Saturday, January 17, 2009

Liberalism and its Discontents, OR Liberals Still Can’t Get Over G W Bush...

I get around, and in so doing, I spare no expense in bringing the rants and ravings of the far-Left to light and to, explain their inaccuracies in as great a detail as time and human patience permits.

Here's a recent example with my responses in red.;

"The Last Days of the Bush Regime

Only 3 days left. Here are the achievements of that regime:


1. They violated international laws.

(How? By engaging in “an unprovoked, UN opposed” military action, in Iraq?” We did the same in Bosnia! For that matter so were Vietnam and Korea, unprovoked and without the support of the UN...none of those are technically examples of “violating international law, as there is no “international law requiring UN Permission for military intervention” and besides, there is no “overriding legal authority upon which international law is predicated.)

2. They violated US laws.

(What "violations" are you referring to?

The NSA surveillance program, perhaps?

That program was NOT a violation of any U.S. laws. The 1979 FISA law ALLOWED for warrantless tracking of calls/emails “FROM suspect foreign portals” INTO the U.S. Moreover, the very legal Patriot Act (approved almost unanimously TWICE by Congress, merely allowed for the flip side of that – allowing for the warrantless tracking of calls/emails “To suspect foreign portals FROM the U.S.” – Congress recently (overwhelmingly) re-authorized those surveillance techniques AND granted cooperating telecom companies the immunity that such cooperation should have come as “IMPLIED IMMUNITY.” The U.S. Congress, in recently and overwhelmingly re-authorizing that NSA Surveillance program along with the requisite telecom immunities, has officially legalized all of that.)
3. They randomly destroyed another country (Iraq).

(There was nothing “random” about it. Iraq sheltered and supported terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Before the 2003 coalition invasion, Saddam’s Iraq cooperated with the al Qaida run, ansar al-Islam camps against a common enemy, the Kurds in northern Iraq.

Iraqi dissidents abroad had been targeted for murder by Saddam’s Iraq.

In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and in September of 2001, Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th.

Al Qaeda terrorists who escaped from Afghanistan were known to be in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. So, Iraq was NOT invaded "randomly.")
4. They lied to start a war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and innumerable numbers of wounded.

(Funny story, again, there were no apparent “lies.” The French, Russians, the English and the UN all believed that Saddam’s Iraq held stockpiles of WMDs.

Rolf Ekeus, executive chairman of UNSCOM, which ran the chemical and biological inspections in Iraq from 1991 to 1997, was interviewed on PBS in February of 2003 about Colin Powell’s presentation, he noted that while Powell’s detailing the missing U.S. weaponry components was not new, “what was new was the -- I think quite convincing presentation of how Iraq was not cooperating, what was -- it was preparing the reception of the inspectors in a way, which would make it very difficult for inspectors to do their job.”

And David Albright, a former analyst and inspector who monitored Iraq's nuclear program from 1992 to 1997 said, “I think some of the radio intercepts were quite compelling. I think Powell demonstrated there was a decision and a policy of Iraqi government to hide things from the inspectors and build I think a very strong case to show that Iraq never intended to comply and unless it has an epiphany is unlikely to comply in the future.”

Daniel Benjamin, director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration said, “What he (Powell) pointed to was a man named Zarkawi, an al-Qaida manager of a fairly high level, who had been in Iraq, who had medical attention in Iraq that some operatives seem to have gravitated to him while he was in Iraq.

“The relationship between this man Zarkawi and a group in the Kurdish controlled area of Iraq called Answar al-Islam (ph) which is a radical Islamist group and appears to have connections with al-Qaida.”

Dan Benjamin added, “Time Magazine reported that there was someone on the ruling council of Answar al-Islam who had been in Saddam Hussein's intelligence service.” A poorly planned post-war insurgency and a poorly orchestrated war effort? YES. "Lies?" NO.)
5. They used torture. A totally un-American concept.


Is keeping subjects standing for hours, keeping them awake for long periods with bright lights and loud sounds, subjecting them to colder than normal and warmer than normal environs “torture?”

Of course NOT!

ALL those techniques have been routinely used by law enforcement on Americans accused of heinous crimes like child molestation, multiple murders, etc.

And water boarding - the technique of pouring water on the head of a prisoner with the purpose of triggering a gag reflex and the feeling and panic of imminent drowning – is THAT torture?

Torture is defined as “the infliction of severe pain,” and while waterboarding induces fear, because it simulates drowning, it does not inflict pain.

Moreover, the U.S. military waterboards hundreds of our own soldiers every year? It is part of the conditioning Special Forces troops undergo to prepare for battle and the possibility of capture by the enemy.

The three terrorists who were subjected too waterboarding are Abu Zubaydah, Osama bin Laden’s chief of operations; Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole; and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

In these cases waterboarding and other coercive techniques, such as forcing prisoners to stand for hours, succeeded in extracting intelligence that led to the capture of key al-Qaida operative planning terrorist attack against Americans.

Bottom-line, those people who objected to the waterboarding of those three terrorists were, in effect, lamenting that “not enough Americans have been killed by jihadists.”

6. They created Guantanamo and violated human rights.

(The creation of Gitmo violated human rights?

No it didn’t!

