Pat Endorses Who?

[sjmom2329]

<p>[OpinionJournal</a> - Extra](<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010861]OpinionJournal”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010861)

Hating the president is almost as old as the republic itself. The people, or various factions among them, have indulged in Clinton hatred, Reagan hatred, Nixon hatred, LBJ hatred, FDR hatred, Lincoln hatred, and John Adams hatred, to mention only the more extravagant hatreds that we Americans have conceived for our presidents.</p>

<p>But Bush hatred is different. It’s not that this time members of the intellectual class have been swept away by passion and become votaries of anger and loathing. Alas, intellectuals have always been prone to employ their learning and fine words to whip up resentment and demonize the competition. Bush hatred, however, is distinguished by the pride intellectuals have taken in their hatred, openly endorsing it as a virtue and enthusiastically proclaiming that their hatred is not only a rational response to the president and his administration but a mark of good moral hygiene…</p>

<p>On the contrary, they argued, Bush hatred was fully warranted considering his theft of the 2000 election in Florida with the aid of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore; his politicization of national security by making the invasion of Iraq an issue in the 2002 midterm elections; and his shredding of the Constitution to authorize the torture of enemy combatants.</p>

<p>Of course, these very examples illustrate nothing so much as the damage hatred inflicts on the intellect. Many of my colleagues at Princeton that evening seemed not to have considered that in 2000 it was Al Gore who shifted the election controversy to the courts by filing a lawsuit challenging decisions made by local Florida county election supervisors. Nor did many of my Princeton dinner companions take into account that between the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, 10 of 16 higher court judges–five of whom were Democratic appointees–found equal protection flaws with the recount scheme ordered by the intermediate Florida court. And they did not appear to have pondered Judge Richard Posner’s sensible observation, much less themselves sensibly observe, that while indeed it was strange to have the U.S. Supreme Court decide a presidential election, it would have been even stranger for the election to have been decided by the Florida Supreme Court…</p>

<p>In short, Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims–who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance–to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil. Like all hatred in politics, Bush hatred blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.

</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>

Bush hatred was fully warranted considering his theft of the 2000 election in Florida with the aid of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore; his politicization of national security by making the invasion of Iraq an issue in the 2002 midterm elections; and his shredding of the Constitution to authorize the torture of enemy combatants.

</p>

<p>That’ll do for starters.</p>

<p>Um, I wonder why they didn’t mention the voting machine fraud of 2004? Or the issues exposed in the above patriots site? Or the fact that he has repeatedly lied to us? And they gave no response to the ‘shredding of the Constitution’ not to mention the ‘patriot’ Act, elimination of Habeas Corpus, lying to us in an attempt to build an empire (after running on a ‘humble foreign policy with no nation building’ platform), his incessant speaking in platitudes, his open admission of taking his orders from cheney, wearing an electronic device at the debate with Kerry, oh, and did I mention 911?</p>

<p>Respect is given to political opponents, not puppets.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>Did you miss this part?</p>

<p>

Many of my colleagues at Princeton that evening seemed not to have considered that in 2000 it was Al Gore who shifted the election controversy to the courts by filing a lawsuit challenging decisions made by local Florida county election supervisors. Nor did many of my Princeton dinner companions take into account that between the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, 10 of 16 higher court judges–five of whom were Democratic appointees–found equal protection flaws with the recount scheme ordered by the intermediate Florida court. And they did not appear to have pondered Judge Richard Posner’s sensible observation, much less themselves sensibly observe, that while indeed it was strange to have the U.S. Supreme Court decide a presidential election, it would have been even stranger for the election to have been decided by the Florida Supreme Court.

