What I Said.

Here’s part of an exchange I’ve had with a member over at ProgressiveU:

Are you really that naive

Submitted by ThatGayConservative on Fri, 03/24/2006 – 5:37am.

Are you really that naive and trusting to think that our government and past presidents haven’t deliberately lied and misled the public for their own advantages and agenda that are not for the public good?

Furthermore, you make the accusation that I want the troops to fail and that I should support them fighting.

No. I’m asking you if you want for our soldiers and Iraq to fail. Yes or no? It’s a simple question.

There is a tremendous difference between supporting the troops and supporting an endless occupation.

Who’s making the endless occupation claim? Not George W. Bush, but rather the anti-U.S. and anti-military liberal, Neo-socialist left. Bush has said over and over again that we will only stay as long as necessary and as long as the Iraqi people want us there. It’s the anti-military left who keeps wailing about an endless occupation.

72% of soldiers polled in Iraq believe we should pull out by the end of this year. By your logic, ironically, I support the troops more than you actually support the troops.

Do you really? Are you aware of who conducted that poll? Are you aware of who paid for it? Follow the money. Yeah 72% of the filtered (i.e. those they selected because they gave the pollsters the answers they wanted) soldiers polled believe we should pull out. I, for one, am not impressed. If you were intellectually honest, you wouldn’t be either. BTW, wasn’t that poll retracted?

No, pulling out of Iraq isn’t going to prove that we are push overs. You are still under the mistaken assumption that Iraq had any connection to Al Qaeda itself, that Osama and Saddam were buddies.

No, you’re ASSuming that is what I believe. Point is that it’s irrifutable that Hussein was contributing financially to terrorist groups. There were at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. And yes, as we’ve known all along, there were meetings between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Even recent releases of documents are showing that. Are you so hung up on the notion that Saddam wasn’t such a bad guy and everything Bush said was a lie that you won’t allow anything that challenges that notion?

You say that pulling out of Iraq will not prove that we are “push-overs”. Osama bin Laden and his funky bunch already believe that. They believe that if they hit us hard enough and long enough that we’ll go home and they’ll win the day. How does surrendering to them prove otherwise? Furthermore, we’re supposed to be all worried about what other countries think of us, how will it look when we choose not to finish what we started?
Some liberals whined that we should have finished the job during the first Gulf War. What will happen if we don’t finish the job now? Would you rather the military only do a half-assed job? How is that supporting them?

America invades a country on a pre-emptive strike, making false claims of it being a threat.

Pardon me, but last I checked, firing missiles at U.S. and British pilots is an act of war. Not only that, but Hussein had ordered attacks on U.S. embassies and dignitaries in other countries and financed terrorist groups who did it. THAT made Hussein a threat. Furthermore, in plain English, Hussein promissed to live up to the cease-fire knowing full well that if we didn’t, we’d be back to stomp his ass into the sand. He didn’t live up to his end of the deal, we did.

If you were raised and lived in the Islamic world, if the United States continual military aid to oppressive Israel didn’t piss you off enough, imagine seeing this nation “pre-emptive” invading a country next to you based on lies?

First off, don’t give me that “oppressive Israel” B.S. Israel, in my estimation, is the most oppressed people in world history. Again, Saddam didn’t live up to his end of the agreement, we did. Furthermore, those “lies” are what most of the free world believed.

You think 9/11 made people afraid? This same invading nation (us) then tortures people in humilating ways (thanks for reminding me about that, I forgot to mention about it!), flushing Korans down the toilet, force feeding prisoners on hunger strikes, etc?

You’re still believing the prisoners who are trained to lie about being tortured. You’re still believing those who are taught by the Koran to lie to the infidels (you and me). What’s worse, you still believe that a Koran can be flushed down a toilet. You also believe spineless twats in the UN (who benefitted from Oil For Fools) who refuse to visit G’itmo and slam America based on ASSumptions and the lies they’re told. Answer me this, if Club G’itmo is so horrible, why are there prisoners begging not to be released?

Think about a super-power who invades and talks of invading more nations based on “pre-emptive” protection, invading and threatening nations such as the one you live in. All of these countries happen to be Islamic nations like the one you live in.

I know I’m not as nuanced as most folks, but when did NoKo become an Islamic nation?

If you didn’t think that America was the Big Satan before, we are certainly adding gasoline for this belief and for them to defend their faith by attacking back in any shape and form they can (terrorism).

Why are you willingly swallowing their load that this has anything to do with “their faith”? It has nothing to do with it other than the fact that their hiding behind their faith in the hopes that we won’t tuch them. This is not about their faith. It’s about stomping out people who want to kill you and your family wholesale just because of who you are and where you’re from. Doesn’t that bother you in the slightest? Why are you so gleefully interested in supporting that?

Invading Iraq did not decrease terrorism. If anything, it will inspire a whole new generation of terrorists to be born. It is proven that Bush has lied and does lie.

I don’t recall anybody promising that it would decrease terrorism. Do you? What it does is let them know that we are mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore. And how does it prove that Bush has lied? Did he lie about the fact that we can’t continue to bend over and grab our ankles? Can you show where in history that has worked out for both parties involved?

I feel like I am running around in circles with you.

As long as you have no interest in dealing with reality and keep sucking at the tit of MorOn.org and Michael Moore, that’s what’s going to happen. You’ll have that same problem with folks who actually know what’s going on instead of what they’re told to believe in.

Check out this for example. While Bush told people not to worry because domestic spying requires a warrant, he was doing warrantless spying as he said that. Bush is a liar. This is called lying.

