Yow! Folks, I ruffled some feathers with my post on Saturday, "Craig's Lisp". My anonymous friend (F1) who'd sent me Craig Smith's rant of last November, shared with a close associate (F2) my response to her, which essentially was that full posting. He, in turn, shared my post with a third person (F3); this third person reacted strongly to my words, and my friend relayed his email back to me.
So in all fairness and maturity, I'm going to give him as much screen time as he needs… and share with you my response back to them. I apologize for some of his vocabulary – and if WordPress complains, I'll substitute with "expletive deleted" …and some of you may recall the circumstances by which that phrase entered American English.
To quote Shaw, "Forgive him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." (Caesar and Cleopatra, 1901)
I'm including most of Saturday's original posting, so this will get a bit long; I'll color-code to give a bit of a guide to who's who, and hopefully this will carry over when I post. Craig Smith's essay is orange, my original posting on it is purple, the words of my direct respondent (F3) are in red, and my answers to him today are blue. F1 and F2 are pink, and distinguished by italic (F1) and non-italic (F2):
—–Original Message—–
Subject: FW: It is nice to read a "thinking " liberal for once!!
Hi AgingChild, thought I'd forward the following response to your response to "something to think about".
Regards,
Anon E. Mouse
—–Original Message—–
From: F3
F2, I stewed about this a while before I replied. This guy is self absorbed, pompous, condescending, well educated, ignorant, and an idiot. I don't completely endorse your view of him being a "thinker". I think maybe that you are too kind, but that is your way, and why you are my friend. Since you asked, my comments are below:
—– Original Message —–
From: F2
Orginal article was "something to think about", think I sent it to you. I know this guy, and while I would probably not agree with him on more than it is night or day, at least he seems to appreciate the truth-perhaps holding the high ground also means telling the truth no matter how bad it hurts or how little it helps. He has dug into internet stuff for me before and has always presented thoughtful, researched comments.
F2
—–Original Message—–
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 8:52 PM
[1]
My friend:
(her name is [Anon], you condescending dipstick)
F3, is there a reason why you start out your response with name-calling? Please point out to me where I called anyone an objectionable name in my own, earlier email. I'd like to make the generous assumption that you did not notice that I addressed the essayist as "sir" and "Craig", and spoke of him as "(Mr.) Smith", or once as "Mr. Craig". The worst I said of him was, "Is he nuts?" and "shame on you, Mr. Smith".
F1 has been a friend of mine for a good several years; it has been my privilege to work with her, and even fill in for her at her desk more than once when she was away. I have a high regard for her personally, and know no equal to her professionally. All this goes unsaid (or ought to) with the word "friend", which I used here to soften the words I knew I had to say in response to Smith's essay. There was nothing condescending in its usage; F1 and I have so addressed each other more than once. I will also address you the same way, my friend.
[2]
I know you understand that when I take something you send me, pounce on it, tear it apart, and demonstrate the spurious, specious, agenda-driven, blinders-navigated, narrow-minded garbage that it is. I know that when I do this to something you send me, you understand that I'm not attacking you, and not blasting you, my friend of so many years, when I blast to shreds the essay itself.
This guy really likes to hear himself. he must be awful in person.
No, I think I have a lousy, nasally, slurred voice. I'm guessing, only, that my both-barrels (yes, I know what that means) characterization of Smith's essay leads you to that conclusion. Well, I felt that it deserved a better descriptor than "that was one dumb piece of crap".
[3]
Let me underscore that again, while I load some heavy shells into this anti-bu||sh!t (pardon me) gun of mine. Love you dearly, my friend, okay? Now let me switch off the safeties – and this is as close as I'll ever get to slapping an NRA seal over my Buck Fush bumper-sticker.
I'd be willing to bet he's never fired a gun in his life. By the way I'm a life member of the NRA and proud of it. I'd also be willing to bet that if the shit hit the fan, AgingChild would be hiding behind a guy like me.
My friend, you've lost that bet. I did fire off a (wimpy, yes) 22-caliber rifle two or three times, years ago, and wouldn't mind doing so again out of curiosity. Plus I know it would be of great benefit to learn how to defend myself and my loved ones with a firearm, although I'm not greatly interested at present.
