Because I took yesterday off to let things settle down, I’ve got a twofer and I haven’t even had time to go through the dKos or the HuffPo.
First, SadlyGavin from the SadlyNoblog does a classic leftist interpretation of Bill Kristol from his appearance on Fox News Sunday:
What was actually said
Elisabeth Bumiller: How do you define winning the war? What does that mean?
Bill Kristol: A democratic government in Iraq. The country remaining united (with some federation), with the insurgency under control in the sense of not being able to destroy the country or launch a large sectarian civil war. No weapons of mass destruction. No aggression against neighbors. And that’s quite possible, incidentally. I think it was very possible three years ago, and I think it remains possible.
SadlyGavin’s interpretation:
Elizabeth Bumiller: So basically, you mean pretty much how it was before the war.
Bill Kristol: Except without Saddam Hussein in power, yeah, more or less.
Umm, wasn’t Saddam being in charge, funnelling hundreds of thousands of dollars to terrorists, leaving the al Qiada members in his own dictatorship alone to fester and train, committing countless numbers of actual human rights abuses (not the kind that the left likes to point out), using gying children in fake hospitals as PR tools and breaking the 1991 ceasefire agreement the entire problem?
I remember Saddam turning away the option of stepping down from power and taking sanctuary in a country of his choosing before the invasion.
Maybe SadlyGavin forgot?
Next up, we have this video of a campaign commercial from candidate Vernon Robinson (R) from North Carolina’s 13th CD, which John Amato at the CrooksandLiarsblog calls “Sleazy”, “Sick” and “Vile”.
Methinks it is because it has some truth in it.
“You needed that job,” an announcer says. “And you were the best qualified. But they gave it to an illegal alien — so they could pay him under the table. … These illegals pay no taxes, but take our jobs and our government handouts. Then spit in our face. And burn our flag. Well, Vernon Robinson has had enough!”
That is text from the voiceover in the ad, but only the parts that Amato finds objectionable. Do you see anything sleazy, sick or vile in there? Anything not truthful?
I have seen $15+ an hour roofing jobs go from working families to illegal aliens who are happy to be getting less than $10. Almost universally, you have to speak at least some spanish to be able to get a foreman’s job in the homebuilding industry here in Washington State.
You’d figure the Dems would be all for getting those jobs back into the hands of working families, what with how they bitch about “Living Wages” and frightmonger about “The Shrinking Middle Class” all day and night.
But no, because they can root for the illegal immigrant as an underdog, they’re all for the stripping of jobs from actual citizens.
In the comments at C&L, someone sensibly brings up needing to speak spanish when just trying to order fast food in LA. He, of course, gets hammered on, but the one thing I saw in there was some idiot compare the pay received by the non-english speaking customer service representatives, working in America, I might add, to “Slave Wages”.
What the hell do these people smoke? There is no such thing as a “Slave Wage”.
A slave earns nothing in return for their labor, that is why they are called “Slaves”. What is the “Slave” supposed to spend his “slave wages” on, anyway? They’re owned property, they can’t buy anything.
Hyperbole, Invective, Empty Gestures and Moral Sactimony.
This is all the American left has to offer this country.
Slave wages, my ass! Down here in Cali, the growers are worried about a shortage of crop pickers, due to a) tougher border enforcement, and b) the fact that immigrant pickers all quit picking over the last few years and went into construction.
Here, day laborers get $15 per hour. Gardeners get $25. The construction biz isn’t crashing here in Cali as fast as it is elsewhere, in part because of zoning and permit fun. For example, developers that bought properties on spec three years ago now HAVE to develop them, even in a falling market, because otherwise they’ll lose their three-year construction permits. With continued construction jobs, methinks the growers are going to have to pay higher prices than any “slave wages” to entice the pickers back.
Umm, wasn’t Saddam being in charge, funnelling hundreds of thousands of dollars to terrorists, leaving the al Qiada members in his own dictatorship alone to fester and train, committing countless numbers of actual human rights abuses (not the kind that the left likes to point out), using gying children in fake hospitals as PR tools and breaking the 1991 ceasefire agreement the entire problem?
