form a position and then evaluate the evidence based on it.
Don’t get me wrong, I can understand why it bothers Conservatives that their leaders were exposed as liars, but… Fuck, you’d think they could muster at least SOME anger at those leaders for having LIED in the first place. Oh yeah, and then acted like petulant, spoiled children when someone revealed just ho full of shit they were. I’ll just never understand what anyone can see in a leader like that.
I’ll just never see it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
There is something else that this example reminds me of, and it really blows a gaping hole in the walls of the whole “both sides do it” argument. The idea that we all do the same thing, just with our own issues and people. It reminded me of a segment of the Rush Limbaugh program that I had heard many, many years ago, during the early days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. (No, while I was more Conservative then, I was not a fan. My father however was and remains one to this day. I heard this segment while driving in the car with him.)
The Great Gastropod was calling, “hypocrisy” on the feminists, and the liberals, who were “throwing Paula Jones under the bus” simply because her story was going against Bill Clinton. (You know: Our ‘enlightened leader’ at the time.) The thing is? Did he play a single clip to back this up? (Are you kidding?) No, of course not. And I don’t know about YOU, but I don’t seem to remember a whole lot of liberals, or indeed ANY prominent Liberals or Feminists attacking Jones at the time. I guess not sharing his rabid, mouth-foaming irrational hatred of Bill Clinton was the same as “attacking Paula Jones” in his mynd, but in that Liberal paradise that the rest of us call REALITY, it simply ISN’T. What’s more, I don’t really think Bill Clinton was anyone’s great hero to begin with. Not LIBERALS anyway! Party DEMOCRATS maybe, but that’s not the same thing. And when you think about it, Obama pissed away his historic opportunity using pretty much the same tactics that Bill Clinton did: Move to the center, even the center-right and hope the hard-right plays fair. And the results were the same! Republicans took back the House within 2 years. They didn’t get the senate this time around, but when you look at the political landscape now, it hardly matters! So Clinton was not a ‘hero’ in the mold of a Roosevelt or a Kennedy (or in the mold of Reagan or Bush to the Right.) And Paula Jones was no villain. It’s a patently absurd suggestion! And REALLY neither was Linda Tripp.
Who were the villains, then?
The same people they always are: The Congressional Republicans who only seem to care about Sexual Harrassment, Adultery or Women’s Equality when it helps them impeach a Democrat that they can’t find any legitimate reason too. Jones was never the bad buy in our eyes. And while we made fun of her, and had little syp,mathy for the simultaneous fame, notoriety and isolation that she brought upon herself, neither was Tripp. And neither was Lewinsky, for that matter. The villain? They person we hated for all the bullshit that followed? Was NEWT GINGRICH and his Zombie-like cadre of Right Wing hooligans, who were ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE for it.
But for the Right? Wilson and Plaime were the VILLIANS. They were the bad guys. NOT the guy that lied. Not their ‘hero.’ The Liberals of today will NEVER be like that. If someone came along with something LEGITIMATE that would take down the Obama white House? (And I don’t mean phony Kenyan Birth Certificates or a picture of him in a turban.) The fact is that the person we’d blame FIRST would Obama himself for doing [whatever it was that was WRONG.] Because the only REAL ‘party of personal responsibility’ in this country, is not even a party: It’s LIBERALS. The Republicans are the party of EVERYONE ELSE taking Responsible.
It makes me sick to hear these lying scumbags talk about “values,” it really does. OTOH, the entrepreneur in me is think of making up some bumper stickers. I figure the Liberals would display them proudly, as a bit of a wink and a nod to each other, but they might be even more popular with idiotic Republicans and Conservatives who lack enough of a sense of Irony to understand the joke.
The first:
It’s O.K. If You’re A Republican!
And the other:
Being Conservative Means Never Having to Admit You’re Wrong
What do you think? You think I could sell those? Would you guys buy either of them?
----------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah, as for the MOVIE…?
It was… OK. Worth seeing, like on Netflix, but really nothing special, story-wise. If there were any distortions or embellishments, I didn’t see any that the made the overall story particularly more interesting than what we already know about, and I didn’t feel that it really revealed or uncovered any territory that isn’t already common knowledge and taken for granted.
It did have several strong points however: Penn’s and Watts’ portrayals of Wilson and Plaime were both very strong performances, particularly Penn’s. (He’s come a long way from Spicolli! LOL) They captured the essences of these two human beings very well, and making them into people you could understand, relate to and sympathize with. The portrayals of Rove and Libby were also very well done, IMHO, and (what might the most amazing feat of all) these two were NOT made out to be scum-sucking demons or anything. Conniving, yes. Machiavellian, for sure. But this came through as little more than an overzealous dedication to the jobs they were doing, lacking only enough scruples to take on an “ends justifies the means” mentality about it. It really didn’t think the movie overtly vilified them. They really each played very minor roles in it, truth be told. Also, surprising, I didn’t find the film to really be overly political, considering the material being shown. Not in a truly PARTISAN / PARTY way anyway.
