Lost Liberals: Bin Laden, 9/11, WMD's and Iraq
This will be my tribute to a new category of individuals in the political arena, the Lost Liberal. Although they have been prevalent the past couple years, their arguments are rarely exposed...so here I go.
First off, some of you claim that we are not any safer today than we were on 9/11. Really? Maybe you have forgotten the 5+ years of safety here at home where not 1 American live has been lost to an act of terrorism on our soil. Don't think there have not been attempts.
No, none of the 19 hijackers were Iraqi. So why did we invade Iraq? Saddam Hussein and his regime were killing their own people in massive numbers, threatening our allies and violated 16 UN sanctions over 12 years as he was suspiciously doing SOMETHING. In that time, the UN, CIA, Hillary Clinton, France and many others (aka: everyone) believed he possessed WMD's or was attempting to acquire them. However, you blame the current administration...why? Because it's politically convenient. Additionally, Saddam also publicly announced his support for terrorist organizations and harbored them. I was all for the invasion, but maybe you forgot the famous words immediately following 9/11 "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Quick note: Many of the hijackers on 9/11 entered this country on Iraqi visa's and Iraqi passports...
Now, one other mistake that short-sighted people make is comparing this fight to other wars. This is not a fight against a country or nation, it is a fight against a sect of radical ideologues who fight under no flag. Therefore, we need to go wherever they are welcomed and supported to ensure they are not allowed to enter our borders and kill again. I understand that it's easy to be complacent, as our fight against them has been very successful.
What about Bin Laden? Well, if he isn't dead already, he's hiding in a cave somewhere hooked up to a defibrillator cursing the progress we've made against his forces (maybe asking Ala why he's loosing). I am proud to say that we are focusing on his followers who are fighting our soldiers right now and would gladly fight you if given the chance. I will say this: When Bin Laden and Saddam meet in Hell, they will be sure to compare notes on how Osama "awakened the sleeping giant" and Hussein got called on the biggest bluff of all time.
Finally, to all of you who say those of us who support our nation's efforts should be joining up and fighting, please read my taking of that Poor Argument. Also, if we all went off, who would be here to tell you your wrong and make sure you don't cut off the protectors?
With that, lost liberals, I welcome you to the political table. Your rants that focus on the past and lack the full scope of things have certainly changed the political landscape. As always, I look forward to/welcome your opposition (and hopefully some new points).
First off, some of you claim that we are not any safer today than we were on 9/11. Really? Maybe you have forgotten the 5+ years of safety here at home where not 1 American live has been lost to an act of terrorism on our soil. Don't think there have not been attempts.
No, none of the 19 hijackers were Iraqi. So why did we invade Iraq? Saddam Hussein and his regime were killing their own people in massive numbers, threatening our allies and violated 16 UN sanctions over 12 years as he was suspiciously doing SOMETHING. In that time, the UN, CIA, Hillary Clinton, France and many others (aka: everyone) believed he possessed WMD's or was attempting to acquire them. However, you blame the current administration...why? Because it's politically convenient. Additionally, Saddam also publicly announced his support for terrorist organizations and harbored them. I was all for the invasion, but maybe you forgot the famous words immediately following 9/11 "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Quick note: Many of the hijackers on 9/11 entered this country on Iraqi visa's and Iraqi passports...
Now, one other mistake that short-sighted people make is comparing this fight to other wars. This is not a fight against a country or nation, it is a fight against a sect of radical ideologues who fight under no flag. Therefore, we need to go wherever they are welcomed and supported to ensure they are not allowed to enter our borders and kill again. I understand that it's easy to be complacent, as our fight against them has been very successful.
What about Bin Laden? Well, if he isn't dead already, he's hiding in a cave somewhere hooked up to a defibrillator cursing the progress we've made against his forces (maybe asking Ala why he's loosing). I am proud to say that we are focusing on his followers who are fighting our soldiers right now and would gladly fight you if given the chance. I will say this: When Bin Laden and Saddam meet in Hell, they will be sure to compare notes on how Osama "awakened the sleeping giant" and Hussein got called on the biggest bluff of all time.
Finally, to all of you who say those of us who support our nation's efforts should be joining up and fighting, please read my taking of that Poor Argument. Also, if we all went off, who would be here to tell you your wrong and make sure you don't cut off the protectors?
With that, lost liberals, I welcome you to the political table. Your rants that focus on the past and lack the full scope of things have certainly changed the political landscape. As always, I look forward to/welcome your opposition (and hopefully some new points).
posted by Carl Soderberg at
8:28 PM
13 Comments:
Another good post and collection of thoughts. I know you could have expanded with factual statistics and information but your point is not smothered and is easily understood. The important part of your post is your willingness to hear other views. I hope others take note and accept you invitation.
