I Got Asked Again Today...
Once again, I got asked by a friend "Who would you rather have defending the country, a President who takes a strong stand on terror, or the liberals who have no ideas?"
Forgetting for a moment that this question uses the invalid logic technique of proceeding from an unproven assumption (the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question), let me answer honestly:
I would rather have a President who is not weakening us in the world. I would rather have a President who doesn't use threat of the bogeyman of terror to justify dismantling the very things that make our country worth defending.
I don't think the terms "torture" and "extraordinary rendition" being seen as synonymous with "U.S. foreign policy" abroad makes us safer. I don't think turning previously stable and not-particularly-threatening countries who never attacked us into havens and fertile recruiting grounds for anti-American jihadists makes us safer. I don't think giving every Islamic nation in the world reason to suspect we went after Iraq simply because they were a Muslim nation, rather than for cause, strengthens our position with that community.
I think it's ludicrous to think that any group organized the way we're told al Qaeda is organized would be so easily trapped into "fighting us there so they can't attack us here". Quite the contrary, the assumption that hitting them there so they won't attack here assumes that we're attacking their homes, that there is something there for them to defend. Any reasonably smart tactician defends home and supply lines first, and then goes after the opponents home and supply lines second. Since Iraq was neither home nor primary supply line to al Qaeda, there's simply no reason to believe Osama bin Ladin would commit all of his resources in Iraq when he'd rather be hitting us at home.
Speaking of Osama bin Ladin, I'd rather have a President who held true to his promise to hunt him (bin Ladin) down. "He can run but he can't hide" seems to have turned, ADHD-like, into "he's out of sight, I've forgotten about him."
I'd rather have a President who is well respected in the world community, so that if we DO get hit again, we will have a lot of allies to draw upon.
I'd rather have a President who was not bankrupting our nation, selling our debt in record amounts to the Chinese, and leaving us with ever fewer resources to fight terror. Think this is unrelated? What if we decide Kim Jong Il of North Korea is an immenent threat, and we decide to go after him, but he's made ties with Communist China, and they decide to tell us that if we attack North Korea, they will immediately cease any loans to the U.S. We literally would not have the resources to fight that war if the Chinese suddenly stopped funding us (or worse, started calling in their markers).
We are not safer than we were before 9/11. We have been weakened, fed a veneer of macho posturing while the rot at our core has been eating away at our strength.
I don't know how Katrina could have not opened everyone's eyes to the extent to which we are NOT prepared for further emergencies. Apparently we're fighting them over there so that *WE* have no resources to prepare for an attack over here. And since the counter argument is so often "Weather and terrorism are two different things" can you honestly tell me you think the response in New Orleans would have been any better coordinated if the levees had been blown up by a terrorist, rather than eroded by a hurricane?
No, we don't have a President who is strong on defense. We have a President who is corrupt and self-serving, appointing incompetant cronies everywhere he can in his administration, flouting the laws of our country and using "your safety" as a justification. When you let them get away with that lie, when you take it to heart and REPEAT that lie, you are not actually supporting safety, you are abetting someone in the process of dismantling our great country.
That, I think, is not what anyone wants.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 2/13/2006 09:11:00 PM
5 Comments:
It's a matter of attitude Liam. I could use the same opening statement that you used ie that you are proceeding from an uproven assumption to make your points. You are intelligent, make the argument from the other side. I've read your statement more than once that you are not a liberal, but you, like most liberals I know, hate this President so much that your logic has gone to the left side of the spectrum to such a point that there is really no discussion with you. That is just my opinion, but it is my opinion.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:59:00 PM
As a point to show you what I mean by saying that there is no discussion with you, go back and see how much discussion you have been generating. You have two or three liberals saying "way to go Liam" or "I could not have said it better", but NO discussion or rebuttals.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:06:00 PM
I do not hate this President. I hate what he's doing to our country. I hate what he's doing to the office of the Presidency. I hate the fact that he didn't win one election, and there is significant reason to question whether the results from the second weren't severely tampered with.
I can point to lots of damage this President has done to the country, and all the people who disagree with me can do is parrot back the talking points they hear from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity and the rest:
1) that this is a President strong on terror (then why is bin Ladin still out there, while we waste our time on a guy who had NOTHING to do with 9/11)
2) that liberals have no ideas (then why did Bush just endorse a plan for dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions first suggested by John Kerry in August of 2004?)
3) that this President has kept us safe since 9/11 (as if there were rampant domestic terrorist attacks against the United States before 9/11, as opposed to two (1993 WTC bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing) with the very worst attack on our soil coming on President Bush's watch)
4) that somehow warrantless wiretapping would have saved us from 9/11 (when we now know that there were at least 50 different sources of information pointing to a 9/11-style attack being imminent in the months before 9/2001 which were ignored. And when we also now know that of the thousands of wiretaps authorized by the NSA fishing net, not one has led to a terrorist, and very few have led to anyone even remotely suspicious)
5) and that we have nothing to fear from warrantless wiretapping, as long as we're not terrorists (as if civil liberties are only in place to protect the guilty)
The reason there is no discussion with me is that so far, no one has put forth a good counter argument. I'd love to hear one if you have one. Or is it just easier to throw barbs than to actually present a reasoned, logical argument?
The fact is, I've yet to see a defense of this President that didn't at some point fall back on tired old talking points which have been proven false. WMDs in Iraq. Iraq & 9/11. The list goes on and on.
