« Son Of Saudi Embassy Employee Indicted In Assassination Plot (Updated) | Main | How To Piss Me Off »

An open letter to Democrats

As I've said before, I don't consider myself a conservative. I describe myself as a "militant moderate." Last November, I split my vote between two Democrats and two Republicans (President, Senate, House, Governor). Until last December, I was a registered Democrat (albeit accidentally -- long story), and now I'm an independent.

I've also frequently spoken about my fears and loathings of a one-party system. I've repeatedly pointed out just how screwed up Massachusetts is, being utterly under the thrall of the Democratic machine. And I remember some times here in New Hampshire, when the Republicans were dominant. (Although never to the extreme as Massachusetts Democrats, and things never got so bad). With that in mind, I offer this advice to Democrats.

1) Back away from the hatred of Bush. If your strategy for victory is to convince a significant portion of the electorate that the man who won 52% of the vote is the source of all evil in the world, you have a hell of a struggle. People who vote for a candidate feel an "investment" in that candidate, and are naturally resistant to changing their opinions. It's damned near insurmountable, so find a new tune.

2) Remember your name. You are DEMOCRATS, and currently two nations that were once brutal dictatorships and major supporters of terrorism are now burgeoning DEMOCRACIES, and millions of people are enjoying their first taste of freedom -- thanks to America. Get past your loathing of the man who led it, and embrace this tremendous achievement. Remember, history is watching -- will it record these achievements as happening with you, or despite you.

3) Find something to stand FOR, and stop focusing on things you stand AGAINST. Look at some recent elections. In 1992, one candidate had clear plans and ideas, and he was elected. (I personally disagreed with those ideas, but the point remains.) In 1996, Clinton took on another Republican who couldn't spell out any clear message, and won again. 2000 was pretty much a wash -- neither Bush nor Gore had very clear messages. And in 2004, Bush ran for a continuance of what he had achieved in the last 4 years, while Kerry... well... Kerry couldn't master a single message or position for a very long.

Right now, the Republicans hold the White House and both houses, albeit with slender majorities. If the Democrats continue on their current course, those majorities can only increase. Carried to the logical conclusion, the Democrats will end up marginalizing themselves right out of existence.

And as much as I think the current leadership deserves it, the rest of us don't deserve the consequences.

J.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An open letter to Democrats:

» Legal XXX linked with Bastard Blogging

» Pajama Hadin linked with Open Letter to Democrats

» TechnoChitlins linked with Advice

Comments (63)

From a former (R), who is n... (Below threshold)
jmaster:

From a former (R), who is now also an (I), I agree completely.

Well said.

A few principles that I hol... (Below threshold)
Brad:

A few principles that I hold, as a Democrat:

1.) Hatred of Bush does not mean hatred of a man; it means opposition to a carefully orchestrated series of domestic and foreign policies by persons whom he represents

2.) Ends do not justify means. Democracy could have been achieved at a lower cost than what has been paid, in $ and lives and limbs.

3.) Democrats stand for human rights, universal health care, reproductive freedom, separation of church and state, the rights of all citizens to be treated equally under the law regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, Social Security, and a living wage

4.) Democrats have been losing because they aren't listening to advice from their base but rather from outsiders who do not share our interests. Did the Republicans ask the Democrats what they needed to do in 1965?

JT sez: "Find something to... (Below threshold)
MMM:

JT sez: "Find something to stand FOR,..."

But they already do.

Abortion, ever higher taxation, Hollywood elites, porn, stupid art, pedophilia (via ACLU), surrender monkeys, communists (see: Castro), teachers' unions, anti-religionists, and government control of everything else not listed above.

You see, it's not simply finding something - Anything! Anywhere! Look under the sink! - to stand for. The important part is what that something is.

Social Security? So you me... (Below threshold)

Social Security? So you mean you stand for the one that is going broke? When the money is gone, what will you stand on then?

> 1.) Hatred of Bush does ... (Below threshold)

> 1.) Hatred of Bush does not mean hatred of a man;
> it means opposition to a carefully orchestrated
> series of domestic and foreign policies by persons
> whom he represents

By "persons whom he represents" I'm guessing that you're not talking about the majority of voters who voted for him, right?

Because chances are, the 52% of the voting public who did vote for W opposes your "opposition to a carefully orchestrated series of domestic and foreign policies."

"Orchestrate away!" said the majority, with pockets of them saying, "Orchestration aside, John Kerry? F that noise!"

And hatred of Bush? Yes, most definitely means hatred of the man. Have you been hiding in afghani caves for the past few years? Have you not seen the foaming at the mouth coming from liberals across these our United States?

When i was a fledgling republican back in the days of whitewatergate and bimbogate and perjurygate and getting-your-dumb-ass-impeachedgate and cattle-futures gate, the hatred of Clinton wasn't so much that we wanted to see him dead, but just that he defiled the office of the POTUS and got in bed w/our enemies and didn't have the interests of the US in mind when it came to foreign policy.

I don't recall ever calling him Evil. Conniving? Oh yeah, NP. Treacherous? Sure. But not evil.

Jihad Jimmy

Some say it's hatred of <a ... (Below threshold)

Some say it's hatred of the man

Others say it's the thousan... (Below threshold)

Others say it's the thousands of dead people in Iraq that they hate.

Jay Tea writes: ... (Below threshold)
s9:

Jay Tea writes: ...the rest of us don't deserve the consequences.