I recently wrote a letter to the Charger Bulletin in response to your contrived and statistically inaccurate article "Bahgdad: A war zone?" I'll be posting that letter later on this blog, as it was not printed in the paper (The paper is afraid of printing anything controversial/interesting). Beyond the obvious and annoying grammatical errors that seem to flood all of your posts, there are fundamental problems with your arguments...mostly because a majority of them are based on false assumptions.
Starting off with paragraph number one, you note the 5+ years of safety that we have enjoyed as Americans since 2001 under president Bush. I beg you to recognize that under president Bill Clinton, Americans suffered one terrorist attack on our soil on February 26, 1993. As barbaric as the comparison may appear, the reality is that only six people lost their lives that day. With such a low level of conflict spanning his presidency, it is interesting to note that Bill Clinton was an incredibly charismatic and diplomatic commander in chief: something that obviously can not be said about President Bush. Before the attack that occurred under Clinton, America went 18 years without a single terrorist attack, the last one occurring on January 24th, 1975 in New York City. In twenty-six years and under five different presidents, ten americans lost their lives to terrorists within our border. Within the first year of Bush's presidency, nearly 2,800 Americans lost their lives to terrorists. How reassuring does five years look now?
Moving on to your second argument, your assertion that "Many of the hijackers on 9/11 entered this country on Iraqi visa's and Iraqi passports..." is off by just a bit. Check it. Four out of nineteen is not many: it's four. Remember how you used shock-statistics to scare people in your "Bahgdad" article? Guess what? It doesn't work here either.
Your third argument ends up contradicting itself...I don't even have to do the research here! If it were true that we are fighting a war against the terrorist threat to our nation, what are we doing in Baghdad? I've already discounted your argument that Iraq had a major role in granting passports for the 19 Saudi hijackers...so where do you justify invading Iraq based on 9/11? If we were living in a semi-rational nation under a semi-rational president, the 60,000 troops that were recently sent to Iraq would be on there way to Afghanistan to find the people who actually had something to do with 9/11.
I'm not going to give your fourth argument any kind of recognition for the following reasons:
1. You spelled "Allah" wrong. Very considerate.
2. Your decided to bring christianity into a political argument. Ridiculous.
3. You spelled "losing" wrong. What the fuck?
And with that—here I am, Sweetheart! A true "lost liberal." I've come to the table and I've served you a proper meal. The fact of the matter is that you're looking forward to people like Ray looking over your hollow arguments in order for you to appear intelligent and coherent. I'm here to say that if you really want to present a fair and balanced opinion, you better do your research and you better realize that not all of us are complacent...
Come back when you finish E 110.
I'm a black person.
HOORAY FOR BUSH!
Alex, your a moron. First off, you simply state the exact same arguments as every lost liberal. Next, you attack Carl on spelling loosing and Allah wrong. Big whoop. Then you focus on him using Christianity...it was supposed to be a joke amidst the chaos.
How about instead of challenging him through poor arguments from the confines of your dorm room and get it all out there. I would love to see you go head to head.
Stephen...Your argument is so powerful! You sound like a child talking back to their parent. Like every "lost liberal", I'm stating arguments that are true. Do your research. Find a hole in any one of my arguments and I'll vote republican in 08'. Go for it.
The reason no one took Carl's christianity bit as a joke is the same reason why "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" on Fox News totally bombed: conservatives aren't funny. Ever.
"Alex, your a moron."
How dumb do you feel?
Maybe if you actually knew Carl, you would see he does have quite the sense of humor. However, you decide to generalize in order to strengthen your weak points...
As for finding holes in your argument, you seemed to not have read Carl's post. He pointed out numerous other reasons as to why we invaded Iraq that had nothing to do with terrorism. The fact of the matter is that Iraq is where these insurgencies are, fighting our brave soldiers. This is what is preventing them from hitting us again (that along with the Patriot Act, NSA, and many other programs now in place).
Alex, I'm going to respond to a few areas of your post. To address the rest of your misinformation would waste valuable time.
"I beg you to recognize that under president Bill Clinton, Americans suffered one terrorist attack on our soil"
Further, Your statement that the U.S. suffered no terrorist attacks for 18 years is a lie.
Do you not consider our war ships our soil? How about our Embassies?
How about our overseas military installations?
You seem to want to blame President Bush for 9-11, consider this...
According to the 9-11 commission report,
1n 1996 Congress mandated and authorized $40M for a new INS entry - exit system for Visa holders- specifically students and tourists. The INS did nothing.
During the mid to late 1990's all 19 of the terrorists entered and exited the US over 33 times. The four pilots entered the country an additional 17 times.
15 of the hijackers obtained their Tourist Visa's in Saudia Arabia thru a new 1990's program titled "Visa Express". This program allowed people to apply for Visa'a thru travel agents! Thus avoiding the normal due diligence process.
Considered collectively, the terrorists:
Used fraudulant and manipulated passports.
Made false statements on their Visa applications.
A few were pulled out of the travel stream and given greater scrutiny by some border agents but later released.