</p>

<p>I’m sorry, but I think that post #402 is an example of the “damage hatred inflicts on the intellect.”</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>No, I didn’t miss it at all. But that only addressed the 2000 election issue. It did not address the other issues I brought up.
(did you miss THOSE?? <wink>)</wink></p>

<p>Also, there is a flaw in the logic of the “damage hatred inflicts on the intellect” argument. This implies that hatred came first. But don’t you wonder WHY people hate bush? </p>

<p>They used their intellects to assess him as a president, of course! Only THEN did the hatred arise!</p>

<p>Honestly, it is very presumptuous to think that people would hate him for no reason at all, as if it were fashionable. Sure, it has become fashionable NOW, but think about the early bush-haters: the hate clearly developed for a reason! (many reasons, actually)</p>

<p>Ironically, the same people who criticize bush haters (who are able to provide a list a mile long as to why they hate bush) are often Clinton (both Bill & Hillary) haters, but when asked, cannot provide a reason. (At least not the people I’ve asked personally.) The most they can come up with is that Bill lied about his bj. (none of anyone’s biz except Hillary’s imo, and anyway now look at Giuliani - not exactly a faithful husband!)</p>

[Sarahsmom42]

<p>lealdragon, I’m sorry that your family was not happy. We have had some issues over the years, but for the most part, we’re all pretty close. My oldest brother is 23 years older than me, so it’s hard to be close to everyone, but I am really close to my sisters and my younger brother. We’re getting together for Thanksgiving and I can’t wait! I hope that you have some sibs that you are close to.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>Sarahsmom, thanks for your well wishes! I have only 1 brother that I’m close to, and 2 sisters that I talk to maybe once a year. The rest of the family I am not close to at all, and some of them ended up really messed up from the abuse and severed all contact with everyone else. But, that’s ok; I really don’t think about them anymore. Both parents are deceased, and this will sound really awful, but it’s a relief, actually.</p>

<p>You are very fortunate! I am always amazed when I see large, happy families. This proves that my family’s problems were not a direct result of having lots of kids or of being poor, since one can find plenty of large families, even poor ones, who somehow manage to be happy.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>Whenever I’d complain to my mom about her having so many kids, causing us to be poor, she would always get me by saying “Well if we’d quit after baby #11 then you wouldn’t be here.”</p>

<p>That always shut me up.</p>

[Sarahsmom42]

<p>lealdragon, </p>

<p>We were very fortunate. My parents seemed to be up to the task and my Dad was a very successful businesman. My mom was fortunately had household help! Unfortunately there just isn’t enough time in the day for that many kids, so we all have our own battle scars from lack of attention or consequences related that fact.
Take care, and I hope that you have a nice holiday!</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>Thanks! You too!</p>

[1of42]

<p>

@fundingfather

Yes, indeed, the Bush administration sure has screwed things up around the world. Since the Iraq war, France, Germany and Canada have all voted out anti-American administrations and voted in pro-American ones.

</p>

<p>I can’t speak for Germany or France, but if you were informed about Canadian politics you would know that the voting in of the “pro-American” government had nothing to do with it being pro-American. In fact, if anything, the pro-American position of the government was (and in many ways still is) a political liability for them. The opposition just happens to be in such disarray that it’s not really a problem.</p>

[RugBurn]

<p>And I would add that Sarkozy is from the same exact party as Jacques Chirac, yet conservatives love one and hate the other. Whatever, I guess. Sarkozy isn’t going to change France’s Iraq policies, so I don’t see much “victory” from a Bush perspective.</p>

<p>Sarkozy is a pretty talented politician though. Had a little something for everyone in his speech over here.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>

Not me, as I’ve said over and over again. In fact, I will challenge you to find any post of mine where I’ve been anti-sex (other than for children) anti birth control (other than for children) or anti-gay rights. You won’t find one.

SJM, if you read my posts carefully, you’ll see that I’m very careful to address organizations and individuals en masse and you are free to evaluate whether the total picture matches yourself or not. The linkage of anti-Choice, anti-birth control, anti-fact-based sex education, and anti-gay marriage are pervasively linked. But I would not expect any group to maintain 100 percent cohesion among all individuals. And add “anti-science,” viz., teaching Unintelligent Crock in lieu of evolution to the list. </p>

<p>===</p>

<p>LD, my D is 21 and I’ve been against parental consent requirements since the notion first surfaced. The question isn’t one of what should be done in most situations but what is required in all situations. In healthy family situations, certainly parent-daughter dialogue should take place. Unfortunately, the number of unhealthy family situations is far too high and a requirement for parental consent is a non-starter for me. Of course, a safe, neutral, and accessible counseling center would be a nice resource to guarantee, but the would-be ayahtollahs of the American Christian Taliban have done their darnedest to close or restrict such facilities, harrangue people trying to enter them, and harass and threaten people who work in such facilities. The geographic availability is all over the map, with many counties now having <em>no</em> such options. </p>