I've twice had handguns in my face, once illegally and once quite legally. The legal incident was where I had the misfortune to stumble across a well-hidden stakeout by half-a-dozen well-armed lawmen and -women. Worse, I looked like their suspect. With several guns on me, I did exactly what the officers told me: I lay down, let myself be frisked, and then went on my way.
The illegal situation was when a gentleman thought it would help him in asking inane questions of me if he did so at gunpoint. His car was between us, and my three-year-old daughter was in my arms. Yes, my knees were knocking – but I kept bladder control, and told him it was stupid to use that gun on me. Then I turned my back on him and walked away. Either he would open fire, or he would not. But if I could at least get my back between us, my daughter would have a chance of surviving.
In that situation, what would you have done? Dropped the baby and yanked out the Smith and Wesson in your sock? Thrown the baby at him and pulled your Uzi out of your vest?
My detest of the NRA stands until kids stop shooting each other in school. Or should we continue arming them, and let them eliminate each other from society… and anyone in the crossfire?
[4]
(As far as I can tell, this essay was written by a commentator named Craig Smith, and appeared in the New York Times on November 20 of last year. Since then, someone's tinkered with the text. I'll strike out in red what doesn't belong, and restore in green what was excised; and in highlighted blue, I'll correct the deficiencies in grammar, punctuation, and spelling. If someone wants to make some kind of point, with me as the audience, they had better have solid command of this language, or they lose even more credibility.)
What is this guy, a English professor? Who gives a shit if someone occasionally has bad grammar. I would imagine that most of us do, unless we have majored in English. This guy is in love with his own self importance. Now make your point.
I'd be offended if your remarks were less funny, and I more prone to hotheadedness. Instead, you've given me enough to laugh about, and just a bit to shake my head over. And… do you have anything in particular against English professors? Instructors in general? English?
My father taught English, German, French, Spanish, and Estonian for over fifty years, most of these at a university level. He had lived through World War II in Germany as a child, having such experiences as watching his hometown be blasted apart around him (along with thousands of his neighbors), and nearly starving to death in the aftermath, were it not for beets and potatoes he and his family could dig up, and bits of coal they could sell.
He was one of the first German Fulbright scholars in the US (King College, Tennessee, 1951). He deeply valued language and its usage, and I am proud to say that I inherited that from him, and I make apologies to no one for it.
English – any language – is a tool; no doubt you have quite a few tools of various kinds. To do something well with a tool, it should generally be used with precision: painting a canvas, carving in granite or wood, hitting a golf ball, firing into a bullseye. You can't make a finely-detailed miniature carving of, say, a wild elk by using a chainsaw. Even with the right tools – little hammers and chisels, perhaps, an array of sharpened knives, and much patience – you'd be hard-pressed to yield a great work if you aim your blows and cuts sloppily.
As I get older, I find I have less patience for poorly used English. To me it indicates sloppy thinking, undereducation, a lack of subtlety and satisfaction, and a self-centered, obstinate, inflexible insistence that the world conform to that sloppy thinker's ways. Let me stress, friend, I do not say this about you. But words we use to strangers form the first impressions… much like, for instance, introducing yourself to an attractive young woman with your zipper down, or Skoal on your breath.
PS: I don't even have a college degree.
[5]
[…] But first off: if a magazine employs someone whom Mr. Smith finds less than favorable, does that make the magazine of less worth? Don't we want our journals to be balanced and fair? This would mean that – besides reporting the facts as accurately as possible – they employ a range of voices that will address issues of the readers' concern from more than one angle.
Is this guy for real? The New York Times giving a balanced and fair account! What's this guy smoking? The NYT is one of the most left leaning and biased news fabrication agencies disguised as a Newspaper in the world.
You misunderstand me, sir. Or rather, I wasn't clear. I was referring here to Mr. Smith's unstated disparagement of Newsweek because it employs Michael Isikoff. Smith seemed to me to feel as though their keeping this man on their payroll pulled the whole magazine down a few pegs.
[6]
Smith falls into the easy, lazy trap of inductive reasoning, if I read him correctly. Given a poll whose results seem to indicate dissatisfaction in two-thirds of the American populace with their president and the country's direction, he starts laying out (mostly) the many good things we do indeed have in our country, and condescendingly suggests that poll says the populace has lost sight of these things.