Yes, we do. We so fscking deserve the consequences. "Democracy: a form of government in which everybody gets the government the majority deserve."

Why do you hate democracy so much, Jay?

They stand to the left of w... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

They stand to the left of whatever we have at the present and always will until there's no room left. Everything they ever claimed they stood for wasn't enough after they got it.

I would be careful when you... (Below threshold)

I would be careful when you accuse the Democrats of hating a man. Since George W. Bush has lead the Republican Party and the country there are very few thing that he has done that I could applaud. In fact, the few things that he has done right he was either forced into doing or they were accidents of his original mistakes.

I would describe myself as a Libertarian, not a Democrat. As a Libertarian I believe that the government should stay out of our homes and only spend the money that we truly need for infrastructure to enable private enterprise to do the rest of the work. George W. Bush fails on both of these issues. He is being coerced by the Religious right on issues that the government shouldn't be involved in such as Gay Marriage, abortion etc... On the fiscal side he is spending like there is no tomorrow. However, instead of raising taxes to pay for his spending he is borrowing money so that we will end up paying twice the price in the long run for the Iraq war and homeland security.

This is not “hating the man,” it is “hating his policy.”


Pay attention! Democrats d... (Below threshold)
Instafaggot:

Pay attention! Democrats don't need your fucking advice. All of these things have been addressed, but who the hell are you to set policy for Democrats? Do you want us to win or something?

You should live here. My l... (Below threshold)

You should live here. My local pub won't serve me because I walked in 6 MONTHS ago with a Bush/Cheney button.

My entire family have alway... (Below threshold)

My entire family have always been Democrats. In the last two years, we have all become Republicans. The County I live in has more Republicans than Democrats these days for the first time ever. We didn't leave the party; it left us.

And Brad, if you stood for something and had a plan, you wouldn't have time for hate. Think about that.

I can't believe anyone who ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I can't believe anyone who has even marginally payed attention the last year would even try to argue that it isn't hatred of the man.

I have never seen so much vitriole and hatred poured out at one man in my life.

That hatred also gives them tunnel vision, I think they are convinced that the rest of the world hates Bush too, to the point that they think all they need to win an election is to hate even more.

Insta, don't bitch at me. T... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Insta, don't bitch at me. Take up your complaints with President Kerry. Or President Gore. Or President Dukakis. Or President Mondale. Or... well, you get the idea. Or, you ought to if your parents are getting any value out of the money they're spending sending you to University of Minnesota.

Go study, child. You desperately need it.

J.

Yep, referring to someone a... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Yep, referring to someone as a chimp, moron, idiot, Hitler, etc., is hating the policy and not the person.

Riiiiiiight.

Ok, Democrat guys, keep in ... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

Ok, Democrat guys, keep in mind this isn't a jab at those of you who have posted here -- obviously, you're all the sane, normal kind of Democrat we'd like to see more of (no, really, I'm serious) -- but....

First things first, I can't really think of anything that Bush has done domestically that I like aside from tax stuff, and even that I can find a lot of fault with. I also think he really fumbled in making his case for war. I like some of the proposed tax reforms. That aside, I am in no way a Bush cheerleader.

There really is a *lot* of "Bush hatred" out there. It's pretty obvious that most of my peers hate the man and not his policies when they cannot actually name any of his policies, let alone comment intelligently on them, other than, "um, like, dude... he lied, and, um, yeah, war is bad..." This is not hyperbole -- of course, some of the same people said such profound things as "Clinton was a great president because he passed national health care!" (oh really? I didn't seem to notice last time I paid for dental work in cash.... rofl)

Of course, there are obnoxious fringe 'conservatives' who spout all sorts of "God hates fags!" BS. But they don't get seats of honor at GOP events, they don't win film making awards, and they don't have legions of adoring fans.

Now, I really disliked Clinton back in the day, for a number of reasons. But I still had to admit he was a charismatic guy and a good politician. I wasn't carrying on and accusing him of having some evil plan to destroy the world, like so many of the moonbats (both student and faculty) I hear every day. Mother of all ironies, now I'd rather have Clinton back than deal with some of the Dems around today.

Insta, perhaps we DO want you to win; deal with it. I don't think most of us want the GOP to have a solid grip on the government any more than you do. Democrats.... please... get your act together.

Brad - sounds like you are pretty much a classical liberal, FDRish economic parts aside. It's too bad many in your party aren't; Dem support for affirmative action doesn't quite strike me as falling under "treating everyone alike under the law" (the old opportunity vs result argument) And for the vocal moonbat segment, "support for human rights" means "screaming loudly that the US is always the bad guy".

I think Democrats sh... (Below threshold)
jack rudd:


I think Democrats should continue to guzzle their Kool-Aid with gusto.

FDR's original vision of so... (Below threshold)

FDR's original vision of social security included private accounts to social security anyway.

" Democracy could have been... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

" Democracy could have been achieved at a lower cost than what has been paid, in $ and lives and limbs."
Yup. Whenever you are talking about something that someone else has already done, it's always possible to find areas that could have been done better. Hindsight is 20/20 after all.

But that's not my main objection to that statement. Sure, Democracy COULD have been achieved by other means; anything COULD happen. The question is: WOULD it have happened differently? If the Dems were in the White House the U.N. resolutions would never have been enforced and Saddam would still be in power.