Um, not to break your stride, but I seem to recall that it was primarily about Saddam ‘threatening the US with weapons of mass destruction.’ After that, it was his ‘ties to Al Qaeda,’ and his ‘secret nuclear program’ and a number of other things that turned out not to be true.
We’re now in something like the fourth or fifth set of completely different rationalizations for the war. I notice you didn’t mention ‘spreading democracy’ as the goal. That’s so last year, eh?
I remember Saddam turning away the option of stepping down from power and taking sanctuary in a country of his choosing before the invasion.
Not exactly the case (Saddam’s offer to step down was refused, during that 48-hour period). But this is the standard ‘look what he made us do’ argument.
Take some responsibility. Your boys in Washington wanted to invade Iraq, then they decided on a plan and did it. Don’t be going around like, “If Saddam had only danced the cha-cha, the Bush administration wouldn’t have been forced to invade.”
I mean really now.
SadlyGavin, your “look what he made us do” argument is just plain disgusting.
We were going in whether he liked it or not. We knew and he knew he was in violation of not only every UN resolution they’d ever sent his way but also the 1991 ceasefire (not a peace treaty) his generals signed.
Even worse yet, he was making millions off the “Oil for Food” that his country never saw a cent of.
The problem was that people like you and the Clinton’s were relying on the useless debating society, otherwise known as the United Nations, to keep him in check, when the reality was they were helping him with his violations and the stealing from his country.
Saddam was used to dealing with the United Nations of No-Will and had convinced himself that Bush was made of the same slimy stuff. He found differently.
Which just goes to show that you and every other leftist, UN supporting, weak-kneed fucknozzle would rather talk to the point of inaction instead of getting off your asses and do the right thing.
Doing the right thing is rarely easy, but it is always what should be done. Sadly, SadlyGaving, you and yours haven’t the hutzpah to do more than talk, bitch, moan, whine and wail.
How sad.
Oh and excuse me for forgetting about your accusation that the only reasons for going into Iraq was because of WMD.
Yes, they were the ones pushed most hardest, they were not the only reasons. Maybe you should read more than Juan Cole and the Common Delusions media releases and get your facts straight before attempting to join the discussion from that angle.
The offer was to Saddam to step aside and let his people get on with living. This included him getting out of the country to take refuge in whatever nation that would have him. His offer was to just move out of the main palace; a compete non-starter that ended up with him living in a hole in the ground.
Any other falsities you’d like to spread?
So if the UN is a useless debating society, how do you justify the war by invoking UN resolutions and the oil-for-food program?
I know you’ll think of something. I’m just wondering how off-the-wall it’ll be.
In case you missed it, and I’m sure you did, the ceasefire signed by Saddam’s general’s in 1991 was because of action by the US gathering a coalition and heading off to do what was right.
While we may have been under the eyes of the UN, at the time weren’t wearing blue helmets, meaning that just like in Korea in the 50’s, we were in charge.
Remember, in 1991, it wasn’t a UN mandate that kept us out of Baghdad, it was HW’s idea of how to gather a coalition that did.
We can go into NK anytime we feel they violated their ceasefire agreement. Same as for Iraq. Iraq got their card pulled (that card should have never been handed to them in the first place).
There, SadlyGavin, was that the something you forgot?
By ‘1991 ceasefire’ you mean UN Resolution 687, yes?
I just want to be clear that you’re invoking the authority of international law on one side of the equation, while dismissing it as irrelevant on the other side.
Because see, the thing with laws is that they don’t only apply when you want them to.
Numero Uno, SadlyGavin, there is no such thing as “International Law”. An “international law” would require an “International Police Force” to enforce it, other wisem they are just “international suggestions”. While Interpol has the name, they are not the UN’s police force.
BTW, I might add that your purveyors of “international law” took waited over a month after Iraq agreed to 687 to pass it.