Really it was about the ideals and principles behind a Free Democracy. Not that it would surprise me that there might be a RW Conservative out there that would take issue with that, but they’d be rather stupid to do so (without irony.) Their objections sound more likes sour grapes to me: The just can’t stand that their guys SUCKED SO BAD, but they’re also so brainwashed that they’d rather be wrong than Liberal. And yes, it was ”biased,” (in much the same way that reality is,) but I defy anyone to show me how this was biased in any absurd or unfair ways. It was biased only from the fact that it was told from Wilson and Plaime’s POV. And really? I really didn’t think it made Wilson out to be any kind of Superhero. He was portrayed with a gruff, abrasive, outspoken personality, and was really a bit of a ball-buster than most people found hard to get along with. Plaime was portrayed as a very competent, professional and passionate Covert operative, who was very good at her job, and was the victim of something horrible being done to her. Is that biased? Perhaps. It is UNREALISTIC? Not based on anything I’ve read that wasn’t written by a RW stooge.
One other thing that was done very poorly – the sound mixing was AWFUL. I don;t usually notice thigns liek this, but in this movies, ti was TERRIBLE. There were many abrupt transitions between very quiet scenes where people were talking so low that you could barely hear them, and loud thunderous, explosive scenes that scared the crap out of you. (You know: because you had to turn it up so damned loud to hear what was going on in the previous scene!) So watch the volume control, or you’ll rupture an eardrum at some point!
Overall, I would recommend that anyone interested in the Wislon/Plaime story see it, because it’s certainly not a BAD movie. It’s just not a GREAT movie. It’s also more of a personal story and not really meant to be a documentary of what went down.
Ah. Today we set sail for the Western Caribbean aboard the beautiful Crown Princess. Although there is Internet Access from the boat, I am probably writing this at least a few days before I post it. So we’re on Vacation. And that’s good. As is life, for the most part. And taking a vacation like this means leaving the kids with my parents which is good for two reasons. (1) NO KIDS! Yay! And (2) Inevitably one of my parents is going to say something that ends up being worth writing about – either my dad, who gives insight into the mind of a staunch Republican, who actually has enough money to almost making BEING a Republican a rational thing (not really, I know, but in his case, I can at least see why he IS); or my Mother who gives insight into the mind of the absolutely clueless conservative who votes Republican and buys into all the Fox-News Republican propaganda simply because she has no clue. No fucking clue at all. No ability to think, analyze, debate, learn or understand. She is the quintessential example of the kind of person who “reasons” on either of the four level or ten-point scales that I’ve written about before. I love her. I really do. And she’s watching my kids right now. But Politically? Philosophically? She’s brain-dead. So, not much of a spoiler at this point, but this week’s gem comes from my mother.
See… My father got the movie “Fair Game” from Netflix. Hey: He was curious. Now, my mother didn’t know what it about. For those of you who are also scratching your heads (and that’s forgivable – it wasn’t in theatres for very long) this is the story of the outing of CIAgent Valarie Plaime, told from the POV of Valarie Plaime (played by Naomi Watts) and her husband Joe Wilson (played by Sean Penn.) I’ll get to the movie’s strengths and weaknesses in a moment, but my mother’s reaction to that revelation, IMHO, was nothing short of priceless in revealing how conservative “think.” (I’ll just put that in quotes, but I swear it’s like I should spell it differently – ‘thynk’ maybe – because it doesn’t resemble any kind of real of rational thinking that I’ve ever come across!)
“Oh, I don’t want to watch that! It’s just going to be a bunch of Bush-bashing!”
What I unfortunately can’t convey in supplying that quote is all the dismissiveness, derision, condescension, distaste and indignation that was present in her tone. Basically? The movie sucks, because these two “traitors” want to make a point about Bush. Seriously.
And this is what I’ll never understand about conservatives. Valerie Plaime really does represent the ultimate pinnacle of IOKYAR. Apparently it’s her fault for getting outed, and his fault for… What? I don’t know? NOT finding a record or evidence of a sale of yellow-cake uranium that NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED. I suppose by that same logic it’s Albaerdai’s fault that Saddam wasn’t developing weapons of Mass Destruction. It’s really insane. Putting aside any distortions that the movie may put forth - and while it would hardly be the first time Hollywood embellished something for dramatic sake - it really wasn’t at all that far out on a limb with what we now know, and all but the dimmest among us could clearly see then, to be the FACTS. There is pretty much no denying any of the following:
1) There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
2) There was scant EVIDENCE of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
3) THE CIA sent Joe Wilson to follow up on a lead. (And who exactly sent him is completely irrelevant. Remember: At this time no one could know what he might have found! )
4) Joe Wilson found NO EVIDENCE of a massive sale of Uranium.
5) The Bush Administration lied about this, and about the possible used of several aluminum tubes in their case for going to war.
6) Joe Wilson called them out on their bullshit, when he realized they were lying.
7) His wife was outed in petty retaliation for this, as well as to squelch any and all other information that might have shown that the case for going to war in Iraq was based completely on bullshit.
