posted on December 12, 2003 10:56:36 AM new
I was surprised to see PH recant. It seems that everyone that calls it like it is must be visited by someone who changes their mind.
posted on December 14, 2003 09:40:18 AM new
I was asked by colin if I had read this story by Frank Gaffney, a neocon conservative...so, this morning, I read it. On the surface, it appears to be an attempted smear against Grover Norquist, a Republican ultra right wing conservative and long time friend of Carl Rove, along with an attempted smear against Liberals? written with an obvious agenda against Muslims -- probably driven by some personal animosity and using McCarthy like evidence of guilt by association. The article is weak and lacks good supporting evidence that Norquist is consorting with terrorists.
It's strange to see the conservative magazine, FrontPage publish such derogatory tales about conservatives.
posted on December 15, 2003 05:13:34 AM new
I do agree that it seems slanted. That said I did like this paragraph:
By no means do all the opponents of America’s war policies (or even a majority) fit this category. Disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy and respect for that disagreement is a foundational value of our political system. The self-declared enemies of the nation are distinguished by the intemperate nature of their attacks on America and its President – referring to the one as Adolf Hitler, for example, or the other as the world’s “greatest terrorist state.” They are known as well by their political choices and associations. Many leaders of the movement opposing the war in Iraq have worked for half a century with the agents of America’s communist enemies and with totalitarian states like Cuba and the former USSR.
posted on December 15, 2003 05:52:26 AM new
It's a propaganda technique, colin. First he points out a truth, that "disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy" followed by a lie calling those same citizens "enemies of the nation".
posted on December 15, 2003 06:10:19 AM new
[i]December 15, 2003[i]
The hard left decided long ago that George W. Bush is Hitler. In maddened corners of the Internet and at swastika-choked antiwar marches, Bush is shown with a Nazi uniform or a Hitler mustache.
There are those on the hard left that, imo, are citizens who are "enemies of the nation". It's not a lie. It's the truth. MANY here on these threads have compared a president of the U.S. to Hitler. Taken their hatred of this president to new levels.
posted on December 15, 2003 06:47:44 AM new
How can you call those who have concern for the welfare of our country and the world, "enemies of the nation". People who critcise George Bush care deeply about this country and our reputation throughout the world. The Bush regime has alienated our allies, engaged the country in an illegal and needless war, destroyed the budget, and done nothing to improve domestic issues. In a democracy such as ours, we don't have to use force to remove an incompetent and dangerous leader....we will vote him out of office.
Those that you mention on the "hard left" with Hitler rhetoric are balanced by those on the "hard right" who call good American citizens Communists, Anti Americans, unpatriotic and other offensive McCarthyisms.
posted on December 15, 2003 07:57:14 AM new
Imo, once YOUR party voted to give this president war powers, it was all over....decided.
Sure some are going to disagree we shouldn't have done this or that. That's normal political disagreement. But that's where the differences between the more moderate democrats vs. the 'hard left' can clearly be seen.
As a nation, we needed to come together against those who would like to see the demise of our way of life. Did we? No...the 'hard left' has a different agenda....divide the nation.
Even clinton said something along the line of "politics stops at the water's edge", something the 'hard left' obviously hasn't even considered doing.
What the hard left has done imo, is give strength and hope to our enemies. They have sided with other countries against their own. That only makes them fight harder against our troops, the ones the 'hard left' SAY they're so concerned about. In the end their actions cost more of the very lives they claim they care so much about.
The 'hard left' didn't care the reason our supposed allies didn't want to see Saddam removed was because they each had their own 'special interests' for not doing so. No....there opposition was just joyfully accepted only because it was a slap in the face to a President they hate so much. When clinton was bombing other countries, France, Russia and Germany weren't in agreement with him either. But we sure didn't see the 'hard left' supporting them then, against our own country.
The actions of the 'hard left' have not been in the best interests of our country...but rather purely a political cry to regain the power they have lost. And they're willing to sacrifice anything to get it back even our National security.
posted on December 15, 2003 08:02:20 AM new
Twelvepole - It's the truth. Look at their [current] front runner, Dean. He says we shouldn't have gone to war, we shouldn't have done this, we shouldn't have done that.
And what we see today is that had Dean been president during this current administration, Saddam would still be the leader of Iraq, rather than in our custody. He'd still killing his people, still posing a threat to the world and to our country. THANK GOD, dean isn't our president.
posted on December 15, 2003 09:22:53 AM new
Linda,
I could counter your ludicrous comments and leave you sputtering like a hysterical dingbat again but I'm not doing that today. Maybe someone else will enjoy discussing the topic with you?
I'm off to shovel snow...a better option that shoveling what you dish out.
posted on December 15, 2003 09:32:08 AM newI could counter your ludicrous comments and leave you sputtering like a hysterical dingbat again but I'm not doing that today. Maybe someone else will enjoy discussing the topic with you?
I'm off to shovel snow...a better option that shoveling what you dish out.
Helen
You could??? Are you sure? Seems to me like you can only 'shovel' out insults.
And where have I EVER asked YOU to discuss the topic with ME? I'm free to post my views, there is NO requirement you respond at all.
But I do understand why you're taking these opinions personally....it's that you're identifying with the 'hard left'.
*please note helen*- Which one of us started with the personal attacks and name calling.
posted on December 17, 2003 02:42:41 AM new
Helen writes:
It's a propaganda technique, colin. First he points out a truth, that "disagreement among citizens is a core feature of any democracy" followed by a lie calling those same citizens "enemies of the nation".
I agree with the "Truth" to disagree. I also agree with the writer that the constant debasing of the United States and our President could possibly make these people "enemies of the nation".
Especially those that rant on about conspiracy and made up charges.
Those that seem to find fault with every nuance of every word spoken by the President. Those that agitate for the sake of putting the USA in a bad light.
I enjoy a good debate but find it hard to debate with someone that can’t see passed their own hatreds.
posted on December 17, 2003 05:19:58 AM new
Reading this guys stuff he is one of those that sees an enemy behind every tree. I worked for a John Bircher like that and it got really tiresome.
The fact he harks back to communists gives him away. Some of these guys probably think the muslims are working as agents of socialism because it is really hard for them to switch who they hate and fear.
The reason so many see Hitler like qualities in Bush is because they have read history and see specific and concrete parallels.
He is consolidating a private army in Homeland Security that answers only to him just as Hitler had the brown shirts and the SS.
He is putting himself above the process of law as Hitler did in the night of the long knives by using executive power to inprison and try in secret with no answer to be made to the regular courts or habeous corpus.
He has established a state of emergency and war as an open ended condition that will allow him to do as he pleases to retain power.
Most of all everything is PERSONAL to him. He sees himself as boss without restraint and any opposition is the enemy. That is what got Nixon in so much trouble.
I am not sure if he can't steal the next election again if he won't just do an end run around it and sieze power in the first blatant American coup. And if he does Americans will find out that yes US troops are just like other armies and they will shoot their countrymen down in the streets.
All the people who are so keen on keeping their firearms to assure the government can bot oppress them will find out they are of little use against a modern military. The only weapon that will matter here is money.
