...and now for the untruth
Just as it's important to take notice when a man like Ed Koch speaks the truth (see the post below), it is also important refute the liberal lies that are so often fed to us as if they were the gospel truth. A great example is a recent column by Anna Quindlen concerning "chaos" in Iraq. Let's go through the column step by step and see if we can't refute each of the "untruths" she calls facts.
www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060730/3062618.asp
She begins her column by questioning the conservative position that if America "cuts and runs" from Iraq, chaos will be the result. Quindlen's point is, "So what? Chaos already reigns in Iraq." To buttress her point, she points to the "fact" that a 14 year old girl was raped and murdered by 5 U.S. soldiers. This supposed "fact" has not as yet been proven. As I have said many times before, about half of everything one reads in the mainstream media is made up. How sure was the mainstream media that the Duke lacrosse team was guilty of rape? That was a "fact", wasn't it. Well, it was a fact until we found out that it wasn't a fact and that the "victim's" story had more holes than a golf course. I would prefer to let the investigation play out before we make a judgement on those soldiers. Quindlen points to bombs going off in neighborhoods and civilians being shot on a bus to further support her claim of chaos. Clearly, according to Quindlen, there's just too much "chaos" and it's all our fault.
We could go round and round arguing about whether or not all of this "chaos" is acceptable or not, and we would just end up right back where we started. I would like to pose a different question---Do Quindlen and her liberal friends believe that Iraq was better off with the "ordered structure" of the Saddam regime? There certainly wasn't any of that dreaded chaos under Saddam, was there? Everybody knew right where they stood, and life was tranquil, and 70 innocent people (on average) were murdered every day by their own government. The dreaded "chaos" that Quindlen whines about, the murderous "chaos" that liberals say is so bad for Iraqi civilians, would take over 120 years to kill as many people as were murdered by the Saddam regime! How can Quindlen insinuate that Iraqis are worse off now?
Later in the column, Quindlen trots out the liberal "oldies but goodies"-- Bush lied, soldiers died, WMD were never found, poor dumb Americans were lied to so often by Bush that we are all hoplessly confused today, thank goodness for the tireless liberal media stepping in to help us poor saps sort the whole mess out. Quindlen and her comrads just refuse to acknowledge the fact that over 500 chemical and biological weapons have been found, as well as yellow cake uranium, chemical weapons labs and the like. All of this has been well documented, but liberals refuse to see.
Quindlen talks about the congressional debate last month concerning withdrawal, and pooh-poohs it as nothing more than political posturing. FACT--The "cut and run" question was put to a vote, and it was soundly defeated by Republicans and Democrats alike. That's what we call "bipartisanship."
At the very end of the column, Quindlen does a flip that would make John Kerry and Cirque de Sole proud. She says, "Iraq may even be better off." Huh? I thought she had spent the previous 10 paragraphs saying that Iraq is not better off! So which is it? This little sentence was so reminiscent of John Kerry's whoppers, that I had to laugh! I suppose even a committed liberal like Quindlen has to tell the truth once in awhile. Then she says that it is America that is worse off, obviously ignoring the fact that American soil and American interests haven't been attacked by terrorists since 9/11. She must have forgotten about "the good old '90's" when those kinds of terrorist attacks were so much more commonplace.
It is the duty of conservatives all across our country to know the truth, and to speak the truth. The liberal lies being spread by the "cut and run" crowd, and their willing accomplices in the mainstream media, must be countered with the truth.
www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060730/3062618.asp
She begins her column by questioning the conservative position that if America "cuts and runs" from Iraq, chaos will be the result. Quindlen's point is, "So what? Chaos already reigns in Iraq." To buttress her point, she points to the "fact" that a 14 year old girl was raped and murdered by 5 U.S. soldiers. This supposed "fact" has not as yet been proven. As I have said many times before, about half of everything one reads in the mainstream media is made up. How sure was the mainstream media that the Duke lacrosse team was guilty of rape? That was a "fact", wasn't it. Well, it was a fact until we found out that it wasn't a fact and that the "victim's" story had more holes than a golf course. I would prefer to let the investigation play out before we make a judgement on those soldiers. Quindlen points to bombs going off in neighborhoods and civilians being shot on a bus to further support her claim of chaos. Clearly, according to Quindlen, there's just too much "chaos" and it's all our fault.
We could go round and round arguing about whether or not all of this "chaos" is acceptable or not, and we would just end up right back where we started. I would like to pose a different question---Do Quindlen and her liberal friends believe that Iraq was better off with the "ordered structure" of the Saddam regime? There certainly wasn't any of that dreaded chaos under Saddam, was there? Everybody knew right where they stood, and life was tranquil, and 70 innocent people (on average) were murdered every day by their own government. The dreaded "chaos" that Quindlen whines about, the murderous "chaos" that liberals say is so bad for Iraqi civilians, would take over 120 years to kill as many people as were murdered by the Saddam regime! How can Quindlen insinuate that Iraqis are worse off now?
Later in the column, Quindlen trots out the liberal "oldies but goodies"-- Bush lied, soldiers died, WMD were never found, poor dumb Americans were lied to so often by Bush that we are all hoplessly confused today, thank goodness for the tireless liberal media stepping in to help us poor saps sort the whole mess out. Quindlen and her comrads just refuse to acknowledge the fact that over 500 chemical and biological weapons have been found, as well as yellow cake uranium, chemical weapons labs and the like. All of this has been well documented, but liberals refuse to see.
Quindlen talks about the congressional debate last month concerning withdrawal, and pooh-poohs it as nothing more than political posturing. FACT--The "cut and run" question was put to a vote, and it was soundly defeated by Republicans and Democrats alike. That's what we call "bipartisanship."
At the very end of the column, Quindlen does a flip that would make John Kerry and Cirque de Sole proud. She says, "Iraq may even be better off." Huh? I thought she had spent the previous 10 paragraphs saying that Iraq is not better off! So which is it? This little sentence was so reminiscent of John Kerry's whoppers, that I had to laugh! I suppose even a committed liberal like Quindlen has to tell the truth once in awhile. Then she says that it is America that is worse off, obviously ignoring the fact that American soil and American interests haven't been attacked by terrorists since 9/11. She must have forgotten about "the good old '90's" when those kinds of terrorist attacks were so much more commonplace.
It is the duty of conservatives all across our country to know the truth, and to speak the truth. The liberal lies being spread by the "cut and run" crowd, and their willing accomplices in the mainstream media, must be countered with the truth.
posted by hondo at 1:09 PM
1 Comments:
You report that Iraq was found to be loaded with WMD. Inspectors found vestiges of pre-1991 chemical weapons and nuke projects, but not any current programs or functional weapons. Saddam was at least able to bluff people and hold off Iran. Iraqis don't seem particularly happy about their liberators. By most accounts, Iraqi Christians are worse off.
Curious to know your take on the writings of Anthony Cordesman or William Odom. See:
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,3402/type,1/
Or
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3430
One can find mainly purely military reasons to redeploy. Better to cut and run than bet even more chips on a losing hand.
Post a Comment
<< Home