8) Doing this was a crime. That’s a matter of fact, not opinion, BTW. For all the bullshit that followed, someone WAS convicted of this crime. Justice was never served, but there is no denying that what was done was, in fact, a crime… by definition.
9) When Joe Wilson didn’t take this nonsense lying down, the Right Wing press repeatedly slandered him and his wife, making the story about them rather than the fact that Bush was lying.
None of the above are matters of opinion. None of these points can be seriously debated. One can try argue that this was all somehow justified, due to the threat possessed by Saddam, but there’s a fundamental problem with that: What Joe Wilson, and pretty much everyone else involved in following up every one of Bush and Cheney’s bullshit leads was that Saddam didn’t pose a threat AT ALL! His infrastructure was crumbling, his economy was in shambles, he could barely muster enough spare parts to keep a few tanks running! And nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G, was ever presented that countered any of this! Bush and Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld and Powell could make all the claims they wanted, but they FACT is that no one was finding ANYTHING! And the result of them vilifying anyone who dared hold a view that even slightly resembled REALITY (which, remember, has a long-established liberal bias!) our country was led down the rod of the single most disastrous piece of foreign policy in history.
Now THAT’S an opinion, I’ll grant you. But the facts simply aren’t there to debate it: There was no justification, no threat, and no reason to go to war. None. Much was lost, and the estimates of the costs of the war, both in terms of military casualties and tax-payer dollars given to us by the War’s REPUBLICAN cheer-leaders might be the single greatest example the Right has in terms of the Government underestimating something’s price tag. And can ANYONE tell me, what exactly we were supposed to GAIN from all of that? What was the BIG PLAN here? Because to me it’s like trying to figure out what the Villains original plan was in “Total Recall” – not only did the reasoning keep changing, but when you go right back to the start? There’s nothing there! It made Iran stronger, spread our troops too thin, destroyed out budget, destroyed our moral standing in the world, destroyed our credibility, hampered our military readiness - we saw that when Katrina hit, removed a SECULAR leader from power in a war against RADICAL RELIGIOUS THEOCRACY, so… WHAT THE FUCK WAS IT ALL ACTUALLY FOR?!
I’d say “blood for oil,” but I KNOW that can’t be right, because Dick Cheney said that was ABSURD, and I know Dick Cheney would NEVER LIE. (I mean… he swore an oath!) Of course, the same man, by the time the war was won and the peace was proving to be frustratingly out of reach, the new tune was “We can’t let these oil reserves fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda!”
So… yeah, it pretty much WAS, according to the guy who viciously attacked anyone ELSE who suggested it was. And, uh… IIRC, he was an oil man, right? Something to do with developing oil fields? Just sayin’.
So… consider all that for a moment. And let come back to the two people involved: Joe Wilson and Valrie Plaime. Why do Conservatives hate these people so much? Because they found out Bush was lying? OMFG! Really?! Of course… Bush gets a pass for the LIE and Wilson and Plaime are “traitors” because, this was such good foreign policy, right? I mean… it HAD to be! Because a Republican was driving it! And I’d love to take this insanity farther, but I really can’t. It’s just too absurd. What these people did, their great crime against humanity, was to FAIL TO FIND EVIDENCE THAT WASN’T FUCKING THERE.
And somehow… that makes THEM bad, rather than the guy who went to fucking WAR with a Sovereign Nation, based on the evidence that he insisted he had, but which no one could find. THAT GUY? That lying piece of shit? That war criminal? That mass fucking murderer? HE’S a fucking hero to these morons!
I’ve said it so many times, but THIS is why I’m liberal. It has nothing to do with any particular positions, but rather HOW THEY THINK. (Or THYNK, in the case of Conservatives.)
Liberals evaluate the evidence and then form a position based on it.
Conservatives form a position and then evaluate the evidence based on it.
Don’t get me wrong, I can understand why it bothers Conservatives that their leaders were exposed as liars, but… Fuck, you’d think they could muster at least SOME anger at those leaders for having LIED in the first place. Oh yeah, and then acted like petulant, spoiled children when someone revealed just ho full of shit they were. I’ll just never understand what anyone can see in a leader like that.
I’ll just never see it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
There is something else that this example reminds me of, and it really blows a gaping hole in the walls of the whole “both sides do it” argument. The idea that we all do the same thing, just with our own issues and people. It reminded me of a segment of the Rush Limbaugh program that I had heard many, many years ago, during the early days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. (No, while I was more Conservative then, I was not a fan. My father however was and remains one to this day. I heard this segment while driving in the car with him.)