Patrick Chester writ... (Below threshold)
s9:

Patrick Chester writes: Yep, referring to someone as a chimp, moron, idiot, Hitler, etc., is hating the policy and not the person. Riiiiiiight.

Oh please. Like we're supposed to believe that all you conservatarians are really prone to collapsing with the vapors every time somebody on the other side of the political fence resorts to the same cheap rhetorical tactics that your side uses all the damned time.

Somebody fetch the smelling salts. A dirty, hairy hippy called the President a moron. The parishoners are fainting left and right. They're all dropping into fetal positions and clawing at their ears. I fear the whole conventicle may be driven into shrill, unholy madness by the very idea.

Okay, Mr. and Mrs. Etiquette, here's an idea: if you don't like the level of discourse, then stay out of the argument. American politics has long been a name-calling contest, and it isn't going to get better anytime soon.

I'm ever so sorry to see your delicate flower-like sensibilities shrivel up and wilt on account of the nasty things those Democrats keep saying about Our Dear Fatherly Leader— but, maybe if you stopped calling them treasonous enemies of freedom who want to enslave everyone, your concerns might get a more friendly reception.

Or maybe not. It might just be that you have to choose between 1) finding a way to meet on common ground with us despite our dirty, hairy hippy ways, and 2) rounding us all up and turning us into organic landfill.

I must be missing something... (Below threshold)
fgirstbrokenangel:

I must be missing something here...........

WHAT CONSEQUENCES????


Cindy

RE: Dr. Forbush's post (Feb... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Dr. Forbush's post (February 22, 2005 07:24 PM)
...Since George W. Bush has lead the Republican Party and the country there are very few thing that he has done that I could applaud. In fact, the few things that he has done right he was either forced into doing or they were accidents of his original mistakes.

OK, so you've conceded that he has accomplished some things positive in spite of himself. Could you expound on a few of those? What would you attribute to Bush as a success in which he was the proponent? Oops, nevermind. According to you, none exist. Let's try a different tack. What successes were forced past him? And which resulted from an "original mistake"?

Very well said.I'm... (Below threshold)
Chris Josephson:

Very well said.

I'm an Indep. who believes our country needs two strong parties. I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and others. I don't have a loyalty to any one party.

It disturbs me to see the Democrats being taken over by the Left. What I see, so far, does not appeal to me. I see anger and conspiracy theories being the no. 1 topic for most Democrats.

Get rid of the anger. Stop chasing conspiracy theories. Stop trashing the US.

Tell me what plans you have for our country. Take a few months' vacation from the Bush bashing and tell me what your plans are.

Republicans should also realize that you could lose the support you have if you veer too far to the right. Don't take the support you have from Indeps., and others, for granted.

s9: What did that strawman ... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

s9: What did that strawman do to warrant such a beating from you? Nice way to dodge the issue--no wait, it's a hopelessly clumsy way. The overwrought melodrama kind of detracts from it.

Should I point out your policy of putting words in my mouth and attributing beliefs I don't hold is bad? Little things like:

but, maybe if you stopped calling them treasonous enemies of freedom who want to enslave everyone, your concerns might get a more friendly reception.

Odd, I don't recall doing the above. Nor have I used the word "hippy" to describe my opponents. I would use the term "boorish ass" to describe you specifically, though that's because you pretty much earned it with your whole diatribe. Congratulations!

Jay, I cannot emph... (Below threshold)
Clive Tolson:

Jay,

I cannot emphasize enough, how your admonition of my party is utterly worthless in it's disingenuous 'candor', and how your lack of credible evidence only exposes a post rife with ad hominem 'advice'.

Long ago, when someone from the Right accused me of being a 'Bush hater' or of 'loathing' him, I figured out it was an attempt to avoid debating credible criticism of his policies and incompetence. By labeling my argument as being purely personal, you don't have to try to defend him.

What else makes such advice an utter joke, is that it clearly comes from someone who has not effectively had his views challenged - probably ever. And, do not mistake when 1 or 2 lefties like me wander into Wizbang's comments thread as challenge enough, until you try holding your own in a Daily Kos thread, and earn some respect for your opinion.

What is so conspicuous about your post, is the lack of a single live link. If you're gonna preach how we don't stand FOR anything, and only AGAINST everything - an example would be nice.

Truth is a powerful force, and we have it in an abundance. It's what drives me to come here and debate, and what keeps you here, determined to avoid it. We're at a big disadvantage, fighting your control over the media. But, the Social Security debate proved some of that truth is getting through.

Paul Chester writes:... (Below threshold)
s9:

Paul Chester writes: Should I point out your policy of putting words in my mouth and attributing beliefs I don't hold is bad?

Nice. I suppose it never crossed your mind to read the word "you" in my post above as a usage of the second-person plural, as opposed to the singular.

If you've been paying attention, you noticed that I haven't called the President a moron or a chimp either. Did I get all huffy about you "putting words in my mouth" or anybody else's mouth? No. I'm fully aware that a lot of folks on my side of the fence are very quick to call the President such names, and I see no reason to join the wingnuts in rebuking them for it. Are you willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with the equivalents on your side? Doesn't seem so...

It's interesting, as soon as you encounter a political adversary who won't start bawling like an injured toddler at the first accusation of their engaging in rude and low discourse, that is when your type suddenly discovers your sensitive and caring side and the deep and heartfelt need to keep the discourse civil and free of low-minded insults. Where is that concern all the rest of the time, when folks like Paul come out and openly use eliminationist rhetoric to describe liberals as traitors?