Any more than Alcatraz Island violates human rights.

What the Bush administration did was break down the ridiculous and harmful walls between domestic law enforcement (ie the FBI, etc.) and our international intelligence agencies (the CIA, etc.) which could’ve prevented 9/11, they expanded FISA, which had allowed for the warrantless tracking of calls/emails FROM “suspect foreign portals” INTO the U.S. since 1979. To include the tracking of calls/emails TO “suspect foreign portals” FROM the U.S. and kept America free from jihadist attack for over seven years!

That, for better, or worse, becomes the new standard...ONE attack on U.S. soil is a failure compared to the Bush legacy.)

7. They blocked funding for stem cell research.

(That’s an inaccurate statement, as written, as there’s NEVER been more government funded stem cell research. The Bush administration merely defunded embryonic stem cell research and it should be noted that hESC research has been relegated unnecessary earlier this year; “Researchers said they found a safe way to coax adult cells to regress into an embryonic state, alleviating the political and ethical tempests surrounding that research.”)
8. They dramatically decreased funding for scientific research in the US.

(Actually that is either a deliberate lie or a gross oversight on your part. In fact, for the most recent budget available (fy 2006): “Basic research is part of $132.3 billion proposed for federally funded research and development. The record-setting number is an increase of $773 million over the R&D spending for FY 2005.”
9. They destroyed the US economy.

(Again, that would, more accurately be stated, “G W Bush coupled with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd , helped plunge the country into economic crisis via excessive government spending and inane regulation, like the turbo-charged CRA (of 1995) that mandated banks to make tons of subprime loans, or as Andy Cuomo put it, “Not merely lend to “the rich,” also known as ‘those who can pay those loans back,’ ” THAT is what harmed the U.S. economy.)
10.They destabilized the global economy.
(Again, the subprime mortgage crisis, triggered by the “turbo-charged CRA” which mandated that more subprime loans be made available to low income Americans. That WOULD HAVE tanked America’s banking industry, SO, Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd set up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying up those high-risk loans. Once government, in effect, indemnified the banks from such high-risk behaviors, they couldn’t write bad loans fast enough. The turbo-charged CRA (an example of real bad regulation) coupled with a failure of basic oversight on the part of the SEC are the primary triggers of the global credit crisis.)


"Last Days of the Bush Regime" by Bluewind;


BB-Idaho said...

I've never understood "ONE attack on U.S. soil is a failure compared to the Bush legacy." We never had anything like that until 9-11 and it happened on President Bush's watch. He was warned but did nothing until afterward.

Roadhouse said...

The Sept. 11th attacks were conceived, planned, funded, and trained for on the watch of Bill Clinton. During his Presidency, there were terrorist attacks that were never answered, including but not limmited to the first Trade Center bombing, Somalia, The USS Cole, Kobar Towers, etc. etc. Clinton was offered Bin Laden no less than three times by the Sudanese and refused for "legal reasons".
This was AFTER his cutting of military and intelligence budgets.

Bush had few details that were actionable regarding the coming attack. This is the logical outcome of cutting the budgets of the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. Besides, we all know what the left thinks about acting on "perceived" threats now don't we?

But hey, why bring historical facts, perspective, or logic into this? Especially when "Sir Hopes-a-lot" is going to show the world the proper way to stop terrorism.

JMK said...

That generic warning about the looming threat of al Qaida, BB?!

Richard Clarke had been issuing that since 1995!

Bill Clinton had plans for a full-scale invasion of Iraq on the Oval Office desk and failed to act. Instead they bombed an aspirin factory. Incredibly enough, John Kerry is on record as calling the Clinton response to Iraqi aggression over the "No Fly Zones" as, "Not nearly enough."

Moreover, there’s NOTHING in that missive that could be construed as a “warning about 9/11”!

So, actually, the government was NOT warned in any way about the looming September, 2001 attacks. Certainly NOT in any specific way.

Ironically enough, the infamous (Jamie Gorelick) "wall" between the CIA and FBI (which the Patriot Act thankfully rectified) kept the CIA from sharing vital information with the FBI.

IF there is another terrorist attempt on U.S. soil (and there've been hundreds of thwarted attempts since 9/11) I personally HOPE the political-wing of the Executive branch will be among the last to know, along with Congress.

Those people can’t keep a secret and would, no doubt screw things up by either unintentionally or not, by giving vital logistical information about our impending response, to the attackers.

Interdiction ISN'T the purview of ANY President. I'd rather see any such incident like that put in the capable hands of any FBI Supervisor, or even an NYPD Captain in the anti-terror task force of that agency, before those of Bill Clinton, G W Bush, or Barack Obama.

Politicians are generally pretty nice guys, but they're not anti-terror experts, nor should they be.

JMK said...

Good response Roady.

It's rumored that the Intelligence budget is about to be deelpy cut again and that's why Leon Panetta (a budget guy) was brought in there, with Dennis Blair as the over-arching DNI.

The problem that many on the Left have, regarding the current global, anti-Western jihad, was best summed up in five words by Mike Moore, "There is no terrorist threat."

Unfortunately for such people, while putting your head in the sand may muffle the sound, it does nothing to diminish the damage.

American Ideas Click Here!