This guy fails to consider that the main stream media that he holds so dear is the cause of this nation's opinion and why the rest of the world views us Americans as they do.
Your comment is not apropos of what I was saying about Mr. Smith's apparent mode of reasoning. Where do I state that I hold the mainstream media so dear? In fact, I find the media shallow, slanted, profit-driven, sex-focused, largely immoral, and very irresponsible. But it is not the cause of America's opinions so much as their channel on one hand, and a fanner of the flames – whatever flames there be at the moment – on the other. I do concur (I hope you don't mind) that much of the blame for the wider world's dim view of our nation lies with the western media indeed. However, cluster-bombs exploding in children's hands will also do this.
[7]
[…] To quote Mabry's MSNBC article: "Presented with a list of factors that may have contributed to the Democrats' success [in the midterm election], 67 percent [of Americans] cited dissatisfaction with how Republicans have handled government spending and the deficit".
Shame on you, Mr. Smith: no matter how I squint and fiddle with the font sizes, I can't get this to say that we Americans are "are unhappy with the direction the country is headed". It is not a general malaise or untargeted dissatisfaction, sir; it quite specifically points at Republican accomplishments. and/or clear lack thereof.
First of all, anyone with half of an armadillo brain knows that most polls are bullshit anyway. Its all in how the question is asked is how the pollster can get a result. For example: would you like to receive money from a hard working republican so that you can sit on your fat-ass at home and continue complaining? Poll Result: 100% of those polled said YES.
Again, sir, either you miss my point, or prefer to seize what at first glance appears to be another opportunity to use foul language and to crow from the soapbox. My objection to Smith's words (67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed) lay specifically in what he said as interpretation of the Newsweek poll: he said the poll shows Americans disfavor where our country is headed. That is glaringly incorrect; the factor that the respondents favored most strongly was the one that stated not where the country is going, but "dissatisfaction with how Republicans have handled government spending and the deficit".
Let me put my point to you in single-syllable words: IT. LOOKS. LIKE. CRAIG. SMITH. LIED. Or am I reading that wrong?
[8]
[…] We do take so much of what we have here for granted – and I speak as someone who saw with his own eyes the Communist guard towers on the East/West-German border during the Cold War heyday, staffed with soldiers watching to ensure that citizens not flee their totalitarian masters. Fortunately, those same citizens took democratic action themselves, sixteen-some years later… and I assume at least most of those towers are no more today.
Most of those are gone now except for the the few that remain as tourist attractions.
Just as well; that's one more country where the kids can grow up without barbed wire in their back yards.
[9]
Smith goes on to speak heroically of the "president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11". Oh, I could just throw up at that! We were in free-fall for several days, running on automatic, while a few cooler heads shut down all air traffic (remember the eerily empty skies?), installed ground-to-air missile batteries around Washington DC and other cities, and tightened the border. Meanwhile, King George II sat in an elementary-school classroom (wasn't it kindergarten) for, what, seven? seventeen? minutes, reading a book to the kids, while three thousand people were incinerated on his watch.
I suppose that it would have been better for him to tell the kids "holy shit" we're under attack! No instead he tried to project calm until he could get out of there. Imagine what the media would have done to him if he had just got up and run out the door and back on Air Force One. AgingChild forgets to mention that good ole slick Willy "gutted" the intelligence gathering abilities of the CIA and opted for satellites instead of assets on the ground.
Sigh; why is it that when things aren't the way some folks would like them to be, they blame Bill Clinton? Last I saw, he hadn't been president for, oh, something over six years now. And who says George was trying "to project calm"? Have you not seen the images of his blank, white, shocked face? Never mind; that would fall under the aegis (you would probably say "umbrella" or "header") of "biased media"… this being the same "biased media" that was all over Bill Clinton from day one, right?
Let's ride with your postulate anyway, that the previous administration severely undercut non-satellite intelligence-gathering – although I'd be most curious to see your backup data for this… I assume it's more than hearsay, correct? (And it ignores the fact that during his administration, the federal budget on anti-terror activities tripled to about $6.7 billion, according to John F. Harris of the Washington Post. Whoops! Biased media!)