It's quite apparent. If you're a conservatarian, you are never responsible for the statements and views of your more extremist fellows. If you're not a conservatarian, though, then you and Ward Churchill might as well be sharing the same brain. Isn't that how it works around here?

fgirstbrokenangel wr... (Below threshold)
s9:

fgirstbrokenangel writes: WHAT CONSEQUENCES????

If you have to ask, then you don't need to know— the answers will be provided to you on an as-needed, just-in-time basis.

Fine, Clive. You say I didn... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Fine, Clive. You say I didn't provide a single "live link" to support my letter. I wasn't trying to "prove" anything, simply spell out my perceptions of matters as a more-than-interested observer. If you'd care to show me a few positive initiatives by Democrats today, be my guest.

For example, you stated that "the Social Security debate proved" a few things. As far as I can tell, that debate is still going on, and all the "truth" I've heard from Democrats is that "there's no crisis, so we better not do anything!" That sentiment runs contrary to years of statements from both sides (most notably, Clinton in '98) and common sense.

And while I haven't actually gone into Kos threads before, I have gotten into a few fights over at oliverwillis.com, and more than held my own. (See here, here, and here). Kos lost all respect from me with his "screw them" reaction to the U.S. contractors butchered in Fallujah, and made that permanent when he allowed his flunkies to attempt to screw Kevin's polls last fall.

But fine, Clive. Ignore my advice. Just be prepared if, within 50 years, the Democratic Party is listed in history books next to Whigs and Federalists.

On the day that happens, Clive, I will be saddened. But then I'll think of you, whining and sputtering and fuming ineffectively, and it'll be the silver lining on the cloud.

J.

RE: s9's post (February 23,... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: s9's post (February 23, 2005 04:25 AM)

"Conservatarian"?

As in:

Conservatarian.org - The Conservatarian Party web site. Every Conservatarian is a governor; a governor of themselves. We actively oppose the government's invasion into our lives and earnestly work to restore America back to what our forefathers had envisioned for this great country.

I've seen you use this term a number of times before, generally in derogatory context, and I just want to be clear to what you refer. Is my reference correct or do you have something else in mind?

RE: Clive "Fill-in-the-Blan... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Clive "Fill-in-the-Blank" Tolson (February 23, 2005 02:42 AM)

And, do not mistake when 1 or 2 lefties like me wander into Wizbang's comments thread as challenge enough, until you try holding your own in a Daily Kos thread, and earn some respect for your opinion.

You are, of course, assuming you've earned some respect for your opinion. ;D

I'd say O.Willis and Kos are on par in attitude and vitriol. I tried to debate logically at O.Willis and it was hopeless. A thoughtful center-left blogger (Pennywit) stopped by and introduced reasonable banter after a while but the rest was an exercise in tedium. You just have to read it to believe it. I've not been back not because I couldn't take the heat but because of the futility of it all. Why waste time when blogging and blog commenting is such a time sink already?

The visitors here, while partisan and occasionally boisterous, are considerably more polite than either the O.Willis or Kos communities. I'd say Kos is off the charts but, hey, their bits and bytes - let 'em pixellate all over themselves.

I think what is worrying me... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I think what is worrying me, is that if the liberals in this thread don't think that the left is motivated/stuck/consumed by hatred for Bush, what would they consider hatred for Bush.

And the Dems absolutely lack a message right now. They have almost no ideas other than-"Bush is for it, so we are against it."

s9 writes:"America... (Below threshold)
LJD:

s9 writes:

"American politics has long been a name-calling contest"

Stupid wanker.

All points well taken. but ... (Below threshold)
Rod Stanton:

All points well taken. but - the Dem party has been taken over by "progressives" who are living in 1929. None of your points will be acted upon soon. Look no farther than the extremists Dr. Dean and Sen Reid as two recent "progressives" recently elected to head branches of the party.

Jay is right-on in his anal... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

Jay is right-on in his analysis of the lack of a Democratic message. Let's just look at one of the Democrats (albeit temporary) Golden Boys.

When Wesley Clark was the great-white-hope of the Dems, his whole entire candidacy was based on, "If the President says it is day, then I say it is night." Every time, the President made a statement about anything, Clark immediately made a statement claiming the exact opposite. Not one time did he ever actually state what his position on any issue was other than to say it was the opposite of the Administration's position.

With Clark being from Arkansas, we saw this every single day on the local news. They were quick to shove a microphone in his face and ask about every little detail of every little thing, but they always got the same answer: the President is wrong.

It has been mentioned that the Dems problem iis that they don't listen to their base. Had they listened to their "base," they would have run Howard Dean. That could well have led to the first electoral clean sweep in the history of U.S. elections.

Steve L: You were doing fi... (Below threshold)
Lugnut:

Steve L: You were doing fine until the very last sentence.

Steve L sez: "Had they lis... (Below threshold)
MMM:

Steve L sez: "Had they listened to their "base," they would have run Howard Dean."

Steve L seems confused about the Demo base, which ousted the, um... 'excitable' Dean rather decisively in the primaries (knighted the "front runner" by the MSM, Dean never got more than 30% of the vote in any primary except his home state, which he won, but which came after he had dropped out).

Indeed, wooden headed Demos remain clueless to the fact that their "base" is moving rightward, albeit in measured steps, because of the squawking lunacy that has taken control (note to Jay: and also because of what the Dems stand for) . And so the loons look around and seeing only other loons proclaim, "This is our base!"

