For some folks, the need to believe that BushLied(tm) supercedes any call to a rational debate. This has caused Donald Sensing at One Hand Clapping to ask We expect Michael Moore to lie about Bush, but is prevarication a virus infecting all Bush's opposition?
Donald carefully and methodically lays out the facts for everyone to see that not only did President Bush not lie, he has in fact consistently pursued the same strategic goals outlined in his speech to the UN on 9/12/02.
This is the best approach in refuting the notBush supporters: we have to patiently and consistently continue to cite the facts of the matter, and avoid ad hominem personal attacks. Don Sensing leads the way.
Read it here.
Well, it would certainly be convenient to consider anyone that disagrees with one's own positions to be a liar, but that seems a rather simplistic approach.
Posted by: Joel Thomas at August 2, 2004 1:57 AMWell, Joel, try reading the linked article. :)
I'm surprised to hear anyone call Mr. Sensing "simplistic," if I understand you correctly. He merely points out that many folks on the left seem to suffer from some cognative dissonance, such as the quoted statement to the effect that -while the world is better off without Hussein- the invasion was mistake.
Don also points out that the radio article in question tells two definable and specific lies. If you have a problem with that, you can address the specifics, instead of merely accusing someone of a simplistic approach.
Sensing's basic premise; that the anti-Bush movement regularly repeats patently untrue things about that administration; carries great weight. All one has to do is list the series of claims, from "BushLied(tm)," to "Halliburton*," to the "AWOL" myth, and so on.
When someone who tries to actually address such issues, there are generally two responses:
1- maniacly repeat the assertation over and over again, without even relating to the questioner's statements. Excellent examples include recent Michael Moore interviews.
2- accuse the questioner of being a "Bush apologist," a member of the "Republican Attack Machine," or merely a partisian hack. See your local blog for details. {wry grin}
This isn't to say that the opposition isn't guilty of some such, including the "Kerry is a traitor" folks, but the point is that on the Democratic Party side, the moonbats seem to have taken over. Hell, Michael Moore got royal VIP treatment at the Democratic Convention. The GOP never did anything like that for that nutjob movie producer who tried to character-assassinate Clinton...
Oh, BTW, I read recently that Kerry decisively disassciated himself with "Scream" Dean's claims that the recent security warnings were politically motivated; good for him!
*Nothing specific, just the word "Halliburton." It's the new catch-all, in place of the older Tri-Lateral Commission or the Jewish Conspiracy. :)
Posted by: Casey Tompkins at August 3, 2004 1:35 PMCasey,
If I were to kill everyone convicted of murder, the world might be better off. That doesn't mean that the process I used to go about that could be justified.
And actually, there are people such as retired General Zinni who aren't so sure the world is safer because of the invasion of Iraq.
The problem I have with Rev. Sensing is that he has a tendency to set-up the pro and anti-invasion camps as being him and his fellow saints on one side and the faithless, political agenda people on the other side. On his side are the well-informed military people and on the other side are the Michael Moores and various leftists. In actuality, much of the dispute is between Rev. Sensing and people such as retired General Zinni. And even William F. Buckley has expressed some doubts about Iraq. Rev. Sensing glosses over a significant amount of conservative oppostion to the Iraq invasion coming from places such as the Cato Institute.
Rev. Sensing's simplistic view of the world is carried over to his own denomination. He sees conservatives as people of faith and liberals as people of a political agenda. He lambasts pro-gay clergy as lacking humility, but I see no evidence whatsoever that he possesses any more or less humility than I do.
Rev. Sensing has written before that all peace activists are insincere. Not many or most, but all. (Well, he did make a little exception for religious pacifists.)
Posted by: Joel Thomas at August 3, 2004 6:55 PMHi, Joel. Sorry, haven't been ignoring you. On purpose, anyway. :)
Could you link to a couple examples of what you describe with Don? I'm not just out to refute you, but I read him because I think he's pretty well-balanced and reflective.
Actually, I take criticsm from Cato about things like military operations with a big grain of salt. I figured out right after 9/11 that the libertarian ideology isn't really well suited to deal with international problems, since those categories of relationships are still mostly in a state of nature.
I'll admit that Zinni wasn't very happy with the operation as planned. I'll also say that I don't think an extra 80,000 troops (which comes out to about another 10,000 actual combat troops) would have been decisive.
Note that a fair number of respectable WW2 vets opposed (or ended up opposing) Vietnam, including the legendary Marine Colonel Shoup. But did that prove that the entire war was a mistake? The events of 1970-1974 tend to disprove that.
In fact, the north launched at least three more major (and a couple of minor) invasions of the south, and each one -save the last in '75- was decisively beaten. The south would probably had repulsed that attack as well, but America literally ignored the Paris treaty provisions and refused all aid to South Vietnam.
Naturally none of this proves that the Iraq invasion was a good idea; I'm not as convinced as Dean of this; and it's still quite possible for entire country to implode. But we seem to be doing pretty well, all things considered.
There's an old joke, from ancient Greece: once upon a time, a thief was condemned to death, but pursuaded the king to pardon him if he could teach a horse to sing after a year of lessons.
The other prisoners laughed at the thief as he sang to the horse. He answered "Don't be so sure! I have a year longer to live, and who knows what will happen? I may die, the king may die, and perhaps the horse will learn how to sing..."
Right now I think the old mare is starting to hum a recognizable tune. :)