So… George Bush II has been in office six years. Has he had the time to rebuild intelligence gathering? Yes. Has he had control of the budget to do so? Why, yes; the deficit corroborates that. And has he had a favorable Congress to slide his actions through into being? Certainly. And Bill had a majority in Congress too, right? No, not after 1994 – six of his eight years were lame-duck years. So… why hasn't George caught Osama? (Let's see… how many missile strikes did George authorize against Osama before 9/11? Why, none. But Bill did: that was in 1998. Did George try to go after Osama before 9/11? Nope. But Bill did.)
[10]
A leader with his (or her) hands on the reins would have put the book down gently, hugged a kid a moment, then stood up and announced that there was a bit of an unexpected emergency, and he needed to go back to Washington. but he would return to their classroom once things had settled down.
I wonder what the expression on AgingChild's face would have been?
That's a reasonable thought. Answer: I'm not qualified to be a leader (sidestepping our differing viewpoints on the qualifications of the current commander-in-chief). I know that when the towers came down, I was standing in a room of shocked onlookers before a giant conference-room TV screen. I said at least one word that I don't ordinarily use; my face must have been white and shocked; my thought was, "This is war. We are now at war."
But the nation wasn't looking to me for guidance. God help us all if it ever does!
[11]
[…] And don't give me that out-of-date bu||sh!t (pardon me again) about lowering taxes. This might have been an issue in Reagan's day, when the prime rate was, oh, twenty-something? Certainly not the under-six it's been for years. But our taxes are not too high, and weren't in 2001 either.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? AgingChild is obviously an angry lefty longing for the days of 20% interest rates, a shitty economy, gas lines, and a peanut farmer for president.
Thanks for another chuckle, friend: "angry lefty"; not all that accurate… but I take it more as compliment than you intend, I suspect. Oh, well. Anyway, the four sentences were a lead-in to the next paragraph, where I point out how draining our surplus made us much worse-equipped to fight a war.
[12]
When George came into office (I still say both elections were stolen), the government had a fiscal surplus for the first time in decades. But, just as he had done in Texas when he took over there, George wiped the surplus back out by returning it to the citizens, claiming it belonged to us. Well, yes, it had been collected from us... but as with a solid savings account and good investments, it was there for use on our behalf. You simply don't cash it all out because there's too much money! You'll need it later: catastrophic health issue, severe home damage (or renovation), and other needs not as easily anticipated.
Again, I remind AgingChild that Clinton neutered the intelligence community and now blames it on Bush who had only been in office for only eight months while Clinton didn't do shit except chase skirts for eight years. Also he suggests that maybe we would have been better off with the likes of Gore or Kerry. Give me a break. Face it you lost both elections. Get over it. We are tired of your whining. Its been six years. Admittedly, Bush is no mental giant but compared to those two boobs he's miles ahead of them. Could anyone even imagine a Gore or Kerry at the helm over the last six years? What a disaster that would have been.
Friend, it is a disaster. And you're off-point again; this paragraph addresses fiscal irresponsibility. Where in there am I discussing "the intelligence community"?
It's possible that some folks (I'm not saying you, of course, F3) have spent so much of the last fourteen years repeating the mantra of "Clinton did it, Clinton did it", that they no longer recall the balancing of the federal budget, the booming economy of the nineties (a span of combined low unemployment and low inflation), and a bunch of other things I'll save for you to research: the Congressional Accountability Act; his Crime Bill to put more officers on the street (George's been cutting that); denuclearization of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine; Economic Empowerment Zones and the Enterprise Communities; elimination of outdated export controls; environmental protections (e.g., the California Desert Protection Act); Family and Medical Leave Act; Family Support and Preservation Program; GATT; Goals 2000; increased funding for WIC and breast-cancer research; Interstate Banking Bill; Lobbying Disclosure Act; NAFTA (with bipartisan support, I might add); National Service Act; National Voter Registration Act; reform of the Community Reinvestment Act; reform of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation; School-to-Work Program; Social Security Independent Agency Act; Student Loan Reform Act; Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Violence Against Women Act; Work and Responsibility Act… I could go on, but that at least takes up to the end of Bill Clinton's first term.
I'm sure he would have accomplished more in both terms if he hadn't been as busy with the interns. These two-dozen sample milestones definitely mark him as a failed president, wouldn't you say?
[13]
Sure enough, a few months later nineteen men boarded our jets and turned them into weapons to use against us, and we were suddenly at war… with little or no money to fund it.