So in case you haven’t got the message that I’m not invoking “international law”, here is a little more information of on the topic of things you forgot.
Two days after the UN finally passed 687, they had to pass 688 to “condem” Iraq’s murdering his civilian population. Four days later, they had to pass 689. A month and a half later, 692. Less than a month after that, 699.
Then came 705, 706, 707, 712 and 715, all within 1991.
Saddam would break your precious “international laws”, see no punishment other than a new “law” to cover the one he broke. After the UN tired of rewriting their “laws”, they just gave up and helped him work his way through the loopholes they were writting into them.
Have you ever heard of a thing called Citizen’s Arrest, SadlyGavin?
If you have a person breaking the law and either threatening you or other someone else, you have the right to perform a citizen’s arrest to stop that person and take them to the police.
But what if the police are not only ignoring the criminal, but actually enabling and assisting them?
You can either leave the area (the easy thing, unless the area is the planet earth), or you can take care of business (the right thing).
I have never stated that OIF was not a war of choice, but I have repeatedly said that it was a good choice and the Right Thing To Do.
So, while you may win the part of the discussion about the UN not coming along, it is a wholly specious point and proof of your preference for sloth instead of actual justice.
And before you and yours attempt to go off on a ‘yellow elephant’ tirade (which we can discuss in a different medium than here), I would like to add that you have no more right to deny someone their pro-invasion position on this matter due to their non-current service in the armed forces than they do denying your point because you: 1. Were never commited to non-invasion enough to become a human shield for Saddam, or 2. Lived under a repressive regime such as Saddam’s.
Anything else I can clarify for you?
See, you’re saying on the one hand that there’s ‘no such thing as international law.’ Yet simultaneously, you’re justifying the war by saying that Saddam violated UN resolutions (i.e. international law).
That’s pretty impressive. I guess I lose this one by TKO; I can’t think of anything to say but ‘wow.’
First off, SadlyGavin, if the postitions were turned and I were a Democrat, you’d be calling it “Nuance”. Kind of like those who demand for immediate withdrawl to “Help” the people of Iraq by switching from the mid-grade sectarian violence to the high-grade sectarian violence of an actual civil war.
Finally, if I have to explain my last comment to you, you’re either acting dense on purpose, or you were just born that way.
First off, SadlyGavin, if the postitions were turned and I were a Democrat, you’d be calling it “Nuanceâ€.
You: There is no such thing as fried chicken.
Me: Um…
You: Saddam stole my fried chicken, therefore there is war.
Me: But how does that…?
You: You are a coward and stupid and bad.
Me: Wait a minute. About that ‘fried chicken’ thing…
You: Ha ha! I win.
You know, I have to go out of town for a few days, so this productive collaboration has to wind down.
But in general, and as a basic principle, if one’s arguments don’t make any logical sense at all, they probably aren’t in synch with reality.
There’s this division between ‘reason’ and ‘rationalization,’ see.
The latter is when you know what’s right, and pull together justifications for it.
The former is when you honestly don’t know what’s right, and try in good faith to find out.
And so forth.
[checks watch]
Wait: I’m you.
Bla-ha-ha! There are many more talk-radio-informed citizens waving their arms in their basements, than are YOU!
We are millions strong and you are petty-weak (Smash-smash!) (Democrat Party, squishy-liberals)…
I look forward to a greater venue for this discussion.
Well, one always hopes.
Email me, btw. Switching among many dumb things.
“You know, I have to go out of town for a few days, so this productive collaboration has to wind down.”
Gavin, you seem to be able to keep this going all by your little old self.
I had these discussions on Usenet more than ten years ago.
You guys are like, “Blar-har-har,” jumping up and down with your pants around your ankles; and someone comes along like, “Look, there’s a constituency here that actually believes in reason and the rule of law.”
And then you guys are like, “Blar-har-har! There is no such thing as reason or law. Liberals are gay poopyheads, and we will exterminate you.”
Welp, hit me with your best shot, Pat Benatar. I’ll see you in the funny papers, or some metaphor like that.