I have always believed and intuitively known that most demo-libs don't really have any convictions of their own. They always reveal their hypocrisy. For example they supported Clinton's military strike in Bosnia without UN approval. They did not like ethnic cleansing even though Saddam has killed far more Kurds with chemical weapons - this too is ethnic cleansing.
These people just hate it that there is someone leading this country that doesn't agree with their views. And that's all that drives them. They are not driven by an inner conscience or an inner voice of what is right and wrong. No, the only thing that motivates them is hate for Bush and conservatives.
I didn't want anyone to be left with the impression that my own views about most liberals and democrats was a hasty generalization. So I decided to perform a test to prove that these Clinton supporters are truly the worst kind of spineless, thoghtless hypocrites. I knew this test that I performed would expose to the SI community this hypocrisy.
I want to tell you about my test and I think most of you, regardless of your political stripes, if you will only look at the evidence objectively, will come to the same conclusion about most demo-libs.(There are a few exceptions)
I challenged the anti-war types to respond to some comments made by President Bush. I asked them to give substantive reasons for their disagreement with Bush's comments. After receiving the usual group of personal attacks of Bush(which I knew they would do immediately), I repeated my challenge several times and encouraged them to only respond to Bush's remarks in my original post. So the next thing they decide to do is provide certain articles they could dig up and steal the thoughts of others as a means of responding to my challenge. So again, I told them that they were not actually responding to Bush's comments. They simply had no ideas of their own and were afraid to confront the specific words of Bush. After urging them again to think for themselves, they finally started to respond to the specific rationales in Bush's remarks.
Here are the remarks of Bush:
PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's welfare not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. And when I say to him you have used weapons of mass destruction before, we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (Applause)
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example. Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. That is not a threat. I have shown I do not relish this thing. Every time it's discussed around here, I say one of the great luxuries of being the world's only superpower for a while -- and it won't last forever probably, but for a while -- is that there is always time enough to kill. And therefore we have a moral responsibility to show restraint and to seek partnerships and alliances, and I've done that. But I don't have to explain to my grandchildren why we took a powder on what we think is a very serious biological and chemical weapons programs potentially by a country that has already used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds, their own people.
Now I am going to present a sampling of their responses but before I do, I must confess that I wasn't being entirely honest with them. I did something on purpose that I felt was necessary for me to prove my thesis that most demolibs are just hyprocritical and have no moral compass or no core principles on which to draw when making important decisions. No, they only are motivated by hate of the other side and whatever the other side is saying, whether it is valid or true, makes no difference. They will simply disagree on that basis alone and then go find some ideas to support their belief.
Here's what I did. The comments above are the actual quotes not of President Bush but from former President Clinton in an interview with Jim Lehrer of public television. So the real person those Clinton supporters were criticizing was not Bush but Clinton. They just didn't know that.
Here is a sampling of their "reasons" Clinton, not Bush is wrong:
1.Well that turned out to be not true. Either he lied or is stupid. I think stupid 'cause I've seen him.
TP
2.Hitech, He has no nuclear capability. There is no evidence of any chemical or biological weapons in his possession. He has no delivery system for such weapons. There is no provable link to terrorists. Where is the beef?
3.Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's welfare not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Where's the proof? If Bush has proof for the above, he should perhaps share it with Powell so that the next time he is in front of the UN Security Council, he does not look like a monkey peddling plagiarised student papers and taped conversations in Arabic that may well have been recorded in Pentagon.
4.PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's welfare not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
How much is much, as well as mixing up spending time and money??
And when I say to him you have used weapons of mass destruction before, we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (Applause)
Who is him, probably Saddamm, but then who is "you"?? as well as "we"?? Same "you" again as the first
one, and then "them"?? the capacities, WMDs or just a general "them"??
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent.
Yes, alone war on terrorism, or interdependent production of faked papers??
We would like to be partners with other people.
Yes, that is why Bush understood that in the war on other people and his own terrorism, it
was smart to go through the gates of UN on UNESCO knees.
But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone.
Dude, you can't have it both ways, even if it would be like a dream
Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that
Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city
he wants to destroy.
Yes, or just in the mail like a regular dude.
Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors
Reagan was a semi-good actor, but he too got into bad companion, although he did not shake
hands with Saddam on photographs, he left it to others.
who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores
Exactly, lots of bad actors who would like to parade through Baghdad, although that is
not exactly where the oilfields are.
if we don't take action.
Yes, 400 billion barrels out of 1,000 worldwide billion barrels is something to take action for, especially
when considering how the cost increases, especially after the stage the USA barrels are, close
to cost $40-60/barrel... ouch, tough to suck out those last drops.
I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors,
pefer in terms of what, and until what??
I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing,
Yes, my dad told me it takes 0.5-0.75 year to move military stuff around and this time there
was no Glasspie around
really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken.
As well as who-we?? mistaken about what??
That is not a threat.
So what is the use of mentioning it>>
I have shown I do not relish this thing.
What thing??
Every time it's discussed around here,
And now that "it", is "it" or isn't "it" "it", or them, we or you??
I say
Finally, this time everyone knows who says
one of the great luxuries of being the world's only superpower for a while
Ouch, the hubbart point for the next difficult time to suck domestic oil is closer and closer??
Or, "who is", actually???
-- and it won't last forever probably, but for a while
True, major crises as all those hearings on energy costs have shown.
-- is that there is always time enough to kill.
Killing time seem to be fairly inefficient whn there so much else to kill.
And therefore we have a moral responsibility to show restraint and to seek partnerships and
alliances, and I've done that.
Great ending, clearly defined who did it, but responsibility for what?? and how, and what then??
But I don't have to explain to my grandchildren why we took a powder on what we think is a very serious biologica and chemical weapons programs potentially by a country that has already used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds, their own people.
Great powder joke, don't sneeze too much, watch out for that pretzel..
I think Hammond is funnier
And here is the final response to Bush(uh, Clinton)in my sample:
5.You don't even know what the specific rationale is to those remarks.
1/2 are based on lies and the other 1/2 are based on significant omissions.
It doesn't matter who's words were used to address those remarks. If the shoe fits...
Well said! |