Bush is not a conservative, nor a Republican, or at least he does not hold true to the values which are supposed to be central to the conservative movement: Smaller government, less government interference in our lives, fiscal responsibility.
History will regard this President as one of the most damaging to our nation and our planet in a long time, I guarantee it. I just hope the stories go "Fortunately, the United States is strong and the Earth's ecosystem is stable again, in spite of the selfish and blind policies of the Bush administration" and not "the beginnings of the downfall of the one powerful United States were brought about by the disastrous policies of the second Bush Administration" or "a refusal to take seriously the increasing ecological crisis, typified by the United States and it's leader President Bush, led to ..."
And as to your second comment, that's just a stupid "proof". If I say "Two Plus Two Equals Four", it's not going to generate any discussion, but it doesn't make my statement any less true.
There are quite a few possible reasons why I don't have much in the way of Right Wing comments. Certainly one of them is the one you suggest. Some other possible ones:
1) Right wingers who come to my blog don't ever TRY to discuss or rebut, only throw a few barbs and sit back smugly as if they'd done anything but display their own intellectual failings
2) No serious Right wingers actually read my blog.
3) My points are so well thought out that no one can find a reasonable way to counter them.
4)etc...
I don't profess to know which it is, although based on the counter on my blog, I'm pretty sure it's being read by two or three of my friends and not too many others.
But facts are facts. Truth is truth. And perception is perception. My perception is that the facts show a highly corrupt Administration which believes it holds kingly powers and isn't subject to checks and balances, tearing down most of what makes this country great ultimately to the enrichment of the rich and the corporate, and who cares if a few thousand soldiers die, a few hundred thousand low income people can no longer afford food, housing or medical care, or that we have to turn around the balanced budgets of the Clinton years into record setting deficits for everyone, so long as we can pad the pocketbooks of the oil companies and the rich?
Oh, and I generally provide substantiation for my arguments. Articles, links, studies. I tell you (at least the first few times I discuss things) where I'm getting my information from.
So, if you can provide a similarly thought out, reasoned, researched and backed up argument, present it. I am, actually, very open to opposing viewpoints, and if you can actually provide me with some good points that contradict mine, and cite specific sources (other than "Sean Hannity says...", I mean sources doing more than just spouting their opinion), I'd love to hear it.
If you can't, then perhaps that's why you don't see much counter argument on this site, because perhaps the truth is that your side is so indefensible that no one can actually mount a credible counter argument and no one wants to be the one to have their fatuous argument taken apart piece by piece.
But it's your choice. Put up or, as they say, shut up.
Liam.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:50:00 PM
[warning: this post contains no useful argument, just liberal back-slapping. So what.]
The whole GWB debacle reminds me of the Phillip Roth book Our Gang (1971), which was as scathing towards Richard Nixon as it was possible to be before Watergate. Here is a review of it that was written in 1971; it quotes in part my favorite chapter, "Tricky in Hell", where Trick E. Dixon is running against Satan for the position of Devil, leader of hell:
"My fellow fallen: Let me say at the outset that of course I agree with much of what Satan has said in his opening statement. I know that Satan feels as deeply as I do about what has to be done to make Wickedness all that it can be and should be in the creation. . . . And now let me say a word to those who point to my own record as President of the United States and contend that it is less than it could have been as regards suffering and anguish for all of the people, regardless of race, creed or color. Let me remind these critics that I happen to have held that high office for less than one term before I was assassinated. . . . Despite my brief tenure in the 'White' House. . .I think I can safely say that I was able to lay the groundwork for new oppressions and injustices and to sow the seeds of bitterness and hatred between the races, the generations and the social classes that hopefully will plague the American people for years to come. . . . I think I might point with particular pride to Southeast Asia."
Another one of my favorite lines from that book comes from "The Skull Session", the chapter where the President is conferring with his advisors about what to do about the current scandal. One of the advisors makes a concilliatory remark about how the attackers aren't really so bad; Tricky retorts, "You don't understand. They are trying to prevent me from WINNING A SECOND TERM!" The advisor responds "I see ... I must confess I had not thought of it that way."
Pure genius. If I had not already been doomed to be a liberal by my upbringing and genetic heritage, I am sure this book would have won me over.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:47:00 AM
I had another thought on the anonymous poster's comments:
I think you'll find that in general I have NOT held the Democrats up to be pillars of excellence. Democrats have their problems.
However, let's take a look at the current power in the Federal Government. How much of it is weilded by Democrats? Almost none. Sure, there are Democrats in power, but the way things are set up right now, and with their lack of coordinated message, they have almost no power at all. Heck, the little power they DO have (such as the filibuster) is at risk if they actually USE it.
So, why should I care about the Democrats? They don't have enough power to wipe their own bottoms, they simply can't be harming the nation right now.
I'm concentrating my efforts on where the problems are coming from. When Democrats (or other progressives) take power again (and assuming this country remains fundamentally the same in structure, it will happen eventually), if they are doing things that harm the nation, I will be all over them.
But right now, I can worry about Democrats who haven't got the power to do anything to anyone, or I can worry about Republicans, who are in power and who seem to have attained a level of corruption not previously seen (at least to such a widespread extent) in this country.
So, is it a hatred of Bush? Or is it a recognition that the direction this country is headed in is bad for the economy, the ecology, the poor and middle class and the values of the country in general. It is the second. And since I perceive things to be going badly, where do you expect me to look?
Put another way, if it's too bright in my office, and one of the two lamps in the office has a burned out bulb, how much effort do you think I should put into adjusting the shade on that lamp?
Liam.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:52:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home