The Great Gastropod was calling, “hypocrisy” on the feminists, and the liberals, who were “throwing Paula Jones under the bus” simply because her story was going against Bill Clinton. (You know: Our ‘enlightened leader’ at the time.) The thing is? Did he play a single clip to back this up? (Are you kidding?) No, of course not. And I don’t know about YOU, but I don’t seem to remember a whole lot of liberals, or indeed ANY prominent Liberals or Feminists attacking Jones at the time. I guess not sharing his rabid, mouth-foaming irrational hatred of Bill Clinton was the same as “attacking Paula Jones” in his mynd, but in that Liberal paradise that the rest of us call REALITY, it simply ISN’T. What’s more, I don’t really think Bill Clinton was anyone’s great hero to begin with. Not LIBERALS anyway! Party DEMOCRATS maybe, but that’s not the same thing. And when you think about it, Obama pissed away his historic opportunity using pretty much the same tactics that Bill Clinton did: Move to the center, even the center-right and hope the hard-right plays fair. And the results were the same! Republicans took back the House within 2 years. They didn’t get the senate this time around, but when you look at the political landscape now, it hardly matters! So Clinton was not a ‘hero’ in the mold of a Roosevelt or a Kennedy (or in the mold of Reagan or Bush to the Right.) And Paula Jones was no villain. It’s a patently absurd suggestion! And REALLY neither was Linda Tripp.
Who were the villains, then?
The same people they always are: The Congressional Republicans who only seem to care about Sexual Harrassment, Adultery or Women’s Equality when it helps them impeach a Democrat that they can’t find any legitimate reason too. Jones was never the bad buy in our eyes. And while we made fun of her, and had little syp,mathy for the simultaneous fame, notoriety and isolation that she brought upon herself, neither was Tripp. And neither was Lewinsky, for that matter. The villain? They person we hated for all the bullshit that followed? Was NEWT GINGRICH and his Zombie-like cadre of Right Wing hooligans, who were ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE for it.
But for the Right? Wilson and Plaime were the VILLIANS. They were the bad guys. NOT the guy that lied. Not their ‘hero.’ The Liberals of today will NEVER be like that. If someone came along with something LEGITIMATE that would take down the Obama white House? (And I don’t mean phony Kenyan Birth Certificates or a picture of him in a turban.) The fact is that the person we’d blame FIRST would Obama himself for doing [whatever it was that was WRONG.] Because the only REAL ‘party of personal responsibility’ in this country, is not even a party: It’s LIBERALS. The Republicans are the party of EVERYONE ELSE taking Responsible.
It makes me sick to hear these lying scumbags talk about “values,” it really does. OTOH, the entrepreneur in me is think of making up some bumper stickers. I figure the Liberals would display them proudly, as a bit of a wink and a nod to each other, but they might be even more popular with idiotic Republicans and Conservatives who lack enough of a sense of Irony to understand the joke.
The first:
It’s O.K. If You’re A Republican!
And the other:
Being Conservative Means Never Having to Admit You’re Wrong
What do you think? You think I could sell those? Would you guys buy either of them?
----------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah, as for the MOVIE…?
It was… OK. Worth seeing, like on Netflix, but really nothing special, story-wise. If there were any distortions or embellishments, I didn’t see any that the made the overall story particularly more interesting than what we already know about, and I didn’t feel that it really revealed or uncovered any territory that isn’t already common knowledge and taken for granted.
It did have several strong points however: Penn’s and Watts’ portrayals of Wilson and Plaime were both very strong performances, particularly Penn’s. (He’s come a long way from Spicolli! LOL) They captured the essences of these two human beings very well, and making them into people you could understand, relate to and sympathize with. The portrayals of Rove and Libby were also very well done, IMHO, and (what might the most amazing feat of all) these two were NOT made out to be scum-sucking demons or anything. Conniving, yes. Machiavellian, for sure. But this came through as little more than an overzealous dedication to the jobs they were doing, lacking only enough scruples to take on an “ends justifies the means” mentality about it. It really didn’t think the movie overtly vilified them. They really each played very minor roles in it, truth be told. Also, surprising, I didn’t find the film to really be overly political, considering the material being shown. Not in a truly PARTISAN / PARTY way anyway.
Really it was about the ideals and principles behind a Free Democracy. Not that it would surprise me that there might be a RW Conservative out there that would take issue with that, but they’d be rather stupid to do so (without irony.) Their objections sound more likes sour grapes to me: The just can’t stand that their guys SUCKED SO BAD, but they’re also so brainwashed that they’d rather be wrong than Liberal. And yes, it was ”biased,” (in much the same way that reality is,) but I defy anyone to show me how this was biased in any absurd or unfair ways. It was biased only from the fact that it was told from Wilson and Plaime’s POV. And really? I really didn’t think it made Wilson out to be any kind of Superhero. He was portrayed with a gruff, abrasive, outspoken personality, and was really a bit of a ball-buster than most people found hard to get along with. Plaime was portrayed as a very competent, professional and passionate Covert operative, who was very good at her job, and was the victim of something horrible being done to her. Is that biased? Perhaps. It is UNREALISTIC? Not based on anything I’ve read that wasn’t written by a RW stooge.
One other thing that was done very poorly – the sound mixing was AWFUL. I don;t usually notice thigns liek this, but in this movies, ti was TERRIBLE. There were many abrupt transitions between very quiet scenes where people were talking so low that you could barely hear them, and loud thunderous, explosive scenes that scared the crap out of you. (You know: because you had to turn it up so damned loud to hear what was going on in the previous scene!) So watch the volume control, or you’ll rupture an eardrum at some point!