Doesn't it occur to AgingChild that we haven't been attacked again in over 5 years. He ought to give Bush some credit.
Again, not the point: I'm talking funding the war. But, sure, I'll give the administration a good share of the credit for that. Bear in mind, though, that the easier targets for Middle-East -based terrorists aren't US cities, but rather US soldiers. Why plot to take down another skyscraper, or blow up a tunnel, when you can just cross the border into Iraq and open fire? They want to kill Americans... and George has given them their objective on a khaki platter.
[14]
Tax cuts under this administration have repeatedly favored the wealthy and powerful, at the expense of the weak and needy. When programs are no longer funded as strongly at the federal level, the burden devolves to the individual states (and commonwealths). But the pressure is now on them, too, to cut taxes. So how to fund? Why, now the states are stuck with the unenviable choices of cutting funding for education, infrastructure, health, and so on. Most raise tuition rates at state schools. (George, my daughter wants to thank you personally for that one.) Some (as in Maryland) debate, or even institute, gambling, on the assumption it would be easy money. and clean. It is neither. Others (as in Virginia and New Jersey), backed into a corner, raise property taxes – and now some rates do rise too high.
When was the last time (or first time) that a poor person gave someone a job? Its rich folks you boob! Who gives a shit how much money someone makes? Rich people don't stuff it in their mattresses, they invest it. And miraculously IT CREATES JOBS. Its called trickle down economics. Lefties are always whining about income redistribution from those that have it to those that refuse to earn it. That is bullshit.
Sometime, sir, you and I will have to try a dialogue without curse-words. You weaken your viewpoint by demonstrating a preference for name-calling and objectionable vocabulary, over reasoned argument. This is not mature or adult. Nor intelligent, and does you no credit.
Let me cite two simple experts in wealth redistribution… and I dare you to use that same language to their faces. In Luke 3:11, John the Baptist says, "Whoever has two cloaks should share with the person who has none. And whoever has food should do likewise." (Jesus clearly echoes this in Matthew 5:40, when he says, "If anyone wants …your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.") Do NOT say that John was off-base; Jesus himself said of John that "among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist" (Matthew 11:11) – in other words, John was the greatest man who ever lived, and (one would assume) knew what he was talking about. (Jesus was man and God; John was only man, so Jesus can say this of him.)
[15]
I'm sorry; I just can't see how cutting a break to a multi-millionaire is going to help a poor, elderly, unemployed African-American woman more able to pay for her insulin. And how will she help take care of her granddaughter? And you wonder why some people are unhappy?
They would probably be happier if they got off their asses and got a job and felt some satisfaction for doing a days work. Its called life satisfaction. What part of 4% unemployment doesn't AgingChild understand? Why is it that we can't help anyone else other than black folks. Oh yea, I forgot there's a conspiracy. Just look at Katrina.
No, it's called unable to get by on $5.15 or so an hour. And I will ignore – just this once – your comment about blacks; I have no patience for racists.
By the way another Clinton legacy is NAFTA. That's a great program! Great work.
If NAFTA's such a lousy idea (please specify with which parts you disagree, and why), why did George not have Congress repeal it… as he did with the Tokyo Accord? Here are some more treaties he revoked: the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention; the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; the Biodiversity Treaty; the Chemical Weapons Convention; the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty; the Forest Protection Treaty; the Geneva Conventions; the International Criminal Court; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural rights. Hmm… maybe with all these revocations, there wasn't time to work NAFTA in? You might have a point there.
[16]
Smith say that Bush II "has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks". Is he serious? Or just trying to pile it on ever more thickly? It would be absolutely ludicrous to assert that the president has been criticized for keeping us safe! Is he nuts? Administration policies certainly have made it much more difficult for anything further on the scale of 9/11 anytime soon (although any half-decent administration would have done at least as well in this regard; George's team is hardly unique in history).
That didn't stop all the bleeding hearts from making a big to do about the wire-tapping that probably stopped a shitload of attacks already. But no, the ACLU says our civil liberties are being trod on. OK, maybe a little, but I'm not concerned with the government listening in on my conversation since I'm not a terrorist, and I don't call any Muslim countries. Quite frankly, I'm getting more than a little annoyed at the ACLU pissing on my cornflakes on a regular basis by telling me its not OK to be a
Christian unless I practice in a closet. But I digress.
