Wednesday, November 01, 2006

I Speak For “The Left” When I Say… We Hate You Too.

Kleinheider over at Volunteer Voters linked to an op-ed written by Paul Burgess, former head of foreign policy speechwriting at the Bush White House called “Friends, neighbors, and countrymen of the left: I hate your lying guts. With a title like that, you can imagine how he became head speechwriter for a silver-tongued devil like George W. Bush.

In the original piece, he rails not only against obvious targets such as Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover (Because, you know, millions are prepared to mobilize when those guys speak), but Cindy Sheehan and Ted Turner, who he describes as being unable to “make up his mind which side of the terror war he is on”.

His position on Democratic politics: I now hate Howard Dean, the elected leader of the Democrats, who, by repeatedly stating his conviction that we won't win in Iraq, bets his party's future on our nation's defeat.

I hate the Democrats who, in support of this strategy, spout lie after lie: that the president knew in advance there were no WMD in Iraq; that he lied to Congress to gain its support for military action; that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD; that he was a unilateralist and that the coalition was a fraud; that he shunned diplomacy in favor of war.

These lies, contradicted by reports, commissions, speeches, and public records, are too preposterous to mock, but too pervasive to rebut, especially when ignored by abetting media.


Okay, I’ve let this silly bastard ramble long enough. Time for a response.

Mr. Burgess,

The White House you served hires only two kinds of people. Rabid, frothing ideologues and Colin Powell. So the idea that you harbored no hostility to the American Left before you got the job is absurd on its face--- One of the job requirements for this White House is the willingness to slander and smear all who disagree with you.

You bring up Harry Belafonte, Ward Churchill, and other people that have the gall to make statements you disagree with. Tell me--- How many people were sent to their deaths when Churchill made his “Little Eichmanns” comment? I don’t agree with what he said, but it’s beside the point--- As usual, someone that at one time represented this White House is trying to turn the rhetoric in America around and making the debate about what someone else said rather than try and defend the indefensible things said by this White House.

Among the absurd lies you point to is one that the president was the mastermind behind 9/11. I wanted to take this opportunity to put your mind at rest--- Who would believe after seeing this White House in action that it’s even conceivable that the president could even come up with a plan that would work? With the exception of United Flight 93, the 9/11 plot went down without a hitch, so it’s not really credible that anyone in the White House had anything to do with it. If they had, none of the hijackers would have actually made it onto the planes.

Along the way, you managed to insult Cindy Sheehan yet again. It is my sincerest hope that all parents of children about to turn eighteen will take note of the utter disregard shown to parents whose sons have bled the Iraqi desert red. The lady deserves answers, plain and simple. The fact that your old boss lacks the fortitude to give them to her has no bearing on whether or not she deserves them.

The fact is that all of us deserve them. Even those of us without children fighting in Iraq deserve to know what the president knew and when he knew it. When last I checked, my taxes still pay for this war, not to mention the share of my taxes that go toward helping tried and true friends of this White House such as Halliburton plunder the funds that are supposed to help rebuild Iraq and bring our troops home. The “hot meals” provided to our soldiers in the Halliburton ads have actually consisted of cold sandwiches and water contaminated with E. Coli--- Yet it’s the American Left that you accuse of disregard for the American soldier.
This is a direct quote from your article: I hate the Democrats who, in support of this strategy, spout lie after lie… …that he pushed for the democratization of Iraq only after the failure to find WMD...

Funny you should say that. If you click here, you’ll see an article from the March 17, 2003 edition of USA Today with the headline “U.S. advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq”. Perhaps I’m a little fuzzy on logistics--- Did he advise them to leave a place they hadn’t been to?

Of course not. They had been on the ground for months by that point. The only banned weapons they had found were the Al Sammoud missiles, which theoretically carried enough fuel to exceed the UN-mandated guidelines by a whopping ten kilometers. They were destroyed without ever endangering a life. After that, the president said the inspections weren’t working because they found nothing to back up the “pie in the sky” allegations he’d been making for eighteen months by that point. He eschewed verifiable fact for bare ideology. To date, over 2800 Americans have died (I notice you parsed even that number by indicating combat deaths only. Tell me--- Would a helicopter crashing in Iraq still crash in Iraq if we weren’t there? Quit insulting those servicemen by trying to lowball the real numbers!) because, viewed charitably, he chose to ignore every piece of evidence that Iraq had no WMD in favor of baseless allegations that supported the policy he wanted to put into effect. And that’s simply inexcusable.

Also from your article: … Most detestable are the lies these rogues craft to turn grief into votes by convincing the families of our war dead that their loved ones died in vain…. Firemen sometimes die in burning buildings looking for victims who are not there. Their deaths are not in vain, either.

Funny you should use that example--- I’ve used it many times myself. If a witness on the scene tells the firemen that he knows for a fact that those people are in there and they’re not, that witness gets charged for manslaughter. Do you really wish to have that rigorous standard applied to your old boss?

An American soldier takes an oath to defend his nation. But the president has a responsibility to accurately and soberly assess those threats, and to never take the lives of American servicemen and women lightly. This president did not do that. You were not a part of the original drive for war, but you were a part in the denial that went on for two years after its ill-conceived beginning.

So here’s a bold idea--- Make a list of all the people that died on the say so of Ward Churchill, Harry Belafonte, Ted Turner, and Howard Dean (Who, if you’ll recall, was the only candidate for the Democratic 2004 nomination to speak out against the war from the beginning). I’ll make a list of all the people that died because they believed in the White House.

They perished because he spent a year and a half implying that there was a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. They perished because he delivered a State of the Union Address in 2003 that doubled, sometimes even tripled the production numbers of various chemical and biological weapons to make it sound like Iraq had more than the UN confirmed the destruction of, not to even mention the inclusion of “sixteen words” that the White House knew were not true by that point (The CIA had insisted they be taken out of an October 2002 speech, yet with no additional corroboration, they made it into the January 2003 State of the Union).

To revisit the fireman analogy, these firemen rushed into the burning building not because the president said he thought there were people in there--- He said he knew for a fact that they were in there.

You know this. You’ve attempted to tar others so that no one notices your own part in the perpetuation of the false claims that led to this war. It’s not working.
I hate you too. Your hatred of me is leading you to the polls to vote a straight ticket for the party that created a fictional casus belli for war, refuses to even consider a way to end it, and slanders all who disagree with it. Along the way, they’ve managed to find time to cover up for someone who preys on children and leave people dying on their rooftops in Louisiana.

All in all, I’ll take my chances with Howard Dean.

I hate you too.

14 comments:

Dabney said...

Rick - this is truly an excellent post. It should be mandatory reading for everyone.

Anonymous said...

You know hating folks will eat you up. Can't we all just get along?

Tman said...

What a bunch of sanctimonius crap. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the region and the world for several years, no one with half on ounce of sense would argue against this.

You wrote-"An American soldier takes an oath to defend his nation. But the president has a responsibility to accurately and soberly assess those threats, and to never take the lives of American servicemen and women lightly. This president did not do that."

The president absolutely DID do this. www.husseinandterror.com Clinton himself along with the majority of our congress had determined Saddam was an ongoing threat that needed to be dealth with. Your disingenuous post makes the argument that Bush removed Saddam for, well, for what exactly? Because of his dad? For oil? Because he was bored?

You sir, are an idiot. Thank god folks like you remain on the fringe.

Freedonian said...

Saddam Hussein was a threat to the region and the world for several years, no one with half on ounce of sense would argue against this.

A threat? What the hell do you think he was going to attack us with? His army surrenders so quickly that it should put an end to all French jokes. His conventional weapons program, with the exception of the al Sammouds I mentioned earlier, was weak enough to be UN compliant. And the WMD programs didn't exist.

So what was the threat? Was it that he didn't like us? Boo hoo. If you think that's a reason to go to war, then I suggest you transfer out of the 101st Keyboard Division and get over there yourself.

Now, I just looked at that ridiculous site that you seem to think proves something--- Sorry, but when a site says that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 such as that one, I already know not to take it seriously.

It's a joke, and so are you.

Not even the president is trying to pass that stupidity off as fact anymore--- Get with the program and learn the more recent talking points.

Then try to rejoin the big kids' table, T-bag.

Freedonian said...

Actually, John, it fuels me.

And thank you, Dabney.

Tman said...

If the whole world didn't think he was a threat, then why were there 14 UN resolutions demanding his disarmament? Did he piss off Kofi or something?

God are you stupid.

I like how you manage to skip the entire site I listed and say "Sorry, but when a site says that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 such as that one, I already know not to take it seriously."

It didn't say that, and you obviously didn't read it. It does raise the various points that there is abundant and undeniable evidence that Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those involved in the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the WTC. Does that mean he planned 9/11? No. Does that mean he had something to do with 9/11? No. Idiot. What the site shows is that in a court of law, it was proven that Saddam provided help to those involved in the attacks.

Understand? Saddam + Islamic terrorists + UNSCAM sanctions= attacks against the west. Idiots like yourself would've let Saddam continue the shell game with the UN while he continued to brag about attacking the west and Israel.


But as usual, idiots like you brush off the fact that Saddam was an accomplice in multiple Islamic terrorist attacks over the years against the west, because you haven't changed your diapers since Bush got RE-elected.


Jesus man, get over it.

There is a reason no one takes people like yourself seriously.

Anonymous said...

Actually, John, it fuels me.

Hmmm, well enjoy! Hate away, it's your funeral.

Glen Wellington said...

"Saddam Hussein provided money, diplomatic services, shelter, medical care, and training to terrorists of every stripe, including those involved in the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the WTC. "

Assuming, arguendo, that the above is 100% true (some of which is a stretch...but ok), the problem is that the shrub did not suggest that those were the reasons for going into Iraq. When he was sollicting support for the Iraqi offensive, his reasons were not among those reasons listed above.

Using your reasoning, how many other countries are next?

[Personal soapbox]
Now that were are there, I do not support the "cut and run" strategy. We must be there for the long haul --10+ years --in order to try to do things properly. We owe it to the Iraqi people. It is just history repeating itself. (See Brit history in the region). We, however, should never have been there from the start.

Freedonian said...

If the whole world didn't think he was a threat, then why were there 14 UN resolutions demanding his disarmament?

Hellooo... Stoopid... Where are the illegal weapons? Besides the al Sammouds, what weapons did he have that were violations of the UN resolutions?

Regarding your tinfoil hat site... Are you too illiterate to read your own sources, you imbecile? “In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Mr. Muhammad Atta in the Czech Republic, there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status.”

Of course, that's been proven over and over to be horseshit. Doesn't stop morons like yourself from saying it happened, though.

What the site shows is that in a court of law, it was proven that Saddam provided help to those involved in the attacks.

No, idiot. It showed that when a suit is filed against a party in a court of law, and that party doesn't bother to mount a defense, a judgment is entered against them.

What, do I have to explain the court system to you too?

Idiots like yourself would've let Saddam continue the shell game with the UN while he continued to brag about attacking the west and Israel.


I've had people brag and say they could kick my ass before. I can't say that their words ever put a scratch on me, though, so I don't feel the need to send people to their deaths to protect my reputation.

That's just you 101st Fighting Keyboarists.

But as usual, idiots like you brush off the fact that Saddam was an accomplice in multiple Islamic terrorist attacks over the years against the west, because you haven't changed your diapers since Bush got RE-elected.

Prove them. And when I say "prove", I don't mean "show me a link where some inbred fuckhead said it on Little Green Footballs."

Go ahead. Shouldn't be hard to prove, right? How many investigations have come up empty now?

Nice try, T-cup.

Tman said...

Glenn,

These are selections from House Joint Resolution 114- To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

-Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;


Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;


How many countries are next? Less than there were when we started. By allowing Saddam to flaunt UN resolutions and fool everyone in to believing the Oil for Money was accomplishing anything but making Saddam richer, we were sending a message to both Saddam and other wanna-bes that it is ok to support terrorist organizations, and no one will do anything about it. After 9/11, the appeasment philosophy was shown to be illogical for our survival.

Tman said...

Now for Freeidiot,

Besides the al Sammouds, what weapons did he have that were violations of the UN resolutions?

Apparently you are dumber than I thought. Here stupid-

Testimony about Saddam's chemical weapons program by Charles Duelfer, leader of the Iraq Survey Group, before Congress on March 30, 2004:

"The ISG has developed new information regarding Iraq’s dual-use facilities and ongoing research suitable for a capability to produce biological or chemical agents on short notice. Iraq did have facilities suitable for the production of biological and chemical agents needed for weapons. It had plans to improve and expand and even build new facilities.

For example, the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Center has equipment suitable for the production of biological agents. While it conducts civilian research, ISG has also determined that it was conducting research that would be important for a biological weapons program. For example, we are continuing to examine research on Bacillus thuringiensis that was conducted until March 2003. This material is a commercial biopesticide, but it also can be used as a surrogate for the anthrax bacterium for production and weapons development purposes. Work continued on single cell proteins at Tuwaitha as well. Single cell protein research previously had been used as the cover activity for BW production at al-Hakam. We are now focusing on what such activities meant.

With respect to chemical production, Iraq was working up to March 2003 to construct new facilities for the production of chemicals. There were plans under the direction of a leading nuclear scientist/WMD program manager to construct plants capable of making a variety of chemicals and producing a year’s supply of any chemical in a month. This was a crash program. Most of the chemicals specified in this program were conventional commercial chemicals, but a few are considered “dual use.” One we are examining, commonly called DCC (N,N-Dicyclohexyl carbodiimide), was used by Iraq before 1991 as a stabilizing agent for the nerve agent VX. Iraq had plans before OIF for large-scale production of this chemical. Again, what do these activities mean?"


I dunno bob, let's trust this freeidiot guy and ignore Saddam so we can get to more pressing issues like free health care for everyone!

when a suit is filed against a party in a court of law, and that party doesn't bother to mount a defense, a judgment is entered against them.

Um, doesn't the judgement have to be TRUE, stupid? Maybe I need to explain court proceedings to YOU.

I've had people brag and say they could kick my ass before. I can't say that their words ever put a scratch on me, though,

Well, go ahead and explain that to the families that were killed by terrorists that Saddam trained, harbored and paid for.

Idiot.


Since you won't believe me, here's a link from the Council on Foreign Relations-
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/#1


I must say your insults are amusing, I can't wait to see what you'll call me next.

Freedonian said...

Very well, T-Pot.

Most of the chemicals specified in this program were conventional commercial chemicals, but a few are considered “dual use.” One we are examining, commonly called DCC (N,N-Dicyclohexyl carbodiimide), was used by Iraq before 1991 as a stabilizing agent for the nerve agent VX. Iraq had plans before OIF for large-scale production of this chemical. Again, what do these activities mean?"

Dual use... As in "more than one use", right? So your brilliant theory is that he produced a chemical that stabilizes V-X... Yet had no V-X? You want to stick by that theory?

That's damnably clever. Uh huh. Really. I mean it. Well, almost.

Um, doesn't the judgement have to be TRUE, stupid? Maybe I need to explain court proceedings to YOU.

No it doesn't, fucktard. If the plaintiff makes an allegation, and no defendant shows up to refute it, it's considered fact whether it's true or whether it's... Some of the drivel that T-Vestite spouts off.

I'm about to leave the office. I'll be back here in a couple of hours.

Tman said...

T-Pot! Good one! Your wit is truly peerless.

So your brilliant theory is that he produced a chemical that stabilizes V-X... Yet had no V-X? You want to stick by that theory?

translation: "Yes! Let's trust Saddam! Why would he lie to us? I mean, he only gassed his people once, what's the big deal? Those 14 UN resolutions? Kofi just doesn't like him I guess. Oh well, who wants pie?"

No it doesn't, fucktard. If the plaintiff makes an allegation, and no defendant shows up to refute it, it's considered fact whether it's true or whether it's... Some of the drivel that T-Vestite spouts off.


So if I bring a case to court saying "freeidiot is an alien from Mars" and you don't show up to dispute it, it becomes fact?

This is a very interesting world you live in!

Tell me, how many times were you dropped on your head as a child that allows you to live in this reality?

Freedonian said...

translation: "Yes! Let's trust Saddam! Why would he lie to us? I mean, he only gassed his people once, what's the big deal? Those 14 UN resolutions? Kofi just doesn't like him I guess. Oh well, who wants pie?"


Helloo... Are there three finger holes in the back of your head?

It's DUAL use... One use is the stabilization of VX, but there's no VX to stabilize. It's safe at that point to say that the use is "other". And the word you're trusting (Remember, dumbass, it's your source) is actually OUR guy, Charles Duelfer.

Reading it your way is like saying the tomato sauce in my pantry is definitely destined for pizza, even though I have no crust, cheese, or pepperoni (Reminds me I need to get by the grocery store today).

So if I bring a case to court saying "freeidiot is an alien from Mars" and you don't show up to dispute it, it becomes fact?

Wow, it sounds like I really do have to explain civil court procedure to you. And you're allowed out of the house without a leash...

A plaintiff (Say the word with me... plain-tiff) makes an allegation. The defendant refutes the allegation.

When the defendant doesn't show up, it's not refuted.

Still with me so far? Good. Keep smartening up like this, and soon you won't need ridiculous talking points.