Overall, I would recommend that anyone interested in the Wislon/Plaime story see it, because it’s certainly not a BAD movie. It’s just not a GREAT movie. It’s also more of a personal story and not really meant to be a documentary of what went down.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Friday fun, plus: Let's invade Syria! (Just kidding)
Friday Fun: I LOVE this:
Now, on to politics! LOL
But “Bush” and “Hussein” may as well be "Cats" and "Dogs." So, after 9/11, Saddam Hussein’s fate was as certain as Bush’s ineptitude. (I always wondered how much Hussein hated Bin Laden for 9/11. He HAD to know the handwriting was on the wall!) But here’s the rub: Even though it was completely unnecessary and tactically unwise to open a second front in the war, if you’re hell-bent of invading someone else, I still fail to see how Iraq would rank as your first choice! If, back in 2003, you felt that we absolute MUST invade another country? Let me offer the same one that I did even back then:
SYRIA.
Sounds odd, perhaps. But that’s only because the media hasn’t spent the last year trying to convince you it’s a good idea. Without the media’s ridiculous cheerleading for the War in Iraq, congressional Democrats might have had the spine to vote against it unanimously, and Bush might never have even been authorized to go there. Also, John Kerry would have won re-election last year. But no matter how you look at it, it just would have made so much more sense to invade SYRIA:
1) Tactical: Smaller Country, easier to invade. (Less Blood / Treasure.)
2) Justification: HAS Chemical Weapons/WMD’s and linke to terrorsim, where Iraq didn’t.
3) Potential Future Threat: Has at least a civilian nuclear power program, which is more that Iraq does.
4) Religion: Is far more cozy, in fact is RUN BY, Radical Islamists – the very people that we were fighting. Saddam took a hard line AGAINST those same people! Thus knocking out that gov’t would weaken the Radicals influence, whilst getting rid of Saddam, if anything, strengthened it.
5) Terrorism: Syria sponsors terrorism, including attacks on U.S. forces. Iraq did not. Thus groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, who really on Syrian support, would be weakened, whereas Al Qaeda actually GREW, though admittedly only for a short time.
6) Iran: Syria is a strong ALLY of Iran – out biggest enemy in the region. So taking out their gov’t would WEAKEN Iran. Iraq, on the other hand, was Iran’s biggest ENEMY, and historically was used as a counterbalance to their power. Toppling Saddam instead strengthened our chief ENEMY, Iran.
7) Balance of Power: Having a puppet government in Syria would strengthen our ally, Israel and create another potentially very strong Ally in Lebanon. Having all these allies, stretching from Saudi Arabia to Turkey, would make it easier for us to negotiate with the Palestinians.
8) Finally: Iran would not be able to come to Syria’s aid, so the conflict would not be likely to broaden, if we had Saddam, continuing to bluff about WMD’s, keeping Iran in check. Other Islamic countries considering an alliance with Iran might think twice after seeing this.
Now, I hope it’s obvious to everyone that I’m not advocating an invasion of Syria! This whole exercise is merely meant to show how utterly stupid it was to invade Iraq. No matter how you look at it, there was nothing we could accomplish in Iraq that we couldn’t have done in Afghanistan and if you are hell-bent on invading an other country unnecessarily, Syria would have been a far better choice, even if they didn’t have a comic-book villain, like Saddam, to use as a poster boy to market the war.
I originally came up with that strategy just before the Iraq War started. Several Conservatives that I shared this with at the time were surprised and impressed that an admitted liberal and anti-Iraq War advocate would have come up with that. I countered that they should be even more dismayed that a simple, independent blogger and admitted liberal had conceived a far superior war strategy than those that they had trusted to RUN THE WAR.
Now, on to politics! LOL
In my last post, in unequivocal favor of President Obama sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan, unveiling his new strategy, and setting a timetable for withdrawal, I mentioned that I was against the Iraq War from the start. I was; and I always have been. Even after Colin Powell’s UN speech, when I came the closest to supporting it, I was still more inclined to think, “Saddam’s let the inspectors back in, so let them do their jobs now!”
Also, you know something stinks when the reason for it keeps changing. First it was about 9/11. But there wasn’t even fraudulent evidence to back that up. Then it was about WMD’s, which did have some fraudulent evidence backing it up. And once that was all discovered for the codswallop that it was, Iraq was supposed to be about the War on Terror and spreading democracy in the Middle East... something that could have been accomplished just as well FROM AFGHANISTAN!
And, to earn me some conservative / hawk cred, my opposition was not based on legally or morality or international treaty or anything like that. As a freedom loving, pro-human-rights liberal, I am loath to be put in the position of DEFENDING a demonic scumbag like Saddam Hussein on principle. As far as his sovereign rights go? I personally wish the international community would do more to take down leaders like Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Ayatollah Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, General Than Shwe, etc… Now: I know why they don’t! But at some point a government becomes so cruel, so antithetical to basic human rights that I believe they lose the right to this otherwise principled protection of their sovereignty.