This digression is too juvenile for me to dignify with a response. Pass.
[17]
What Bush has been understandably and justifiably vilified for is the range of misdeeds by him and his cronies, impeachable offenses that amount to – as a great bumper-sticker I saw only once said – Treason, Tyranny, Murder, and Corruption. Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, and Andrew Johnson were each impeached for less. As another bumper-sticker says (you can tell I love ‘em): When Clinton Lied, No One Died.
FYI: Nixon was not impeached, check your history books. By the way AgingChild forgets about Vince Foster, and at least a dozen other folks that were once associated with the Clintons that are now conveniently DEAD.
Correction accepted on Nixon. However, Nixon's articles of impeachment had been voted and passed, and he would have been impeached if he had not left office. Again, the point is that the charges he and fellow presidents Johnson and Clinton faced were walks in the park, against what could justifiably be brought up against the current administration. And, please, that Vince Foster dreck is old hat; you've been listening to too much Liddy. I don't have the time to lead you through all the errors in that silly old rumor. Check this link and catch up to the present: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp.
[18]
And the all-volunteer Army (uh, yo – Craig? There are plenty of Marines, Navy, and Air Force out there, too) currently fighting in the Middle East are not "out there defending you and me". They are defending the flow of oil (a strategic interest, yes – but that's all), and trying vainly to pull back together a country they should never have gone into in the first place. It is not for our freedom.
This guy sure is a whiner. Yes, its about the OIL. Why would we be interested in a sandbox? I suppose the lefty would rather that we allow our economy to be destroyed, enjoy those long gas lines, record unemployment, record crime rates, and record interest rates, just to name a few. I'll bet he misses the 70's.
I'll admit I miss some of the music of the seventies: Led Zeppelin, Eagles, and so on. Wait a minute, though: those long gas lines, record unemployment, crime, and interest rates were largely during a pair of Republican administrations, weren't they? I remember them, Whip Inflation Now, Phase I and Phase II of strengthening the dollar, and so on. Let's see… Was it Bill, or Hillary, who was somehow behind all that, making it easier for a Democrat to take the election in 1976?
Anyway, re oil: please note again my words: strategic interest. It is very much in our interest, and that of the Western world, to keep the oil flowing; that was the major reason we went and saved Kuwait in 1991. No whining here, sir – and to your likely amazement, I believe we concur on this point. But I stress that American blood is not being spilled in Iraq for our freedoms here in the US.
[19]
Likely you've heard all the evidence that there was no evidence by mid-March 2003 of WMD's in Iraq. while even then the evidence was more than clear in North Korea and Iran. And you've probably heard how our valiant soldiers, under orders from on high, rushed to defend the Iraqi oil ministry offices. and left the museums wide open to devastation of this ancient country's long heritage.
No shit! This guy is a regular Albert friggin Einstein. The UN gave Saddam 6 months to pack his shit up and move it to Syria and Russia. Incidentally, the World's Intelligence agencies did not suffer from "Group Think" by unanimously believing that he had WMD. They all knew he had them. Why? Because they sold him the shit.
Conveniently, as all liberals do, they ignore that during the Clinton years, Kennedy, Schumer, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, and your cast of other whiners wrote letter after letter to Clinton demanding that he do something about Saddam because he is an imminent threat to the U.S. due to his nuclear and WMD ambitions. Clinton did nothing. Conversely, Bush gets rid of Saddam and now its wrong. That's bullshit!
Tell me, sir, what WMDs were found in Iraq, other than a few 80s-era shells left over from when Hussein had used such weapons against the Kurds? He was defanged, declawed, and a danger only because he was still rabid.
You're also ignoring the much greater threats posed at that very time by North Korea and Iran, by once again warming up your stale, leftover CLINTON DID IT hash. Oh, please. Sure, Saddam had ambitions for WMDs; so do dozens of other countries. That's not enough; the threat has to be demonstrable. And what about mass-murderers… should we ignore them if they're NOT killing Americans? Rwanda? Bosnia? Darfur? Watch how you answer; I can still smell the stench from those German ovens; maybe you've forgotten the other kind of tyrant.