<p>And pity the girl in some small town like Betchurbritches, Tennessee where the girl tries to explain her problem to a county clerk and her family’s pastor winds up knowing the details before a judge does…local cultural beliefs transcending a law that should be equal for everyone.</p>

<p>===</p>

<p>FF, I’ve gone toe to toe responding to your conspiracy theories, writing responses with citations so long that I had to break them into three posts to get around CC’s 10K limit on individual posts.</p>

<p>What do you dispute:</p>

<p>Shiite on Shiite violence in the south of Iraq?</p>

<p>Sunni/Shiite violence and widespread ethnic cleansing by neighborhoods in Baghdad?</p>

<p>The reluctance of the Maliki government to see Sunnis armed by us against AQ in Mespotamia and that said Sunnis were themselves previously insurgents and that the stuff is going to hit the fan when the Sunnis and Shiites resume their intramural conflict?</p>

<p>The Kurd on Arab/Turkmen conflict in the North?</p>

<p>The utter corruption of the Baghdad government with respect to reconstruction and the funneling of money and resources to the militias in the south? </p>

<p>Perhaps you’re familiar with Coueism.</p>

<p>In any event, invading Iraq was predicated on lies, botched in execution, and subject to ever-changing goals. I’ll put the same question to you that needs to be answered: define “victory” in terms of who controls Iraq and under what circumstances?</p>

<p>===</p>

<p>Viewing elections in foreign countries through a prism of American policy in Iraq is the kind of arrogant, self-centered, self-serving attitude that got us into this mess in the first place. None can be seen as an endorsement of our policies. A deliberate attempt to conflate correlation with causation.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>

I’m very careful to address organizations and individuals en masse

Yeah, it would be convenient for the would-be ayahtollahs to keep the discussions broken down and separate. It’s no accident that a large number of the same people are anti-Choice AND anti-sex ed AND anti-birth control AND anti-gay rights. It’s all as much a part of imposing a wide-ranging fabric of narrow religious-based sectarian beliefs as public policy as the Virtue Police in Saudi Arabia, the Shiite enforcement squads in Iraq, or the mullahs of the Taliban in Afghanistan…the irony is profound and would be delicious if it weren’t so sad. The views are all interconnected…you see the same would-be ayahtollahs, the same organizations, the same politicians seeking and receiving support.

</p>

<p>Yep, I’d say you were fair and balanced – you slam anyone and everyone who holds a different opinion.</p>

<p>Maybe I’m showing my age or my background, but I remember a time when people were very careful not to make disparaging comments about an entire group of people, whether based on gender, ethnic background or group affiliation. There are crazies everywhere – Code Pink, eco-terrorists, those who murder abortion doctors – but I don’t think they are representative of the vast majority of people.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

FF, I’ve gone toe to toe responding to your conspiracy theories, writing responses with citations so long that I had to break them into three posts to get around CC’s 10K limit on individual posts.

It’s funny how you keep bringing up this exchange with the implication that quantity = quality. Yet you fail to acknowledge that every one of your supposed “points” was thoroughly refuted. But, if you want to continue living your life as the conquering hero of liberalism, so be it.</p>

<p>As to your other assertions about the difficulties in Iraq, you will be hard pressed to find any posts by me that would ever indicate that during much of 2006 and early 2007 that things were going well in Iraq. However, your post clearly puts you in the camp of Reid and Pelosi, the latter of whom recently said that “there was no light at the end of the tunnel” in Iraq. Of course one will never perceive a light at the end of the tunnel if you keep your eyes tightly closed. I Think Michael Barone summarizes this perspective quite well:</p>

<p>

When my father returned from service as an Army doctor in Korea in 1953, he brought back slides of the photos he’d shot, showing a war-torn country of incredible poverty. We would have laughed if you had told us that Americans would one day buy Korean cars. But 50-some years later, South Korea has the 13th-largest economy in the world, and you see Hyundais and Kias everywhere in America. Looking at things in micro-timeframes is not always a reliable guide to the macro-timeframe future. </p>

<p>So it may turn out to be with Iraq. We have been looking at Iraq in micro-timeframes — or, for many who oppose the war, frozen in the timeframe of late 2006. A better picture of the micro-timeframe is that we have achieved considerable success this year. </p>

<p>“The trend toward better security is indisputable,” writes the Associated Press. U.S. military and civilian deaths have declined sharply. Anbar province is pacified, Iraqis are streaming back to Baghdad, and al-Qaeda in Iraq is on the run. Time’s Joe Klein, a critic of the administration, admits the gains and advises Democrats not to try to cut off funds. Conservative columnist Tony Blankley claims “a very real expectation that next year the world may see a genuine, old-fashioned victory in the Iraq war.”

</p>

<p>You, Reid/Pelosi and most of the Democratic Party are stubbornly clinging to the 2006-view of the war, desperately afraid that you will be proven wrong.</p>

<p>Besides the posts that were highlighted by sjmom and myself, here are more things to consider (but, you will have to open your eyes to actually see it):</p>

<p>

Nonetheless, the figures added to a body of evidence, compiled by American and Iraqi officials, indicating that the violence had diminished significantly since the United States reinforced troop levels in Iraq and adopted a new counterinsurgency strategy.</p>

<p>The data released Sunday cover attacks using car bombs, roadside bombs, mines, mortars, rockets, surface-to-air missiles and small arms. According to the statistics, roughly 575 attacks occurred last week.</p>

<p>That is substantially fewer than the more than 700 attacks that were recorded the week that Sunni militants set off a wave of sectarian violence in Iraq by blowing up a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February 2006. And it represents a huge drop since June when attacks soared to nearly 1,600 one week.</p>

<p>American officials said other measures indicated that civilian deaths had dropped. Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a spokesman for the command, said civilian deaths had dropped by 60 percent since June.</p>

<hr>

<p>“While violence is turning in the right direction, a tough fight remains ahead and progress will be uneven,” Admiral Smith said. “Violence is still too high in many areas of Baghdad and across Iraq.”</p>

<p>Still, he rattled off statistics that pointed to progress in lowering violence. Casualties suffered by Iraqi security forces, he said, were down 40 percent since the beginning of the troop reinforcement plan. Civilian fatalities in Baghdad, he said, were down 75 percent in recent months. In some areas, the attacks have not been so low since the spring and summer of 2005.</p>

<p>Since the violence has decreased in Baghdad people have begun trickling back into cafes and streets in the hope that the calm will last.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Richard Benedetto was for many years the White House correspondent for USA Today. Now retired, he teaches journalism at American University in Washington, D.C.</p>

<p>**When U.S. troop deaths hit a monthly high in April, that was front-page news in most major newspapers, Mr. Benedetto noted. But when U.S. troop deaths fell in October to their lowest levels in 17 months, that news was buried on page A-14 of The Washington Post and mentioned on Page A-12 in The New York Times.<a href=“The%20Post-Gazette%20put%20the%20story%20on%20the%20front%20page.”>/b</a></p>

<p>“I asked the class if burying or ignoring the story indicated an anti-war bias on the part of the editors or their papers,” Mr. Benedetto said. “While some students said yes … most attributed the decision to poor news judgment. They were being generous.”</p>

<p>Mr. Peters suspects the paucity of news coverage from Iraq these days is because “things are going annoyingly well.”</p>

<p>Rich Lowry agrees. "The United States may be the only country in world history that reverse-propagandizes itself, magnifying its setbacks and ignoring its successes so that nothing can disturb what Sen. Joe Lieberman calls the ‘narrative of defeat,’ " he wrote in National Review.</p>

<p>If what Mr. Peters, Mr. Benedetto and Mr. Lowry suspect is true, it must have pained The Associated Press to see a correspondent write Wednesday: “The trend toward better security is indisputable.” It’ll be interesting to see which newspapers run the AP story, and where in the paper they place it.</p>

<p>“We’ve won the war in the real Iraq, but few people in America are familiar with anything other than its make-believe version,” said the Mudville Gazette’s “Greyhawk,” a soldier currently serving his second tour in Iraq.

[It’s</a> true: Iraq is a quagmire](<a href=“http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm]It’s”>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm)</p>