So why did I oppose the war? Not for any of my liberal sensibilities but rather because, relative to the War of Terror, it made absolutely no sense from a tactical standpoint! Iraq was the most secular country in the entire region! It’s government had a history of taking a hard line against the very radical Islamic groups most associated with terrorism. And the biggest point: all of their WMD’s were GONE. (Although we were utterly stupid to force him to prove that since for years, their fear of him and those weapons kept IRAN in check!) As much as I hated the man, it would have made far more sense to prop him up, lift the sanctions, work out a treaty so that we can use his air space, and continue to use him to KEEP IRAN IN CHECK while we PROSECUTE THE WAR ON TERROR.
But there’s far more to demonstrate how absolutely incompetent Bush and his military planners were. Rather than do as I outlined above, they got themselves stuck in an expensive quagmire that quickly consumed almost all of the goodwill that Bush had,both from the international community and here at home. (And it’s a lot harder to fight terrorists when countries who you need to share their intelligence with you don’t like you very much!) And, at the end of the day, dismantling Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan would have been enough. Replacing them with a secure, stable, secular, democratic government and wiping out every last remnant of Islamic Power, would have been a very effective deterrent for any other country that we would then need to deal with. If they knew we meant business, and we had the precedent of the Amanita that I’ve described and that George W. Bush no doubt envisioned, but failed to achieve, even the most hard-line country might be willing to negotiate and deal rather than face the extinction of their system of government and backwards way of life.
Also, you know something stinks when the reason for it keeps changing. First it was about 9/11. But there wasn’t even fraudulent evidence to back that up. Then it was about WMD’s, which did have some fraudulent evidence backing it up. And once that was all discovered for the codswallop that it was, Iraq was supposed to be about the War on Terror and spreading democracy in the Middle East... something that could have been accomplished just as well FROM AFGHANISTAN!
And, to earn me some conservative / hawk cred, my opposition was not based on legally or morality or international treaty or anything like that. As a freedom loving, pro-human-rights liberal, I am loath to be put in the position of DEFENDING a demonic scumbag like Saddam Hussein on principle. As far as his sovereign rights go? I personally wish the international community would do more to take down leaders like Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Ayatollah Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, General Than Shwe, etc… Now: I know why they don’t! But at some point a government becomes so cruel, so antithetical to basic human rights that I believe they lose the right to this otherwise principled protection of their sovereignty.
So why did I oppose the war? Not for any of my liberal sensibilities but rather because, relative to the War of Terror, it made absolutely no sense from a tactical standpoint! Iraq was the most secular country in the entire region! It’s government had a history of taking a hard line against the very radical Islamic groups most associated with terrorism. And the biggest point: all of their WMD’s were GONE. (Although we were utterly stupid to force him to prove that since for years, their fear of him and those weapons kept IRAN in check!) As much as I hated the man, it would have made far more sense to prop him up, lift the sanctions, work out a treaty so that we can use his air space, and continue to use him to KEEP IRAN IN CHECK while we PROSECUTE THE WAR ON TERROR.
But there’s far more to demonstrate how absolutely incompetent Bush and his military planners were. Rather than do as I outlined above, they got themselves stuck in an expensive quagmire that quickly consumed almost all of the goodwill that Bush had,both from the international community and here at home. (And it’s a lot harder to fight terrorists when countries who you need to share their intelligence with you don’t like you very much!) And, at the end of the day, dismantling Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan would have been enough. Replacing them with a secure, stable, secular, democratic government and wiping out every last remnant of Islamic Power, would have been a very effective deterrent for any other country that we would then need to deal with. If they knew we meant business, and we had the precedent of the Amanita that I’ve described and that George W. Bush no doubt envisioned, but failed to achieve, even the most hard-line country might be willing to negotiate and deal rather than face the extinction of their system of government and backwards way of life.
But “Bush” and “Hussein” may as well be "Cats" and "Dogs." So, after 9/11, Saddam Hussein’s fate was as certain as Bush’s ineptitude. (I always wondered how much Hussein hated Bin Laden for 9/11. He HAD to know the handwriting was on the wall!) But here’s the rub: Even though it was completely unnecessary and tactically unwise to open a second front in the war, if you’re hell-bent of invading someone else, I still fail to see how Iraq would rank as your first choice! If, back in 2003, you felt that we absolute MUST invade another country? Let me offer the same one that I did even back then:
SYRIA.
Sounds odd, perhaps. But that’s only because the media hasn’t spent the last year trying to convince you it’s a good idea. Without the media’s ridiculous cheerleading for the War in Iraq, congressional Democrats might have had the spine to vote against it unanimously, and Bush might never have even been authorized to go there. Also, John Kerry would have won re-election last year. But no matter how you look at it, it just would have made so much more sense to invade SYRIA:
1) Tactical: Smaller Country, easier to invade. (Less Blood / Treasure.)
2) Justification: HAS Chemical Weapons/WMD’s and linke to terrorsim, where Iraq didn’t.