[20]
Terrorists were not tolerated under Saddam – who was, yes, a brutal, repressive dictator. but had been nearly toothless since 1991. Now, the terrorists seem to be firing out of every school-window, blowing up in every market place, and picking off every civilian they can find. Why? We took away a brutal order. and replaced it with no order. We yanked out the heavy-handed checks and balances, and made a murderer out of everyone over there with a long-held grievance, a target out of every civilian. and further targets of our own sons and daughters and brothers and sisters simply because they are there and finally within easy reach of the terrorists.
There is no question that this war has been mismanaged. However, our national resolve in this war has been eroded by the media beginning with the Abu Graib Prison fiasco. The media called it an "atrocity". Atrocity was more than just a stretch. Shameful yes, but not an atrocity. Feeding live people into brush chippers is an atrocity. I suppose Saddam was a good guy by your standards? He wiped out about 300,000 Shia since 2001, so that's toothless eh?
Face it, the Left has been so incredibly and completely pissed since 2000 that any chance of taking a swipe at Bush was a good opportunity to win back the White House, even if it meant ruining our national resolve. That is shameful by any standard. If this had occurred during WWII our prisons would have been full of journalists.
I concur that "atrocity" is too extreme a word for Abu Ghraib. I think "torture", "violation of Geneva conventions" and possibly even "war crime" might fit it better.
Of course Saddam was no "good guy"; read more closely: where his fist had gripped, and kept a lid on the boiling internecine currents, we left a vacuum. We went in with too few military, did not seal the borders, did not impose a strong martial law on the country that we could gradually lift as things improved. And a few powerful shells or bombs lobbed over the borders into Syria and Iran would have told them early on to back off. Instead, it's been a fiasco, a debacle, an impossible fool's mission.
Bush Senior (former CIA chief, former UN ambassador) knew it wouldn't work; that's why he stayed out of Iraq in 1991. Or was Bill Clinton meddling even then? And by "toothless" (I may not have been clear), I meant that Saddam's reach did not include the US; we had him bottled up between the twin no-fly zones. He had enough teeth only to take potshots at US and UK planes, and knock off plenty of non-Sunnis.
[21]
I think – and I may be wrong in this – most of the newest volunteers in our armed forces volunteered to fight terrorism, and have bought into the administration's lies and deceits about our purposes, and proudly and unfairly become the latest ranks of cannon-fodder. Older volunteers (and especially the Reserve forces) joined not to fight, but to pay for education, to learn a trade, and to patriotically honor this awesome country of ours. not to let out their blood in a forgettable slum far from home. And if they do "refuse to go", they lose out on money needed for their children and families. and (especially with that lousy discharge) most prospects for a better job once a better administration comes into power in Washington.
Unfortunately, what part of "Military" did our soldiers not understand? Again AgingChild ignores the fact that enlistment is way up, and not because our brave young men and women don't know what the score is three years into the fight. AgingChild and his ilk would be better off if they followed the example of our brave soldiers, but its much better to castigate our Administration from a comfortable stateside armchair and complain about stolen elections and dream about democratic principles and the nanny state yet to come. Tragically, our loss in Iraq would be a victory for our Democrat friends.
If our Democrat brothers would bother to put as much energy in fighting this war and making our nation as one, instead of opposing any effort to win it, then this war and the view of the
U.S. abroad would be much different now.
My understanding is the military enlistment is actually way down, but I can't back that assertion up yet. I suggest at least that you show where/how enlistment is up, and I'll dig around and show once again where you're wrong.
Let me try to correct an unstated assumption I think you have: I recognize that we are now stuck in Iraq, that to withdraw precipitously would yield a slaughter that would leave our spiritual hands bloody for generations. We have to see it through. Unlike some weaker-kneed Democrats, I favor more troops going in for now… but 21K is too few.
It was a mistake to go in when we did, and as weakly as we did, when the war on terrorism needed us to stay put in Afghanistan, and possibly move into Pakistan, whether Musharraf liked it or not. I'm all for finding an easy way out… there just isn't one. We're stuck.
Thanks for reading and letting me vent,
Anytime!
[F3]
[22]
PS. If my grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and language is off….TOUGH SHIT.
Yes, they were all off. But this isn't
a graded paper, or even an in-class exercise, or I would have had a bar of soap
for you to chew on while standing in the corner. Class dismissed!
No comments:
Post a Comment