Some were known al Qaeda operatives.
Made false statements to border agents to gain access to the U.S.
Violated immigration law while in the U.S.
The last I checked- President Bush was not in the White House in the 1990's.
My point here Alex is that Mr Clinton is not in the clear on the 9-11 issue as you would like us to believe. During the Clinton administration the above noted factual events took place. Immigration is just ONE small area that Clinton failed to lead or direct.
President Bush was in office only 9 months before the attack. His White House staff and Cabinet was installed 3 weeks late because of the democrat whinning and legal battles over the Florida vote.
Clinton was in office 8 years before the attack.
So please do not try to apply 100% of the blame of 9-11 attacks to the current administration.
Alex- Research, read and get educated before making statements.
Maybe your Charger Bulletin is not printing your dribble because it has no basis in fact....
Thanks Ray, that was a gigantic waste of time.
I am, in fact, not considering our embassies or warships part of U.S. soil when I say we did not suffer a terrorist attack for 18 years on U.S. soil...because we didn't. Thanks for proving to me that you can read. As usual, show me the proof: don't just tell me I'm wrong.
Thank you for reinforcing my point that a majority of the 9/11 hijackers got their passports in Saudi Arabia and had nothing to do with Iran. Where did I ever say that these people didn't come in and out of the country before Bush was in office? Don't go off on tangents.
I'd also like to thank you for putting words in my mouth when you claim I "place 100% of the blame on the current administration."
If you can blame Clinton for letting these people in and out of our country, how can you not blame the Bush administration as well? Don't purposely lookover what you don't want to recognize. Failures in intelligence occur on both ends of the spectrum, it doesn't matter if you're republican or democrat.
I see a trend in these posts...If you ever want to make an actual retort to one of my arguments rather than just repeating what I said and then expounding on an unrelated topic, I'll be ready. Until next time..
Nice post Alex, But again you show that you are ignorant, uninformed, lack any common sense and you can't read or comprehend the english language. I suggest you return to 5th grade and start your education anew. As for me I will not waste any more time reading or responding to your angry, monotonous rants. I must go and make a profit today so you and your liberal friends may tax me.
Classy.
Dear all the participants on this blog,
It is very nice to see people taking such a great interest in politics these days. As French political writer Alexis de Toqueville points out in "Democracy in America", the level of political participation unique to the United States is outstanding, and extremely necessary to the functioning of the democracy we have today. Ralph Waldo Emerson also notes how the key to democracy is the Greek idea of the public individual whose main responsibility is to simply discuss his thoughts with others, rather than live under the guises of strictly private life.
Luckily, today's technology allows us to have blogs like this one as a venue for public individuals such as yourselves to interact, therefore building upon the main principles that are our democracy. Speaking of such, technology also allows us to have a plethora of information available on the internet. This is an amazing tool. I do recognize that, and respect the avid researcher of political trends, happenings, and statistics.
I do ask, however, that you all will notice the limitations of all that information at your fingertips. Sadly, it does have an end to the backing it can give your leftist or rightist arguments.
The limitation of political information I speak of is inherent in the structure of our American government. Although many Americans will continue to bash our President and discuss his conservative antics, the fact of the matter is that he was elected by the public through our set system and is in fact, the President of this country.
I would like to cite now one of the only resources I know to be undeniably secure; the Constitution. I quote from Article II Section 2 Clause 1: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States ... he may require the Opinion in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective offices..."
I am just throwing out a wild guess here, but I would predict that neither Alex nor Ray nor Stephen are "principal officer"s, and therefore do NOT, each in his entirety, know the actual facts behind terrorist happenings, the War in Iraq, the motives for going, or anything of the sort.
Again, I do not discourage intelligent, opinionated, and goodhearted banter of politics. As forementioned, I agree with many other political scholars that it is in fact essential. I just cannot bear hearing the intelligent minds so key to our system use their time assuming knowledge and bashing the others who also do so.
I would love to extend my point further citing more objective and substantial sources, but I must end it here. I do not beg to argue with any of you and tell you your thoughts, ideologies, or points are inherently off. I persuade you to consider that you are just opinionated individuals trying to learn more from one another, NOT the President.
I must leave this interesting forum here for my daunting pile of books to be read, because I am infact a student of Political Science at my university. Before I go I would like to share one last thought I decided upon before setting out into higher education. I decided to learn everything my brain can possibly absorb about the politics of our country and the rest of the world, and additionally about how people like yourselves and I react within this political scope. Then, and only then, will you ever see the name "Mari" posted above any article or opinion that is in the all-knowing, righteous nature of those posted here. As a wise man once said, "I'll know my song well before I start singing."
Thanks,
Mari
ps.. I'm really not looking for people to attack my thoughts or grammar, because I don't care all that much... I just wanted to share my outlook. Have a good day!
Thank you Mari...insightful.
Post a Comment
<< Home