...But Can You PROVE It?
Here are a few thoughts gleaned from the following article:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051122-121630-5114r.htm
"The Republican leadership did a masterful job of manipulating and distorting Representative Murtha's vote, somewhat similar to what we saw with the administration's manipulation of intelligence with the case they used to justify the war," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.
..and the evidence you have to support that accusation would be....??
"Everyone agrees what the president is doing is not working and we need to change direction in Iraq," said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat
Since I disagre with you, your statement is therefore false.
"The American people have lost confidence in President Bush's ability as commander in chief, and his flawed policies have failed to bring stability and security to Iraq." --Rep. Robert Wexler, Florida Democrat
Since Mr. Wexler missed the memo, here is the four-point plan of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
1. Kill Terrorists
2. Teach the Iraqis to kill terrorists
3. Help Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure
4. Leave behind the only democracy of its kind in the Middle East
I don't mind dissent, but something must be made clear:
Dissent that is used as propaganda by the enemy is sedition in the hands of the enemy.
posted by therobb7 at 11/26/2005 07:02:00 AM
11 Comments:
Dear TheRobb,
"Since Mr. Wexler missed the memo, here is the four-point plan of Operation Iraqi Freedom:
1. Kill Terrorists
And how will we know when that is done? Especially given that Maximum Leader and the Cabal tell us that terror is something that will always be with us in one way or another...
"2. Teach the Iraqis to kill terrorists"
Does it really strike you that the Iraqis need help in learning to kill? Is killing really the skill that is lacking here?
"3. Help Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure"
Yes. A great idea... how long are we supposed to wait before we start this part in earnest? And who else do we have that is supposed kick in significantly to this?
"4. Leave behind the only democracy of its kind in the Middle East"
At the rate this is going, this is going to be the only "democracy" of its kind anywhere...
I don't mind dissent, but something must be made clear:"
All evidence to the contrary...
"Dissent that is used as propaganda by the enemy is sedition."
So please elaborate on which is the "bad" dissent, and which dissent you find "politically correct."
I mean, when bloggers in the United States complain about some mercenary a-holes going on a thrill-kill joy ride and making a trophy video out of it, and that becomes the 6 p.m. headline on Al Jazeera, does that mean the bloggers are guilty of "sedition?"
I am presuming you are making a legal argument...
mojo sends
First of all, thank you for visiting The Perspective.
Now to address your responses to the four-point plan:
1. Kill Terrorists
"And how will we know when that is done?"
Just as soon as the MSM decides that they want to actually report it. They won't, because to do so would make the President look good. We can't let that happen, can we?
"Especially given that Maximum Leader and the Cabal"
Usage of these terms disqualifies you from participation in logical debate. However, I'll let it slide....this time.
"2. Teach the Iraqis to kill terrorists"
"Does it really strike you that the Iraqis need help in learning to kill? Is killing really the skill that is lacking here?"
Point #2 is an over-simplification of: Teach them our tactics for recognizing, rooting out and routing the enemy.
Yes, KILLING THEM is the necessary skill. I have a nephew there and that is what he tells me that they are doing.
"3. Help Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure"
"Yes. A great idea... how long are we supposed to wait before we start this part in earnest?"
It's already underway, but the MSM again won't report good news from Iraq.
When I interviewed my nephew, he told me how Southern Iraq is a success story, that infrastructure is springing up all over.
For your perusal:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/02/the_good_news_from_iraq_is_not_fit_to_print/
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/06/good-news-from-iraq-part-4.html
http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/stories.asp
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005926
"4. Leave behind the only democracy of its kind in the Middle East"
"At the rate this is going, this is going to be the only "democracy" of its kind anywhere..."
Oh, that's right, America is evil. I don't know what I was thinking.....
"Dissent that is used as propaganda by the enemy is sedition."
"So please elaborate on which is the "bad" dissent, and which dissent you find "politically correct."
Glady.
When Senators and Congressmen make PUBLIC inflamatory statements critical of war policies and those PUBLIC statements are plastered all over Al-Jazzera.
If elected leaders want to disagree with the President, that's fine. But don't air it out in public.
THAT is what hurts the morale of our troops and is being used as propaganda by our enemies.
If we show the enemy a united front IN PUBLIC, it would go a long way toward boosting troop morale and prove to the terrorists that America CAN'T BE DEFEATED.
In other words, UNITE in public and save the disagreements for the back room.
TheRobb writes: When I interviewed my nephew, he told me how Southern Iraq is a success story, that infrastructure is springing up all over.
Excellent, the plan to restore the Iraqi wetlands is proceeding apace. Tell me, though, when will the Iraqi Army be able to defend the territorial integrity of the whole nineteen provinces?
TheRobb writes: THAT [members of Congress making public statements critical of war policies, c.f. Rep. John Murtha's comments] is what hurts the morale of our troops...
Is this something you learned from an interview with your nephew? If so, could you please provide his contact information to either van.mojo or me (private email will suffice)? We'd like to confirm his story about reduced troop morale resulting from Rep. Murtha's statements.
TheRobb writes: Dissent that is used as propaganda by the enemy is sedition.
I don't see any evidence this is meant to be a legal argument. He's already got himself into the deep end of the pool just on straight common sense semantics.
"se·di·tion, n. conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch."