Sad, yet strangely entertaining at the same time.

Dean will prove more worth to Repubs than to Demos, another notion the Dems are deaf, dumb, and blind to. The MSM loves him, will follow him like a hungry dog, and he just can't keep his mouth shut. Care to take a guess of how many black votes went up on the fence because of Dean's latest comments?

Howard "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for" Dean typifies the point Jay was trying to get across (although I think Jay only saw one tree in the forest). Rather than biting toungue as Jay suggests the Dems, under Dean's "leadership", are not only going to continue to aim mindless hate at a single person, they are embarking on taking the hate to scorched earth levels.

If you Dems think ya'all can win on that platform, please do keep trying.


Hey Patrick, don't mind s9,... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Hey Patrick, don't mind s9, he is an angry, confused liberal who is afraid to say so. Let me share with you one of his quotes from 2/8/05, "Oh, and for the record: I'm not a Democrat." it can be found here...

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005017.php#048464

...and here is a quote of his from today...

"It might just be that you have to choose between 1) finding a way to meet on common ground with us (democrats) despite our dirty, hairy hippy ways, and 2) rounding us (democrats) all up and turning us (democrats) into organic landfill."

Hey, s9, where are my copies of the official Pentagon reports about our military "murdering, torturing and terrorizing" that you promised me?

AnonymousDrivel writ... (Below threshold)
s9:

AnonymousDrivel writes: "Conservatarian"?

Hmmm... who knows what that "conservatarian.org" site is all about. It looks like it's under construction to me.

I use the word "conservatarian" to describe the sort of pseudo-conservative ideology now driving the formation of doctrine in the American right. These people have hijacked the word "conservative" to identify themselves, in the process rejecting the ideas of what Americans have historically regarded as conservative.

So I use the "conservatarian" instead (don't remember where I picked it up). It sort of looks like the same kind of conflation that produced the word "libertarian" rather than the obviously clearer alternative: liberative. Which is appropriate, because most American libertarians today have about as much interest in real Liberty as conservatives do in conservation.

There is no Democratic Part... (Below threshold)

There is no Democratic Party.

There are only Republicans and Anti-Republicans.

For a long time, Republicans were merely anti-Democrats. Then one day Newt Gingrich figured out they had to stand for something, and the Contract with America was born and swept Repubs into power.

Kevin Hayden,You m... (Below threshold)

Kevin Hayden,

You mean the hundreds of thousands Saddam put in mass graves?

D-Hoggs writes: H... (Below threshold)
s9:

D-Hoggs writes: Hey Patrick, don't mind s9, he is an angry, confused liberal who is afraid to say so. Let me share with you one of his quotes from 2/8/05, "Oh, and for the record: I'm not a Democrat."

My liberal friends seem to want to think I'm a liberal, and I am a liberal in the classical sense of the word— though absolutely not in the sense commonly used here by the sponsors of Wizbang (and other conservatarian idea farms around the web).

I'm not a Democrat. I haven't been a Democrat since 1994. I have not disclosed my party affiliation, nor do I plan to do so here. (It's not hard to find out what it is, though.)

You misinterpreted me when you inserted all those "democrats" parenthetically into that quote. I wasn't talking about only Democrats. I was talking about a larger faction that includes many Democrats as well as others who are not Democrats.

D-Hoggs writes: Hey, s9, where are my copies of the official Pentagon reports about our military "murdering, torturing and terrorizing" that you promised me?

I never promised to provide them to you.

It's a stupid demand for you to make anyway, as I'm sure you must realize. No one could provide the actual reports to you— they're probably freaking classified.

The best any of us can actually do is to read press reports about them, which were never denied, produced from interviews with official military spokesmen who confirmed that the reports exist and what they contain. Rather than believe in a massive conspiracy to deceive Americans with a terrible lie about murder torture and terror conducted by American military personnel, which would have to involve military spokesmen as well as reporters and editors at several prestigious news organizations, it seems safe to assume that the primary [probably classified] sources really do exist and that the press reports of them are accurate about their central charges. That's what I did. It's what you should do too.

If you can't find these reports in any of countless news archives on the web, then that's your problem— not mine. I am not here to do your homework for you.

No s9, it seems much safer ... (Below threshold)

No s9, it seems much safer to assume those tales of "murder torture and terror" were simply a combination of a few genuine bad apples and vicious lies on the part of the anti-military Left.

editors at several prest... (Below threshold)

editors at several prestigious news organizations

You mean like Eason Jordan, Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Josh Howard...? Not to mention all the ones still out there who just aren't stupid enough to get caught.

See s9, once again you are ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

See s9, once again you are talking over yourself, you blatantly said "the Pentagon kept confirming it (murdering, torturing and terrorizing) in official press releases."

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005017.php#048610

I have yet to see ONE press report in which the Pentagon CONFIRMS that the militery has murdered, tortured and terrorized. Seems to me that you do believe in "massive conspiracy". Don't try to go on saying that you are making assumptions based on press reports because you have already stated that you believe the military to be a "murdering, torturing, terroristic regime"

I rather enjoy this quote, "it seems safe to assume that the primary [probably classified] sources really do exist and that the press reports of them are accurate about their central charges. That's what I did. It's what you should do too." Sorry s9 but I don't really subscribe to your moon-battery and "fake but accurate" beliefs. But I do think its safe to assume that you are talking out of your ass, and you should too.

As far as "misinterpreting" you, you SPECIFICALLY point to DEMOCRATS in your post and no on else, and continue referring to "them" and in turn "us". So its not tough to assume that once again you've been called out and are trying to make excuses.

You know, s9, you say you a... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

You know, s9, you say you are a liberal in the "classical" sense of the word, does that mean like the definition sense? Cause that would be "a member or supporter of a liberal political party". I believe the answer lies in your words, "though absolutely not in the sense commonly used here by the sponsors of Wizbang". Basically you are a liberal and are afraid to say it, as I said before. You see how liberals, and in turn, you, are personified here and elsewhere, and you hate it. So you try to come up with some ridiculous arguments that span from, I am not a Democrat, to find a way to meet US on common ground, and from I AM a liberal, in the classical sense (whatever the hell that means) but I am NOT a liberal, in your sense, sounds to me like you're having an identity crisis.

RE: s9's post (February 23,... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: s9's post (February 23, 2005 12:53 PM)
Hmmm... who knows what that "conservatarian.org" site is all about. It looks like it's under construction to me.
You're getting a bit lazy on your research. That site may not be "live" but that doesn't mean it is the only site to describe the word. I Googled "conservatarian" and the second or third link offered a truly valid definition of the term which is why I thought that it was the one to which you referenced. Thanks for your clarification nonetheless.

I'm afraid you may have picked up a contrivance from another confused writer that did not know how to spell or was confused. I could be wrong and it is a term floated in certain smaller spheres - I don't know for sure. At least now I'll have some idea of what you're talking about when applied liberally.

"kind of conflation" - that seems right

RE: TallDave's post (Februa... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: TallDave's post (February 23, 2005 01:01 PM)

There are only Republicans and Anti-Republicans.
An effective use of KISS - efficient separation of wheat from chaff in both brevity and interpretation.

...Then one day Newt Gingrich figured out they had to stand for something, and the Contract with America was born and swept Repubs into power.
A historical truism, the origins of which benefitted from Perot's followers who were disgruntled with the status quo. Can a Gingrich-Rice ticket for '08 be far behind?

D-Hoggs writes: ... (Below threshold)
s9:

D-Hoggs writes: Don't try to go on saying that you are making assumptions based on press reports because you have already stated that you believe the military to be a "murdering, torturing, terroristic regime"

That's a bald-faced lie. I have never described the U.S. Armed Forces as a murdering, torturing, terroristic regime. I was about to take pity on you and do the legwork to dig up the press reports you can't seem to find on your own, but— if you can't keep yourself from LYING so egregiously, then you can just go "Cheney" yourself.

TallDave writes: ... (Below threshold)
s9:

TallDave writes: No s9, it seems much safer to assume those tales of "murder torture and terror" were simply a combination of a few genuine bad apples and vicious lies on the part of the anti-military Left.

Ah yes, the "few bad apples" excuse. That would be a lot more plausible if the United States were not actively trying to defend its refusal to take even minimal steps to comply with the requirements Convention Against Torture to prevent the abuse and torture of prisoners.

TallDave continues: You mean like Eason Jordan, Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Josh Howard...?

No. I do not. I seem to recall that these stories came over the AP, UPI, Reuters and AFP wires. They have never been denied by the Pentagon.

The fact remains. U.S. military personnel have been found to be murdering, torturing and terrorizing people, and the Pentagon continues to refuse to take any effective measures to prevent such crimes from happening in the future.

Go ahead and cling to the "few bad apples" hand-wavery, if it will help you assuage the guilt you must feel. In the meantime, over here on my side of the fence— where we have consistently opposed murder, torture and terrorism no matter who is responsible for it— I'll be laughing my ass off that the sources of information that you people continually trot out to back you up on the horror stories of the human rights record of the Saddam Hussein regime are the same sources who are now collecting and distributing similar horror stories about the human rights record of the United States.

Suddenly, those people aren't so believable now. Same people. Same methods. Same basic agenda. Only now it's Americans with the bloody hands— so they have to be lying. Funny how that doesn't take any credibility away from any of their other previous reports you prefer to continue believing.

s9, you are out of your fli... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

s9, you are out of your flipping mind. I am a bald faced-liar huh? I included a link above where you most definitely described the U.S. Armed Forces as a murdering, torturing, terroristic regime. Here is the link again,

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005017.php#048602

And I will take pity on you and paste the specific quote as well since you neither remember ridiculous statements you make, nor know how to use a link to get to them.

s9— "And, wouldn't it be nice if America had not removed a murdering, torturing, terroristic regime and replaced it with one that wears an American uniform while it murders, tortures and terrorizes Iraqis? That would have been so nice, but alas— THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, wasn't it?"

Sounds to me like s9 is calling the U.S. Army a murdering, torturing, terrorizing regime now doesn't it. Boy, he even accentuates his belief by saying THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Get your facts straight before you accuse someone of being a liar, especailly when the facts are your own personal quotes.

You know, s9, PIMF is a goo... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

You know, s9, PIMF is a good acronym to know. Or was it a Freudian slip of some sort when you call me "Paul"?

If you've been paying attention, you noticed that I haven't called the President a moron or a chimp either. Did I get all huffy about you "putting words in my mouth" or anybody else's mouth? No.

I didn't attribute them to you and listed them as examples that might imply one hates a particular person instead of his policies. Oddly enough, your entire diatribe response to me does sound rather huffy, or deranged. In it, you went ballistic and started ranting about quite a few things including pretending I was getting all fainty in response to insults against the current President. Do try another dodge attempt, little one.

That paragraph above is directed at "you" in the singular sense, btw.

Where is that concern all the rest of the time, when folks like Paul come out and openly use eliminationist rhetoric to describe liberals as traitors?

Ah good. In addition to "but MOM they do it too" you go to "but MOM, what about what he did". Typical. I guess your objection is that I'm not your mother. Oops, did I just put words in your mouth? You may now get huffy. Again.

Oh well. Please keep doing what you do, just please don't have the audacity to whine when you keep losing elections.

D-Hoggs: He's certainly angry, at the least. Projecting most definitely. My initial comment could be seen as sarcasm, but lo and behold s9 reads an amazing multi-paragraph-length spectrum of huffiness and faintheartedness into the whole thing. Methinks he's reading quite a bit of himself into it.

Allow me to point out that ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Allow me to point out that s9 has ONCE AGAIN conveniently excused himself from producing these reports in which the Pentagon CONFIRMS that the US military tortures, murders and terrrorizes.

Patrick, me thinks you are ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Patrick, me thinks you are absolutely correct.

Specific quote from S9 on t... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Specific quote from S9 on the link D-Hoggs provided:
"And, wouldn't it be nice if America had not removed a murdering, torturing, terroristic regime and replaced it with one that wears an American uniform while it murders, tortures and terrorizes Iraqis? That would have been so nice, but alas— THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, wasn't it?"

(...it's towards the bottom of the quote, but read the entire comment since it reveals much of the world s9 lives in.)

Wow, this is like Usenet after DejaNews came out. Go on, s9. Shriek away.

....twould be helpful if I'... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

....twould be helpful if I'd noticed D-Hoggs provided the quote in question. Oops. Oh well, my comment about Usenet and DejaNews is still valid. ;)

Yeah, I posted that again a... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Yeah, I posted that again a few posts up, apparently s9 blacks out during his moon-bat rants and can't remember what he says...then accuses others of lying. Thanks for checking into it Patrick.

....I also noticed that on ... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

....I also noticed that on this thread and others, *s9* is the one who brings up "treason" and "unpatriotic", and claims that is what the icky pooper people who disagree with him are saying. Even if they didn't actually say or write anything like that.

Hm. Something I've seen before. Point out flaws in some people's opposition to Iraq, etc. and get things like: "Don't question my patriotism!" "I support the troops!" in response.

I would trace the Freedom-F... (Below threshold)
Raymond:

I would trace the Freedom-Forward Republican agenda all the way back to Barry Goldwater

That torch has been carried by John F Kennedy, and Reagan picked it up when the JFK Democrats vanishied.

Yes Newt deserves credit too.

One cannot Ignore the effects of leaders carrying such a torch, in that its shared much more brightly among the grass roots, to the extent that future leaders will benifit when they hold it up.

Really smart for Bush to embrace that theme, because the support and enthusiasm for Freedom is already out here among us.

Amazing that a Moonbat would mention mass murder, something wholly belonging to thugish CommuNazi's that called themselves socialists

If you want to find mass graves, you have to look at places ruled or once ruled by those calling themselves socialists.

Baath Socialist, National Socialist, Soviet Socialist, the Red Khimer Socialists

Socialists even murdered by death quotas.
(USSR, Veitmin)

Murders by Socialists
Soviet Union,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1917-1987,,,,,,,,61,911,000
Communist China,,,,,,,,,1949-1987,,,,,,,,35,236,000
Nazi Germany,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1933-1945,,,,,,,,20,946,000
Cambodia,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1975-1979,,,,,,,,,,2,035,000
Vietnam,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1945-1987,,,,,,,,,,1,678,000
North Korea,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1948-1987,,,,,,,,,,1,663,000
Poland.........................1945-1948,,,,,,,,,,,1,585,000
Yugoslavia (Tito)...........1944-1987,,,,,,,,,,1,072,000

Mass murder and leftism go together.

Leftism is the opposite of freedom

Brad listed

. .2.) Ends do not justify means. Democracy could have been achieved at a lower cost than what has been paid, in $ and lives and limbs.

Thats stupid if you have no alternate means to the same ends. "could have" isnt a plan, just like "I Have a Plan" isnt a plan.

. .3.) Democrats stand for human rights, universal health care,

Socialised medicine is anti freedom,

. .reproductive freedom,

Killing babies is a weird way of looking at freedom

. .separation of church and state,

Thats been America since its founding, but the leftist attacks on freedom of religion is what we see you doing, both are in there and you use one to deny the other, this is a perversion of our freedom

. . the rights of all citizens to be treated equally under the law regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation,

Kool, but the Democrats advocacy of special rights grants violate that. so what you offer is a fraud.

. . Social Security, and a living wage

Communism Socialism, dont work, well except for leftist terror states where a person has the rights of a cow.

. .4.) Democrats have been losing because they aren't listening to advice from their base but rather from outsiders who do not share our interests. Did the Republicans ask the Democrats what they needed to do in 1965?

Did they need to? or did they just need to pay attention, and formulate an agenda, like the Freedom-Forward agneda, that we used to go on the offensive.

As long as the democrats sleep with marxists, are forced to share the venue and political agenda with the blood stained religion of 100+ Million murders, untill the leftist socialist blood stained totalitarian taint has been washed from their ranks, I dont think anything is in front of them but the ever steeper downward slope into the abys.


One difference between the ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

One difference between the current president and Reagan and others is that this president actually wants to promote democracy. In the past we had more of a "it doesn't matter who is in charge as long as they aren't communist" attitude, which led to the propping up of some dictators/leaders that weren't so great in the human rights department either.

History shows that the people who are most protected from their government are people who live in democracies. It isn't enough to just be opposed to communism, but to promote democracy, and that is one thing Bush seems to make clear.

D-Hoggs writes: S... (Below threshold)
s9:

D-Hoggs writes: Sounds to me like s9 is calling the U.S. Army a murdering, torturing, terrorizing regime now doesn't it.

Actually, it doesn't sound like that, because that's not what I did. Nice try, but you should try not to jump to conclusions based on your ill-founded prejudices of me.

The U.S. Army was never the regime in Iraq for very long at all, and I see no evidence that any murder, torture or terrorization took place while it was the regime. That was a very brief period of time between the de facto abdication of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of the Coalition Provisional Authority. The U.S. Armed Forces are and have been called upon to project power and deploy force on behalf of the various regimes that have held power in Iraq since the fall of Hussein. My criticisms have always been directed at the regimes— not the troops that use military force on behalf of the regimes and do so under the procedures and rules of engagement set by those regimes.

It's interesting to note that you have no real dispute with the basic facts behind my argument: that American military forces have been found to be murdering, torturing and terrorizing Iraqi civilians. You simply wish to place the blame for this activity on "a few genuine bad apples" among the troops and give the regimes that sponsored it a complete pass. I would be willing to accept that as a legitimate response if 1) the U.S. were not actively resisting any effort to hold it responsible for failing to prevent the murder, torture and terrorization of Iraqi civilians, and 2) the reports of murder, torture and terror were to start tapering off noticeably as a result of efforts on our part to prevent it.

I suppose it never occured to you that my principle complaint about the way these regimes have been ordering the U.S. Armed Forces to do their business has been driven largely by a concern for the integrity of the forces rather that out of the more secondary concern for the rights of Iraqi civilians. No, that would never have occured to you.

That's because you're a fool.

Thiss9 [February 2... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

This

s9 [February 23, 2005 05:11 PM] - ...That [few bad apples excuse for abuse] would be a lot more plausible if the United States were not actively trying to defend its refusal to take even minimal steps to comply with the requirements Convention Against Torture to prevent the abuse and torture of prisoners. [emphasis ADriveler and calling this entire statement hogwash]

preceded this

s9 [February 23, 2005 05:11 PM] - The fact remains. U.S. military personnel have been found to be murdering, torturing and terrorizing people, and the Pentagon continues to refuse to take any effective measures to prevent such crimes from happening in the future. [more hogwash]

which was repeated

s9 [(via D-Hoggs' reference to s9 on another thread) at February 23, 2005 05:26 PM] — And, wouldn't it be nice if America had not removed a murdering, torturing, terroristic regime and replaced it with one that wears an American uniform while it murders, tortures and terrorizes Iraqis? That would have been so nice, but alas— THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, wasn't it?

which was criticized for its unfounded insinuation and was subsequently followed by

s9 [February 24, 2005 08:54 PM] - The U.S. Army was never the regime in Iraq for very long at all, and I see no evidence that any murder, torture or terrorization took place while it was the regime.

I think I've just witnessed the splitting of the world's finest hair or just a futile attempt to backtrack. Throughout, s9, you have implied that the U.S. military as policy utilizes murdering, torturing, and terrorism without any direct support except to say that the press has provided such reports and that the documented evidence by the military is likely priveledged and unavailable. You back this contention by saying that the Pentagon's non-denial of such documented events or policy is evidence. You have accused the "United States", "U.S. military personnel", the "Pentagon", and "America" of varying levels of complicity in "murdering, torturing, [and] terror[ism]" as policy without a shred of proof and then tried to say that you saw "no evidence that any murder, torture or terrorization took place while it [U.S. Army] was the regime" when challenged.

Would you please retract your scurillous charge or elucidate more clearly your position in view of these inconsistencies? I don't know if you know if you are coming or going here. Maybe it's just me but I'm not following your logic or backtracking.

s9, my "ill-founded prejudi... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

s9, my "ill-founded prejudice" of you is that you are an ABSOLUTE MORON.

ONCE AGAIN, I will quote myself... "Sounds to me like s9 is calling the U.S. Army a murdering, torturing, terrorizing regime now doesn't it."

To which you reply..."Actually, it doesn't sound like that, because that's not what I did. Nice try, but you should try not to jump to conclusions..."

Right after you say that, you make this baffling statement..."It's interesting to note that you have no real dispute with the basic facts behind my argument: that American military forces have been found to be murdering, torturing and terrorizing Iraqi civilians."

What in the HELL is the matter with you?!?! You blatantly say that your argument is that American military forces have been found to be murdering, torturing and terrorizing Iraqi civilians. Not to mention I have blatantly called bulls#*t on your claim, contrary to what you say of me.

Previously you stated... "wouldn't it be nice if America had not removed a murdering, torturing, terroristic regime and replaced it with one that wears an American uniform while it murders, tortures and terrorizes Iraqis? That would have been so nice, but alas— THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, wasn't it?" Right before calling me a liar because I QUOTED you as saying exactly that.

You have your head so far up your ass.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy