Fraters reader the Warrior Princess has had enough of the 9/11 commission and proceeds to go Xena on their political charade of an investigation with this email:
The incredible inconsistency in the current Democratic mantra on terrorism is astonishing to me. President Bush went into Iraq based on the actual and probable threat of attack on the United States. He did so preemptively after the national catastrophe we experienced on Sept. 11. For this action, President Bush has been condemned for acting without enough evidence, and not getting the approval of the U.N. But yet, the President is being blamed for not taking action prior to Sept. 11 to stop the terrorist attacks?!? Exactly what does the left think he should have done?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the August PDB did provide even a tiny shred of information that would have given the executive branch a small clue as to what was going to happen. To prevent the attacks on Sept. 11, the action would have had to have been drastic, pre-emptive, based on an incredibly limited amount of information, and certainly taken without the approval of the U.N. If the left doesn't support the presuppositions that the President built his case to invade Iraq on, it's absolutely ludicrous to think they would have supported any action he would have taken to prevent the terrorist attacks in the month prior to Sept. 11.
And does anyone else wonder where the entire civil libertarian viewpoint of the Democratic Party has disappeared to? For the last two years I have had to endure the whining of my lefty friends that Big Brother John Ashcroft wielding the blunt instrument known as the USA Patriot Act was totally massacring our civil liberties. Any scenario that the President could have conceived to make an impact on the terrorist plot in the one month prior to Sept. 11 would have had to involve racial profiling, and illegal surveillance. If you're going to Monday morning quarterback, could you at least attempt to be consistent?
The answer of course, is no. The Left doesn't have to be consistent, because no one in the mainstream media is interested in holding them accountable. Charges and accusations are made week after week, and preposterous and contradictory as they may be, it all gets superficially reported as credible. Suddenly the cynical ,hard bitten press corps is transformed into a group of wide eyed innocents, accepting anything they're told. You say Condoleeza Rice never heard of Al Quaeda before Richard Clarke casually mentioned it while cleaning out his desk? Gosh. You say some vague information tangentially related to terrorism in the United States appeared in one of thousands of briefing documents presented to the White House--and Bush didn't do anything to stop the 9/11 attacks? Gasp!
But luckily for us, there are media types still engaged in casting a cold eye on such nonsense. Including the pride of Mounds View, Minnesota, Mr. Vox Day. In a recent World Net Daily column, Vox comes to terms with the subtle charms of liberal argument:
I have finally been convinced that I will be healthier, happier and wealthier if I join the large-brained ranks of the morally superior elite. I have therefore decided to become a liberal. Already I have benefited greatly from my decision--whereas many previous discussions ended in a frustrating impasse, now, being inestimably more clever and better-looking than before, I am able to win any argument with the greatest of ease. Let me share with you the secret of my success.
1) Make an untrue statement, preferably on the subject of something about which you know nothing.
2) Express astonishment that your source could possibly be inaccurate.
3) Demand what motivation your source would have to lie.
4) Assert that the other party's inability to articulate this motivation is tantamount to proof that your source is not lying.
5) Question the motivation of the contrary source.
6) Argue that all sources are equal and that therefore the contrary source is irrelevant.
7) Change the subject.
Alternatively ...
1) Make an untrue statement.
2) Deny that you said what you said.
3) Deny that the other party understood what you said.
4) Deny that the words you used mean what the other party claims they mean.
5) Redefine your definition and hope the other person forgets the previous one. Repeat as needed.
6) Assert that since definitions are irrelevant and subjective, the other person is mean-spirited, racist, sexist, intolerant and obsessive.
7) Change the subject.
FYI - Vox Day will be a special guest on Northern Alliance Radio this Saturday, in the 2:00 hour. Tune in, but liberal callers be warned, Vox has your number. (That's right, it's standard Patriot AM1280 policy to forward our guests the names, addresses and phone numbers of those who disagree with them. It makes the crushing of dissent so much easier that way.)
No comments:
Post a Comment