So he's accusing Rep. Murtha of inciting a rebellion, presumably against the United States. In the same breath, he's also complaining about the effect of Rep. Murtha's comments on troop morale.
Sounds to me like he thinks Murtha is inciting the troops to rebel against the Constitution. As absurd as that sounds...
After all, who does TheRobb think the Congressman is inciting to rebel against the United States? It can't be the Iraqi insurgents— they're not in rebellion against the United States now that Iraq is a sovereign nation again and no longer U.S. territory, as it was when the Coalition Provisional Authority was in power.
So, who is it?
Or does he, perhaps, wish to choose another word from his vast vocabulary besides sedition?
Or does he, perhaps, wish to choose another word from his vast vocabulary besides sedition?
I think the word he's grasping for is treason...
mojo sends
Treason? In a time of War™? Isn't the traditional penalty for that summary field execution without trial?
Oh my oh my oh my. Where oh where are we going to find those righteous men of the Armed Forces with enough stones to carry out a summary field execution of a sitting member of Congress on the charge of treason? To what terrible state of decay has the U.S. Army descended that it can no longer defend the Constitution against its enemies both foreign and domestic?
We always knew the Army were a bunch of pansies who like to dress up in kinky boots and tight pants... now, thanks to TheRobb, we finally have the long-awaited confirmation.
On a related point, when Tom Delay and Senator Inofe stuck their respective grills in front of CNN camera's the night NATO bombing commenced on Kosovo and pronounced the whole enterprise doomed, were they guily of sedition or treason? Or was that the "good" dissent?
I
First of all, to s9 and hebisner, thank you for visitng The Perspective.
The entire point of this particular posting was the lack of evidence (put forth by Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Wexler) that the Bush administration manipulated pre-war intelligence.
They are making accusations without providing evidence. In fact, that was the title of this entry "But Can You Prove It?"
Show me, with irrefutable evidence, the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law, that pre-war intel was manipulated.
THAT was the point of the original post.
Now, regarding the statements of "s9" in reference to our military:
"We always knew the Army were a bunch of pansies who like to dress up in kinky boots and tight pants"
If we couple that with van.mojo's earlier labeling of the Bush Adminstration as "Maximum Leader and the Cabal" we begin to see the true colors of these individuals.
These ad hominem attacks on our troops and our Commander in Chief disqualify you from reasoned and logical debate.
Your hatred for President Bush exceeds your desire to see America succeed on the battlefield.
By the way, I wonder if s9 has ever called a current Army soldier a "pansy" to his face.....
TheRobb writes: By the way, I wonder if s9 has ever called a current Army soldier a "pansy" to his face.....
Let's just say I'm a firm believer in the practical value of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
In the meantime, do you want to respond to intellectual core of the comment I made? What is the problem you really have with Rep. Murtha's remarks? Is sedition really the word you want to be using? Or, perhaps, treason is the word you're trying to grasp, as van.mojo suggests. Either way, if you believe that 1) the U.S. is in a state of War™, and 2) the battlefield is global and includes U.S. territory, which are both axiomatic in conservatarian arguments of this sort, then you've got to admit— you're calling for the summary field execution of a decorated veteran and sitting member of Congress for treason.
Why not just come out and say it?
Or would you prefer to hide behind the skirts of some postmodern deconstructionist French philosopher's happy horseshit about how the words "state of War" and "battlefield" mean different things in different contexts. We're at War™, except when it becomes convenient to remember that the Congress has not passed a Declaration of War since before Ronald Reagan divorced Jane Wyman.
I'll take up your "...But Can You PROVE It?" gambit in another comment.
From TFA: "The Republican leadership did a masterful job of manipulating and distorting Representative Murtha's vote, somewhat similar to what we saw with the administration's manipulation of intelligence with the case they used to justify the war," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.
TheRobb writes: ...But Can You PROVE It? ...Show me, with irrefutable evidence, the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law, that pre-war intel was manipulated.
While you're at it, why not ask Santa Claus for a pony?
The rest of us, i.e. the sane people in the reality-based community, realize that producing any hard evidence— that intelligence product was manipulated and abused by the administration to sell the Iraq unpleasantness to the American public— will require an investigation. That would be the investigation that Republicans promised would be forthcoming after the 2004 election, and which has yet to hold hearings, issue any subpoenas, in short, they have yet to even explain why they have failed to conduct an investigation. This is the reason Sen. Reid shut down the floor of the Senate with a parliamentary move a couple weeks ago.
You want the irrefutable proof that would stand up in a court of law? Over a spokesman for a Senator making a political statement?
Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
Now, please return to the more interesting topic of discussion, i.e. your accusations of sedition by a decorated veteran and sitting member of Congress.
As for the "ad hominem attack" against the U.S. Armed Forces you think I made, you really should check your premises.
I'm not the one who made the attack. It's you who made the attack.
You're the one who called the military ineffectual when you called out a decorated veteran and sitting member of Congress for sedition— or was it treason?— and left hanging in the wind whether the U.S. Armed Forces should now be preparing to perform a battlefield execution of an openly declared domestic enemy of the Constitution. You're the one who doesn't think the military is up to the job of carrying out its officers oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Otherwise, why would you not call for Murtha's execution?
You're the one who thinks the military is impotent and unable to do its duty. I just helped you find the words to say what you really mean.
<< Home