3) Potential Future Threat: Has at least a civilian nuclear power program, which is more that Iraq does.
4) Religion: Is far more cozy, in fact is RUN BY, Radical Islamists – the very people that we were fighting. Saddam took a hard line AGAINST those same people! Thus knocking out that gov’t would weaken the Radicals influence, whilst getting rid of Saddam, if anything, strengthened it.
5) Terrorism: Syria sponsors terrorism, including attacks on U.S. forces. Iraq did not. Thus groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, who really on Syrian support, would be weakened, whereas Al Qaeda actually GREW, though admittedly only for a short time.
6) Iran: Syria is a strong ALLY of Iran – out biggest enemy in the region. So taking out their gov’t would WEAKEN Iran. Iraq, on the other hand, was Iran’s biggest ENEMY, and historically was used as a counterbalance to their power. Toppling Saddam instead strengthened our chief ENEMY, Iran.
7) Balance of Power: Having a puppet government in Syria would strengthen our ally, Israel and create another potentially very strong Ally in Lebanon. Having all these allies, stretching from Saudi Arabia to Turkey, would make it easier for us to negotiate with the Palestinians.
8) Finally: Iran would not be able to come to Syria’s aid, so the conflict would not be likely to broaden, if we had Saddam, continuing to bluff about WMD’s, keeping Iran in check. Other Islamic countries considering an alliance with Iran might think twice after seeing this.
Now, I hope it’s obvious to everyone that I’m not advocating an invasion of Syria! This whole exercise is merely meant to show how utterly stupid it was to invade Iraq. No matter how you look at it, there was nothing we could accomplish in Iraq that we couldn’t have done in Afghanistan and if you are hell-bent on invading an other country unnecessarily, Syria would have been a far better choice, even if they didn’t have a comic-book villain, like Saddam, to use as a poster boy to market the war.
I originally came up with that strategy just before the Iraq War started. Several Conservatives that I shared this with at the time were surprised and impressed that an admitted liberal and anti-Iraq War advocate would have come up with that. I countered that they should be even more dismayed that a simple, independent blogger and admitted liberal had conceived a far superior war strategy than those that they had trusted to RUN THE WAR.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Afghanistan is not Iraq. Afghanistan is not Vietnam.
I am very happy to hear that President Obama is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. I am very happy to hear that he will begin to draw those troops down in July of 2011. I am very happy to hear that he has clearly defined goals that are not open ended, and do not exceed what we need to accomplish to insure our security. I am glad to heat that he has an exit strategy. I am glad about every word of his recent speech at West Point. Once again, my President, Barack Hussein Obama, has shown a clarity of thought and understanding that reinforces my own fervent belief that we finally had a truly great individual seeking the office, and that we absolutely elected the right guy.
I say all of this as someone who was 100% percent opposed to the War in Iraq from the start, after being 100% behind the War in Afghanistan from the start. I was neutral on President Bush’s the troop surge in Iraq. While I was against the war in general, as far as strategy and tactics go, I recognized at the time that this might be needed and that staying the course may have done more harm than good. Also, much the same as now, that surge came with a new strategy and new approach. I was cynical about that at the time, but I have to give President Bush and his military advisers credit for this much: The Iraq troop surge, and the new tactics employed along with it, marked the turnaround in that War. It marked the point at which we broke the stalemate and started making progress. Progress that has been sustained to the point where Iraq is now becoming the forgotten War, much the way Afghanistan had been for most of President Bush’s second term.
But Iraq is not Afghanistan. The chances that Iraq will destabilize at this point, with or without our help, is far more remote than it was when we ousted Saddam Hussein. Also, it is also unlikely that instability in Iraq would result in a stronger position for Iran (that was already accomplished by getting rid of Saddam!) or for increased training grounds for terrorists - the Iraqi’s turned on Al-Qaeda, as assisted our troops, on their own volition, and have long been the most secular country in the region. And again: the risk will not increase any more than it just by us getting rid of Saddam, who was a stalwart against radical Islam when he was in power. Some I’m not all that concerned about Iraq. At this point, it’s high time we draw down our troops.
Also, Afghanistan is not Iraq. The people that attacked us on 9/11 had their safe heavens in that country, and remain their, and in the hinterlands on the Afghan/Pakistan border. And instability in Afghanistan will lead to the resurrection of those safe heavens. That it why it is my sincere belief that we must rediscover the unity that we had in the weeks and months following 9/11, when we first went into Afghanistan. Unity that President Bush dismantled by pursuing his family vendetta in Iraq.
What’s more, Afghanistan is not Vietnam. The Iraq-Vietnam analogy is, in fact, far more apt. There is a key difference in Afghanistan: Terrorism and, through Al-Qaeda, the Taliban represent a threat to our homeland that Communism and the Viet Kong never did. There was simply no threat to this country posed by either. Put simply: The Truman Doctrine was wrong-minded and misguided, and the Vietnam was essentially nothing more than a Civil War that we ignited! It’s entirely possible that the communist revolution would have happen eventually anyway, but either way it posed no threat to us! Consider the power of China at the time: A Billion people and a Nuclear Arsenal. Does a tiny strip of jungle on the other side of the world from us REALLY give them any additional capability? No. Not in the way that say… Missile bases in CUBA increased the Soviet’s strategic capabilities in the early 1960's. Cuba would have been a game-changer for Russia, whereas Vietnam was strategically irrelevant to China. President Kennedy obviously got the Cuba part right, Bay of Pigs not withstanding, even though he and President Johnson were dead wrong in Vietnam.
