0
   

The left's war for international affection

 
 
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 06:36 am
If I hear one more time how the United States better clean up its image in the world so we don't further alienate foreigners and generate more terrorists, I think I'm going to wretch.

There is no small amount of irony in the fact that the people who are doing their level best to make sure the news is dominated by stories portraying America as imperialistic and inhumane are the same ones warning that we dare not permit our image to deteriorate.

They are determined to bring us stories week after week that depict the United States as a heartless monster. They have been telling us since we attacked Iraq that the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence data on WMD and lied to get us into war, and that we preemptively struck Iraq without provocation and in contravention of international law.

It didn't matter to them that all of the independent investigations they touted rejected their ultimate conclusions: that President Bush pressured the intelligence agencies to doctor the evidence in favor of war and that he misrepresented their unanimous assessment that Saddam was stockpiling WMD.

They just kept disseminating the same lies -- to the point that 90 percent of the Democrat base was actually taken in by them. And, finally, after waiting patiently for years for a smoking gun to incriminate the Bush administration, the American Left thought it had received a gift from the God it doesn't believe in: the Downing Street Memo.

This "scandalous" record of a meeting among British officials would be no less powerful than the DNA-stained blue dress that jogged Bill Clinton's memory during the days of the Kenneth Starr witch hunt. But though the memo said, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," an honest contextual reading revealed that "fixed" didn't mean "manipulated."

All but Bushophobic readers understood that this same memo disclosed a genuine belief by the Brits that Saddam did in fact have WMD and that he might unleash them on allied forces if we attacked. Even liberal columnist Michael Kinsley doesn't seem to buy that the memo is a smoking gun. The memo has turned out to be much ado about nothing.

Not to worry. There's always Gitmo: the story that just won't die -- the Left will see to that. Their relentless mantra is that the Bush administration systematically abuses and tortures terrorist war prisoners -- at Gitmo and elsewhere.

Forget that we mostly bend over backward to treat enemy combatants with kid gloves, feeding them better than our own troops, providing them with copies of the Koran and enforcing special rules to ensure it is treated respectfully. Forget that the toughest interrogation techniques to which many objected only lasted two weeks, and still did not result in the 20th 9-11 hijacker being physically assaulted. But they did result in the ascertainment of critical information that may have saved many American and Iraqi lives.

The Left steadfastly chooses to ignore the positive, hype the negative and presume American culpability. They deny their reflexively anti-American instincts and congenital softness on terrorism, insisting they are more committed to winning the war than even the evil "neocons." It's just America's methods they disapprove of.

But where did they get this rarely challenged, counterintuitive and nonsensical idea that terrorism is spawned primarily by American misconduct -- or America's cavalier image? How can anyone with the slightest hint of objectivity conclude that Islamic terrorism is a reaction to, or a byproduct of, evil emanating from the United States? Who, besides the terrorist themselves could possibly take such garbage seriously?

Leave it to the American Left, which bristles at the slightest insinuation that it sometimes goes to extensive lengths to conceal its patriotism, to figure that the outcome of the war will be determined by means of a popularity contest -- America's image abroad -- rather than bombs, guns and bullets.

Indeed, the Left and squishy moderates are now saying we should close down Gitmo, even if it is clear no mistreatment of terrorist prisoners is occurring there -- because such a gesture will show the world our goodwill and rehabilitate our image.

Such thinking is pathetic and promises disastrous consequences. Of course we should comport ourselves consistent with our high moral standards -- because it is the right thing to do. But we must not delude ourselves into thinking the war is a PR contest and place ourselves and our troops into a PC straightjacket in order to score higher on the next international poll.

The notion that our success in the war will depend on our image is appeasement-driven psychobabble. But if the Left is so convinced of it, isn't it time they ceased and desisted doing everything in their power to destroy our image?

Source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 692 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 06:51 am
In order to clean up a house you have to go through the garbage to throw it away.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:01 am
I'd say you've been a wretch for some time now, McG. Laughing Did you perhaps mean that the stories would make you retch? War is no PR contest. I don't see the left hyping the negative and presuming American culpability, but perhaps if you look at the stories cockeyed long enough you can see whatever you want to see, hm? If I truly believed that our country were gullibly going down such a path without any sort of check on our progress (which is what I see such stories as being, not hype) I would probably feel like retching, too.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:28 am
Good lord. I thought my five-year-old was a proficient whiner, but the opinion piece that started this thread tops his best performance.

Waah, the left is mean to us, wahh, the left wants to close our extra-legal prison in Guantanamo, waah, the left isn't as patriotic as we are, waaaaahhhh.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:42 am
I am sorry that's all you reduced the article to Freeduck. Perhaps you can trouble yourself to understand what he's saying and ask yourself why it is he's saying it?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:45 am
Between the media and the drama queens at Amnesty International, many Americans are struggling to continue to take their over-hyped stories seriously. Thanks to the NYTimes, there's probably few in this country who do not recognize the name "Lindy Englund", but ask them to name just one Medal of Honor recipient for courage and acts of heroism in Iraq.

It's as if they are counting on everyone believing their headlines and not really bothering to research real facts. The majority of us are finally realizing that the more we know, the dumber the MSM looks.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:48 am
The United States better clean up its image in the world so they don't further alienate foreigners and generate more terrorists

Laughing
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:02 am
McGentrix wrote:
I am sorry that's all you reduced the article to Freeduck. Perhaps you can trouble yourself to understand what he's saying and ask yourself why it is he's saying it?


I understood what he's saying. And I know why he's saying it. It's his agenda. He writes for townhall. He's focusing on what he perceives as "the left" so that he doesn't have to focus on the fact that he's having a hard time defending his positions. For example, GITMO is hard to defend, so instead he attacks "the left" for reporting on it. He can't defend "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," so he calls those who read that line at face value "bushophobes". He's created these "left" people, defined an exaggerated and fictional argument for them, then set about knocking down his own caricature of people who don't agree with him. Like this passage:

Quote:
But where did they get this rarely challenged, counterintuitive and nonsensical idea that terrorism is spawned primarily by American misconduct -- or America's cavalier image? How can anyone with the slightest hint of objectivity conclude that Islamic terrorism is a reaction to, or a byproduct of, evil emanating from the United States? Who, besides the terrorist themselves could possibly take such garbage seriously?


Indeed, who could? More importantly, who really does? I don't know who these "left" people are who believe this. I don't know anyone who believes this and I've not seen editorials or news reports indicating that very many people believe this. I find absolutely no value in what he has to say. And, frankly, I'm surprised that you do.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:03 am
JustWonders wrote:
Thanks to the NYTimes, there's probably few in this country who do not recognize the name "Lindy Englund", but ask them to name just one Medal of Honor recipient for courage and acts of heroism in Iraq.


Just so people DO know:

Recipient of the Medal of Honor for his actions in Iraq:

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:04 am
With all the other ligitimate issues the the left could criticize the Bush admin with, I find it curious they keep harping on the "little things" about this war.

Why criticize about prisioner treatment when they can talk to getting our soldiers out of there NOW?

Why not talk about SS reform, a real issue the the left wnats to ignore?

Why not tax reform? Does the left feel taxing the people at 50% is not enough?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:27 am
With total inept service the Bush administration has provided us with so far I wouldn't want to talk about SS reform or tax reform with them in charge.

As far as focusing on prisoner abuse treatment and getting out of Iraq now, we talk about more things at once.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:32 am
Who ordered all these waaaaamburgers?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The left's war for international affection
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 04:27:32