“Domestic spying” for criminal investigations DOES require a warrant. However, surveillance of international terrorists doesn’t always require one. Justices Laurence Silberman, Edward Leavy, and Ralph Guy (the FISA Court of Review) approved the NSA surveillance as did the DOJ. Can you tell me with a straight face that they lied? And no, I have no interest in anything Liars and Liars has to say. If you were intellectually honest, you wouldn’t either.

The Downing Street Minutes, which you have yet to debunk with anything meaningful (instead of a empty negative quip), also proves that our government wanted to misinform the public regardless of the facts.

Actually, I don’t recall addressing the DSM here before. There’s actually nothing “meaningful” to it, except to those who spooge themselves over nothing claiming that it’s the “smoking gun”. If you actually bothered to look at it in it’s context instead of swallowing what you’re told about it or desperately hunting for ANYTHING to bash Bush with, I expect that you would come to the same conclusion.

I almost expect that if an audio and visual recording was made where Bush admits casually to lying about WMDs in Iraq to the public, you would still believe he told the truth and that he is incabaple of lies!

Given the left’s proclivity for foisting lies on the American people, a-la the CBS documents, the DSM and the polls you mention, of course I would be skeptical. However, if something were to come up and it was irrifutable, I would have to believe it. However, you and I both know that no such thing exists because that would doom the liberals as well.

You are, in fact, doing the exact straw-man arguments which Bush loves to use.

You’re not seriously referrencing Loven’s article? Now THAT takes cajones.
As for the rest of that paragraph, no. I have not made any assumptions of you, nor do I presume to know you. If you recall, I asked you several questions. If I knew you, I wouldn’t ask. Seems to me that you’re the one doing the ASSuming. I’ll skip the next paragraph.

Did I ever say Saddam Hussein was a good guy? No, but you have to realize that reality doesn’t mean that since he was a bad guy, everything we do is justified, right, and exempt from criticism.

Did I ever say that everything we do is justified, right and exempt form criticism? I’ll be damned if I can find that. However, I do think that we are exempt from the dishonest hate Bush/hate America crowd.

I’ll skip around now since you’re repeating yourself.

(and while the musuems were being looted, the oil fields had the largest portion of guards),

What were those things which Saddam leaked into the gulf and/or set ablaze causing tons of pollution for several months after the first war? Oh yeah. The oil fields. As I recall, the military was charged with preventing that from happening again. Geez. You’d think the way the libs put a higher value on the spotted owl than human beings, they’d be grateful for that. Do you mean to tell me that the enviro-nuts would have cared more for national treasures than hundreds of burning oil wells? Think of it this way, if the wells were torched, it would have been more work for Halliburton.
Then again, Bush was president and as we all know, he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

Oh. There’s this little gem:

One of the “problems” about the left is that we are less likely to be in mindless lockstepped in agreement with each other.

That may very well be true, however, one would be hard pressed to find evidence to the contrary.

Look, I’d like to compliment you. You do well in some of your posts, but in this thread, your first and last posts are nothing but vomitting the usual anti-war/anti-Bush and anti-America bilge.

Oh and back to the point of your thread, there’s plenty of good news in Iraq documented at Camp Katrina Blog:

http://campkatrina.typepad.com/camp_katrina/

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Blogs, Liberals, War On Terror, WMD

6 Comments on “What I Said.”

  1. Howard Says:

    Whoa! That was an impressive bit of jousting, Rob. Although I tend to side more with the other guy’s POV, I think you did a hell of a job (oops, I just swore. Damn) countering him point for point.

    I’ve gotta sign off, but I’ll return with more.


  2. Some liberals whined that we should have finished the job during the first Gulf War.

    I find that particularly snortworthy, considering that the UN was the reason we didn’t proceed into Baghdad in the Gulf War.

  3. Howard Says:

    Well, Professor, that was only part of the reason. GHW Bush knew that his coalition would fall apart if the parameters of the war expanded beyond ousting Sadam from Kuwait. We certainly might have saved ourselves a lot of heartache if we had finished off Sadam completely back then. It’s a matter of public record that Osama used the fact that US troops were stationed in Saudia Arabia after Gulf War I as one of his reasons for the Al Qaeda attacks on 9/11. But I’m afraid that Bush I would have found himself in as much quicksand then as Bush II has today. The difference, of course, would have been the assistance of a broader coalition and, perhaps, a better exit plan. But it’s all just 20/20 hindsight.

    Rob, your (liberal/progressive?) opponent certainly didn’t do his side as much justice as you did for the conservative POV. That surprised me. And my estimation of you increased by 500% when you said that you visited a liberal blog and engaged someone in posts. Way to go. (You’ve obviously done that before, but I wasn’t aware until now).

    That’s something we have in common. People may think I’m twisted, but I get great pleasure going to a conservative (and sometime a liberal) blog and annoying the true believers, as you have come to know! The other conservative blog I visit is Bear To The Right.

  4. TGC Says:

    Oh, I sometimes do it for fun.

    Wouldn’t tuch the KOSsacks or the DUmmies though. I tend to feel so dirty after visiting those hives of scum and villiany.

    The thing about PregressiveU is that there are tinges of conservtive though in some of the posts there. I don’t think many of them are the kooks like at the sites mentioned above.


  5. Well, Professor, that was only part of the reason.

    90% of the reason:

    GHW Bush knew that his coalition would fall apart if the parameters of the war expanded beyond ousting Sadam from Kuwait.

    Because of lack of UN support.


  6. Not to mention majorly pissing off the ME.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: