Ticomaya wrote:Quote:Thursday, December 23, 2004
HOW MUCH HAS THE LEFT HURT US?
While I was getting ready for the show today I heard a station promo offering support to "our men and women in uniform fighting the war against terror." Seems simple enough, doesn't it? But stop to think just a moment .. let those words roll by just once more. We are fighting a war against terror. The problem here is that not everyone is on board.
There is no question that things in Iraq have not gone precisely the way many expected after the fall of Saddam. I don't think anyone foresaw the level of the insurgency that would dog our efforts to establish a free and independent Iraq. We also didn't foresee the degree to which the left in this country would continue, day after day, to criticize and condemn virtually every step taken by George Bush and coalition leaders in first liberating and then attempting to secure Iraq. Virtually every action taken by the American military in Iraq has been criticized by the left. First coalition forces didn't move on Fallujah soon enough, then it was too soon. Too many troops, not enough troops, too bold, too timid. Wrong war. Wrong place. Wrong time.
Since the very beginning there has been virtually no support for the liberation of Iraq from the left in this country, and the enemies of freedom in Iraq have certainly taken notice. How could they not? As soon as the United States appointed an interim Iraqi government to run the show until elections could be held, the left launched attacks on the validity of that government and predicted that it would fail. Don't you just know that those who opposed any freely elected government in Iraq just beamed?
When Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi visited Washington DC this past Fall the American media virtually ignored him, an attempt to strip him of any vestige of legitimacy, respectability and authority. How could the enemies of freedom in the Middle East not notice?
There are people in the Middle East, around the world and here at home who earnestly want the US to fail miserably in Iraq. In the Middle East you have leaders in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other lesser countries who are frightened to death over what a freely elected government in Iraq would mean to them. These people are doing all they can to support the Iraqi Islamic insurgency. Around the world we have nations and leaders who want to see the role of the United States in international affairs weakened. They want a power vacuum that perhaps they can move to fill. They see a U.S. failure in Iraq as something that would weaken this country. The future lives of Iraqi civilians means nothing to these people compared to their desire to see the United States take a hit.
And that brings us here to our own people. There are people in this country: call them Bush-haters, Democrats, liberals, progressives ... call them what you will ... but they are dedicated to the idea of discrediting George Bush in any way that they can. They are dismayed over even the most remote possibility that Bush might actually pull a free, independent and stable Iraq out of his hat. They know that success in Iraq could change the face of the Middle East forever. It could be the beginning of the end of radical Islam .. and eventually make Islamic terrorism a thing of the past. Freedom is the greatest enemy of tyranny .. and those are the two sides battling it out in Iraq; but to listen to the left in this country you would think they're leading the cheers for the tyranny side.
Let's cut to the chase. How do you think things would be going in Iraq right now if there was unity in the United States? What do you think the situation would be in Iraq today if the American left had adopted the attitude that "Well, we're in this. So let's get the job done."? Would American soldiers that have died be alive today if the left in this country had not done so much to discredit Bush and virtually everything he's done in Iraq? How many insurgents would have stayed with their goats in Syria and Iran if they had believed that the United States was of one voice when it came to establishing a democratically elected government in Iraq?
Here's what I'm saying ... in more concise terms. The obsessive compulsive Bush haters in America have been giving aid and comfort to the Islamic terrorists and insurgents who want to make Iraq a theocratic Islamic state run by a group cloned from the Taliban. The encouragement these Islamic goons derive from the bleatings of the left in this country might be your most prominent cause for the level of insurgency that exists in Iraq today.
Good questions asked by Boortz. We, unfortunately, will never know the answers.
You guys are kidding, right? There might not be a single claim Boortz makes here that is factually true or which stands up to more than a minutes reflection.
Quote:We are fighting a war against terror.
No, you're not. You're told this, you've bought it, you repeat it. You've attacked and occupied a country without evidenciary connection to 9-11. You'd been told there was a connection, and you bought that story. More recently, it's been admitted that there wasn't a connection after all(Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush) but, somehow, it is still justified as 'part of the war on terror', and you buy that.
Quote:The problem here is that not everyone is on board.
No, it's not a problem. That is, it's not a problem unless one believes that divergent opinion is a problem. Boortz apparently holds that all citizens in all circumstances ought always to support an administration's goals and policies. After all, that seems the principle he's arguing here. Perhaps he is saying, "in this situation only", but rather too obviously, a person can always make that claim...that he sees things more clearly than others and so everyone ought to agree with him and that disagreement is foolish or traitorous. You guys want to buy into that principle?
Quote: I don't think anyone foresaw the level of the insurgency that would dog our efforts to establish a free and independent Iraq.
Factually wrong. Many did. Go back to the beginning thread of US, UN, and Iraq and you'll find hundreds of posts quoting sources from military, political, academic, and media voices that described this outcome or some close variation of it. The danger of civil war as a consequence, the danger of a Vietnam-type quagmire as a consequence, the danger of a large and formidable insurgency and expanding anti-American sentiment were all described as potential outcomes.
Quote:We also didn't foresee the degree to which the left in this country would continue, day after day, to criticize and condemn virtually every step taken by George Bush and coalition leaders in first liberating and then attempting to secure Iraq.
Strawman argument. And deceitful. Many on the left have supported various aspects of the Iraq project and many on the right have criticized aspects of it as well.
Quote: Virtually every action taken by the American military in Iraq has been criticized by the left. First coalition forces didn't move on Fallujah soon enough, then it was too soon.
Misleading and disengenous. I know of not one instance where any voice on the 'left' argued that the US ought to move on Fallujah quickly, if at all.
Quote:Too many troops, not enough troops, too bold, too timid.
As above. Boortz is...lying. Who on the 'left' complained there were too many troops? As to 'not enough', that criticism came from many military and state department and intelligence people. And of course, Bremer said it too. Boortz here is doing a trick on you, and you ought to face up to how he's doing this, if for your own cognitive clarity. He is simply forwarding a PR line that the 'left' or opponents to the war are not steadfast and single-minded and firm - they flipflop. And that's a PR line designed precisely to contrast with the PR line that Rove wants you to believe regarding Bush.
Quote: Since the very beginning there has been virtually no support for the liberation of Iraq from the left in this country,
Here, in a gesture of intellectual magniminity, he tempers his claim with 'virtually'. But then he does the slick use of 'liberation'. And that makes the claim disingenuous and deceitful. Had a disaffected Iraqi put a bullet in Saddam's head, an infinitesimal few of
any political persuasion would have been unhappy. Even if the CIA had been successful in assassination (a deeply questionable state activity), I personally would not have protested in this instance. Had the sanctions brought about a revolt and overthrow, that would have been just fine. So it wasn't 'liberation' that was at issue, it was the decision to begin a unilateral war. The difference between these two is huge, and Boortz displays his typical lack of intellectual or journalistic integrity in avoiding it.
Quote:As soon as the United States appointed an interim Iraqi government to run the show until elections could be held,the left launched attacks on the validity of that government and predicted that it would fail.
Again with 'the left'. Generalizations like that are usually attempts to deceive, and always intellectually suspect, if not plain stupid. But aside from this standard Boortz trick, there were a hell of a lot of people who figured an ex-CIA agent was probably not the most prudent individual to put on top. Likewise the previous contender, before he fell out of favor. As to the legitimacy of this interim government, the protest from many of us on the left didn't involve the who aspect, but rather the pretence that this appointment established self-governance of Iraqis by Iraqis, because of the pervasive limitations and legislation imposed upon it by American planners.
Quote:When Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi visited Washington DC this past Fall the American media virtually ignored him, an attempt to strip him of any vestige of legitimacy, respectability and authority.
Patently false. You can go back and check the archives of any major paper or tv network and find coverage on this visit. Just google it and see.
Quote:There are people in the Middle East, around the world and here at home who earnestly want the US to fail miserably in Iraq.
Here's where Boortz first comes close to speaking truth. Close. I wish the US to fail in Iraq, but only in one very particular sense. I do not wish Iraq to descend into chaos and murderousness. I do not wish American soldiers to die, not one more. But I will argue for, and wish for, American militarism and arrogance and selfishness to decline. Unilateral decision to begin war cannot be justified as it then becomes justified for anyone else to do it too. China can use the same justification in Tibet or Taiwan. Thus it is not America I wish to see fail, but certain specific policies. Boortz, of course, won't be much in favor of your opinions and understandings to be that nuanced.
Quote:In the Middle East you have leaders in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other lesser countries who are frightened to death over what a freely elected government in Iraq would mean to them.
Here Boortz is again close. But it is double-edged and not simple. Does the US and the west wish Saudi Arabia (and a number of other ME states) to have a freely elected government? Not necessarily, not if the government that arises acts contrary to US/Western interests, eg cutting off increasing the price of oil, or kicking all Western interests out. US interests and Saudi ruling family interests are deeply intertwined, and that's why there has been a history of mutal support, even though that regime is arguably as responsible for forwarding extremist muslim sentiment as Osama.
Quote: Around the world we have nations and leaders who want to see the role of the United States in international affairs weakened. They want a power vacuum that perhaps they can move to fill.
Foolish, disingenous, and fear-mongering. Look at the public polls from every country outside of the US, even Britain. The public wish to see NOT that the US be weakened, but that the US merely abide by standards and agreements designed to forward civilized conduct and democratic values. Does sticking to previous promises mean weakness, or agreeing to abide by certain laws and international codes of conduct mean weakness? Boortz tries to suggest that such demands and wishes for civilized intenational conduct are merely derived from some game of macho leader conflict, and so you are in danger of being oppressed by others.
Quote: And that brings us here to our own people. There are people in this country: call them Bush-haters, Democrats, liberals, progressives ... call them what you will ... but they are dedicated to the idea of discrediting George Bush in any way that they can. They are dismayed over even the most remote possibility that Bush might actually pull a free, independent and stable Iraq out of his hat. They know that success in Iraq could change the face of the Middle East forever. It could be the beginning of the end of radical Islam .. and eventually make Islamic terrorism a thing of the past. Freedom is the greatest enemy of tyranny .. and those are the two sides battling it out in Iraq; but to listen to the left in this country you would think they're leading the cheers for the tyranny side.
Do you guys recognize a 'strawman argument' when you see one? This paragraph is a textbook example. I wish to discredit Bush, but not any way I can. I wish to discredit him for deceit and for what I see as hugely dangerous and destructive policies. A free and independent Iraq would be lovely, but what does one do when one see policies that, yourself and other very bright and thoughtful people with years of experience in political and foreign affairs or decades of work with the middle east, that seem likely to make things far worse rather than achieving the stated goal? If you have any integrity at all, you don't bow down and say 'yes, sir'. You fight and argue.
And what better word, for Boortz's argument that anyone who disagrees with him or the administration is some species of traitor, than 'tyrannical'? Tyrannies ALWAYS demand unity of thought. Tyrannies cannot abide divergent or oppositional ideas.
