We need to keep the liars out
Post below recycled from Ace. See the original for links
I've been taking some flak from commenters for insisting that McCain must win in November. As I've said before, it's not because McCain is going to make a great president or achieve much for Republicans. It's because the alternative is so very much worse. That's what crossed my mind when I saw the following. What follows is the type of thinking that you will see in the White House should the Democrats win in November. WARNING: it is a concentrated example of the half-truths, distortions, and outright lies that passes for foreign policy discussion on the Left. And if you're anything like me, it's really going to make you mad.
So let's recap the scene: the US military and its Iraqi "allies" are laying siege to a sprawling neighborhood in Baghdad housing roughly 2.5 million Iraqis, launching air strikes, artillery attacks, tank shells and other assorted ordnance, shutting down hospitals and bombing others, cutting off the supply of food and walling off entire sectors of the embattled region, causing a refugee crisis by their actions - and now actually pursuing a policy with the intent of creating a larger refugee crisis!
Witness the liar's casual blend of truth and falsity, used to imply malicious intent that doesn't exist. It's true that U.S. and Iraqi forces are fighting to take and keep control of portions of Sadr City and that one hospital was shut down and another damaged in a bombing. It is also true that the U.S. is building a concrete barrier through the city.
It is absolutely false that the hospital was bombed intentionally--as the liar implies--or that the U.S. has cut off food to the city. In fact, the article he links to (which we will, for now, assume is accurate) notes that the U.S. military is distributing food and medical supplies. This is curiously omitted from the liar's post, given how concerned he is about the residents of Sadr City. According to the article, the Red Crescent estimates that only 6% of the city's population have experienced food, water, or medical shortages during the weeks of fighting. More than that, it also notes that the "refugee crisis" which he blames on the U.S. and Iraqi forces hasn't actually materialized.
It is also manifestly untrue that the intent of the U.S./Iraqi operation is to create a "larger refugee crisis." In fact, the idea is to put an end to mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone, U.S. military bases, and civilian areas which are coming out of parts of Sadr City. Confusion about the difference between purposeful goals and regrettable, unintended, but unavoidable consequences is not unusual on the Left. The twisted morality that disregards intent makes claims of moral equivalence so much easier. The liar's most pernicious distortion comes next:
For what reason: because a majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia, that oppose our presence. Can't have that. Because we have to keep 150,000 troops in Iraq to safeguard the Iraqi people. After all, whose gonna set up the tents in the refugee catch basins we so magnanimously helped set up to receive the overflow from our relentless assault on political movements that would make it harder for us to stay in Iraq. To safeguard the Iraqi people.
He thinks that the U.S. is targeting Sadr City merely because a "political movement, a militia" that opposes the U.S. hides in its slums. He makes no mention of the roadside, car, and market bombings, and rocket and mortar attacks that the Mahdi Army has committed. He ignores the Mahdi Army's attacks on Sunni mosques and attempts to "cleanse" a portion of the city of Sunni Arabs. Conveniently forgotten is journalist Steven Vincent who was killed almost certainly by members of that "political movement."
This distortion, wherein the Left imputes political animus to the U.S. government, is shameful, dreadful stuff. It is a mild flavor of conspiracy theory. The obvious purpose--American and Iraqi authorities want the Madhi Army to stop killing people--is disregarded in favor of a dubious, but oh-so-satisfyingly nefarious one: the Americans and their Iraqi stooges are "relentlessly attacking political groups." Another Leftist recently in the news, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, would no doubt agree. He's also fond of malicious government conspiracies.
This is the type of person you are inviting to enter the center ring when you say "we can wait 'til 2012." Democratic voters, Democratic thinkers, Obama's staff and advisers--these are the people you are flirting with when you say "McCain will do so much damage to the Republican Party." Consider for a minute how much damage these people will do to the United States. This is why the Left must lose in November. I'm not asking you to vote for John McCain. I'm asking you to vote against having a Leftist in the White House.
A few words about the email I get: I do get a LOT of email. Most of it is positive but even when it is critical I am pleased to get it. I do learn from informed criticism and am delighted when I do. The contrast in quality between email I get from conservatives and Leftists is great, however. Reasoned email from Leftists is rare. Leftist email and Leftist comments posted on my blogs consist generally of unreferenced assertions. They seem to think that I must take their word for what they say. Evidence is unnecessary! Comments of that kind left on my blogs I simply delete, of course.
A word of apology however: I DO read all the emails I receive and I reply to lots of them. But I just do not have time to reply to all. Please therefore do not take umbrage if I fail to reply. It just means that I am pushed for time. Since I post daily to 15 blogs, you may understand that! Recommendations for articles that I should look at I often do not reply to. I often accept the recommendation and put the article up somewhere. That seems to me to be a good reply.
More on high fuel prices: "With oil prices closing above $125 a barrel of oil on Friday, angry politicians are blaming the higher prices on everything from speculators to greedy oil companies. Last week some Democratic Senators demanded "urgent action . . . to adequately investigate whether speculators are driving up prices." Democrats are proposing to protect the American people from "greedy oil traders who manipulate the market." ... Putting aside the fact that having politicians blame oil companies is a bit hypocritical - U.S. oil companies have paid more than three times in taxes to the government than they have earned in profits over the last 25 years - higher taxes on profits will reduce production and increase prices. A higher tax on profits will mean fewer investments in producing oil and that in turn will mean less production in the future. Ironically, Democrats won the 2006 elections and took control of both the House and the Senate by promising they would reduce gas prices. Yet, with regular gas now selling above $3.67 a gallon, Americans can only longingly remember the average prices of about $2.20 a gallon that Democrats were complaining about in early November 2006. The Democrats' bigger sin is that they seem to have no understanding of how markets work.
The Recession of 2008 That Wasn't? "More bad news for the Recession Hysteria Pimps. The professionals whose income depends on accurate economic forecasts, as recently as 5/8/2008, continue to forecast economic growth in every quarter of 2008. Remember, The Conference Board has been in the business of providing accurate economic forecasts for "over 90 years". The Conference Board predicted 0.4% GDP growth for Q1 of 2008. And, the advance number, 0.6%, beat their forecast. I'm betting their forecast for the rest of the year will be equally accurate. But, nobody in the media wants to allow anybody at The Conference Board to talk about their forecast. Why? Because it's "off script". It won't sell as much advertising and it won't advance the political agenda of those in the media."
With Deepest Condolences To the AP Economics Desk: "According to the Philadelphia Fed, economists are climbing down off the recession ledge (that minority of economists who thought we were on the brink of recession are, anyway). The so-called "Anxious Index" now indicates less than 28% of economists surveyed believe the economy will slip into recession next quarter. Having peaked at 43% this cycle, the AI failed to reach even its lowest of recession-era peaks observed over the last 40 years."
For more postings from me, see OBAMA WATCH, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN.
List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here
The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)