But an unstable Afghanistan absolutely represents a threat to us. And if the Taliban come back, not only will Al-Qaeda have their safe haven again, but with the state of affair in [nuclear armed] Pakistan, the Taliban will have an opportunity to increase their presence and influence their as well. A successful mission in Afghanistan, on the other hand, gives us more credibility with the Pakistani’s and the increased possibility of working more closely with their government to squeeze Al-Qaeda and the Taliban for that front as well.
So President Obama has got it right here, folks. It’s high time the LIBERALS and the DEMOCRATS adopted their own 9/11 rallying cry. And this is the cause that we must rally around. This is a war of necessity, not choice. Unlike Iraq, this is a critically important mission, not a counter-productive one. Our troops, their mission and our President absolutely deserve our support in their efforts in Afghanistan.
When WE say, "Never Forget," we can always add, "LIKE BUSH DID."
I say all of this as someone who was 100% percent opposed to the War in Iraq from the start, after being 100% behind the War in Afghanistan from the start. I was neutral on President Bush’s the troop surge in Iraq. While I was against the war in general, as far as strategy and tactics go, I recognized at the time that this might be needed and that staying the course may have done more harm than good. Also, much the same as now, that surge came with a new strategy and new approach. I was cynical about that at the time, but I have to give President Bush and his military advisers credit for this much: The Iraq troop surge, and the new tactics employed along with it, marked the turnaround in that War. It marked the point at which we broke the stalemate and started making progress. Progress that has been sustained to the point where Iraq is now becoming the forgotten War, much the way Afghanistan had been for most of President Bush’s second term.
But Iraq is not Afghanistan. The chances that Iraq will destabilize at this point, with or without our help, is far more remote than it was when we ousted Saddam Hussein. Also, it is also unlikely that instability in Iraq would result in a stronger position for Iran (that was already accomplished by getting rid of Saddam!) or for increased training grounds for terrorists - the Iraqi’s turned on Al-Qaeda, as assisted our troops, on their own volition, and have long been the most secular country in the region. And again: the risk will not increase any more than it just by us getting rid of Saddam, who was a stalwart against radical Islam when he was in power. Some I’m not all that concerned about Iraq. At this point, it’s high time we draw down our troops.
Also, Afghanistan is not Iraq. The people that attacked us on 9/11 had their safe heavens in that country, and remain their, and in the hinterlands on the Afghan/Pakistan border. And instability in Afghanistan will lead to the resurrection of those safe heavens. That it why it is my sincere belief that we must rediscover the unity that we had in the weeks and months following 9/11, when we first went into Afghanistan. Unity that President Bush dismantled by pursuing his family vendetta in Iraq.
What’s more, Afghanistan is not Vietnam. The Iraq-Vietnam analogy is, in fact, far more apt. There is a key difference in Afghanistan: Terrorism and, through Al-Qaeda, the Taliban represent a threat to our homeland that Communism and the Viet Kong never did. There was simply no threat to this country posed by either. Put simply: The Truman Doctrine was wrong-minded and misguided, and the Vietnam was essentially nothing more than a Civil War that we ignited! It’s entirely possible that the communist revolution would have happen eventually anyway, but either way it posed no threat to us! Consider the power of China at the time: A Billion people and a Nuclear Arsenal. Does a tiny strip of jungle on the other side of the world from us REALLY give them any additional capability? No. Not in the way that say… Missile bases in CUBA increased the Soviet’s strategic capabilities in the early 1960's. Cuba would have been a game-changer for Russia, whereas Vietnam was strategically irrelevant to China. President Kennedy obviously got the Cuba part right, Bay of Pigs not withstanding, even though he and President Johnson were dead wrong in Vietnam.
But an unstable Afghanistan absolutely represents a threat to us. And if the Taliban come back, not only will Al-Qaeda have their safe haven again, but with the state of affair in [nuclear armed] Pakistan, the Taliban will have an opportunity to increase their presence and influence their as well. A successful mission in Afghanistan, on the other hand, gives us more credibility with the Pakistani’s and the increased possibility of working more closely with their government to squeeze Al-Qaeda and the Taliban for that front as well.
So President Obama has got it right here, folks. It’s high time the LIBERALS and the DEMOCRATS adopted their own 9/11 rallying cry. And this is the cause that we must rally around. This is a war of necessity, not choice. Unlike Iraq, this is a critically important mission, not a counter-productive one. Our troops, their mission and our President absolutely deserve our support in their efforts in Afghanistan.
When WE say, "Never Forget," we can always add, "LIKE BUSH DID."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)