Despite protests from the Left that they aren't on the same side as our terrorist enemies, the terrorists, at least, think that they are.
RAFAH, Gaza Strip -- Palestinian gunmen in Gaza Strip early Wednesday tried to kidnap the parents of an Evergreen State College student killed in 2003.Five gunmen burst into a house and tried to kidnap Rachel Corrie's parents, Craig and Cindy. The gunmen eventually relented after being told who their targets were.
Rachel Corrie, of course, was the woman who stood in front of an Israeli bulldozer while it was in the process of destroying a house used by terrorists (or a tunnel used to smuggle weapons into Israel, depending on the source you read).
(HT: James Taranto.)
I think it's pretty obvious that you think leftists and terrorists are on the same side, MW.
It's the rhetoric-du-jour of our time for conservatives.
I thought conservatives like you, MW, would've done better than stooping to what the Left often does.. imply congruence and unity of purpose where it does not exist.
The more you even mention the subject, "Are terrorists and leftists on the same side?", the more people begin to form an association between terrorists and leftists, regardless of reason and regardless of the fact that you didn't explicitly state that such a connection exists. The Left does this all the time.. so my question is why are you doing the same?
I'm going to agree with Michael on this one. The Left has been getting in the way of our efforts to fight terrorists waaaayy too frequently.
Mark,
I like how you leave one comment, and then sit there for nearly 1/2 hour and try to come up with something even BETTER, and then post your second comment.
You do that frequently. Is it really necessary to leave a grip of comments, one right after the other? Maybe you should think a bit more before you post your first comment, rather than depositing a gob of comments with no one ranting but yourself.
And yes, the Left is siding with terrorists more often than not. :) But you don't have to think that if you don't want to. I mean, even though we have definitive prove of it, it won't bother me if you disagree. It's your choice to believe what you want, no matter what the facts say, correct?
Oh yes because letting Westerns go is what terrorists do all the time, they would never in a million years say....behead one of them.
A little hint you don't have to be best friends or even hold the same ideas to have a common cause, take World War 2 for example, we supplied and worked with Stalin, a completely differnt government and a man who want to wipe us out, but somehow we managed to have the common cause of defeating Nazis. Now it doesn't make all of the Allies mass-murdering communists, but were were on the same side of the Nazi issue.
r80: Well, that's not really what this is about, is it? Opposing the Bush Administration and its policies seems to me to be about expressing concerns for civil liberties and about how Iraq is a distraction from the overall "War on Terrorism". Now is that opposition evidence of support for the terrorists or just opposition to the way the administration has chosen to go about defeating terrorism? Nothing has convinced me it's the former instead of the latter.
DD: I didn't realize you were such a scholar of my comments. I'm flattered.. sort of.
But please, I encourage you to provide your evidence that terrorists and the Left have the same goals and the same agenda.. and that one can speak synonymously of terrorists and the Left. Since your premise stems from the proclamation that it is based on facts, you should provide those facts.
tP: What is the "common cause", that terrorists and the Left purportedly share, upon which your post is based?
As I understand it, terrorists want everyone who isn't a believer in radical Islam to convert and if that cannot be accomplished, then all non-believers must die. Terrorists want the United States (and many other nations) under their control and influence. Who opposed the hunting for Osama in Afghanistan after 9/11? No one, leftist or otherwise, in America did. Who opposes killing terrorists now? No leftist that I know.
Mark, do you deny that the terrorists and leftists would both like to see Pres Bush deposed, and the Democrats swept into political power? Or do you honestly believe that the terrorists have no preference between Democrats and Republicans?
Leftists haven't been acting like a "loyal opposition" since the war began. They haven't been offering constructive criticism. They want us to fail in Iraq. They want terrorists to have a bill of rights. They just want to score cheap political points at the expense of our national security.
From the pre-war "human shield" volunteers in Iraq and Eason Jordan's claims that our troops target journalists to Dean and Kerry's recent rantings, I associate the Left with the terrorist agenda.
This Iraq war veteran provides more negative examples of the Left's conduct this past year.....
http://odysseus.journalspace.com
Mark: You aren't representative of the leftists involved in American politics.
Mark,
Yes, I consider myself a scholar on YOU in general. With all the lunacy you present on a daily basis, I would wager that most of the regular readers on MW's site are scholar's on your inner mental workings.
Next, see Ben Bateman's comment.
Also, did you not watch the al-Jazeera aired video in 2004 where Osama offered a peace pact with all the "blue states" and essentially declared war on all the "red states?" This happened in the heat of the 2004 Presidential elections.
Furthermore, let's look at logic:
Conservatives are more likely to go to war.
Democrats are less likely to go to war.
Which party do you think the terrorists want in power?
If the terrorists want the Left in power, then they must know the Left will be ineffective in removing themselves (the terrorists) from power. Thus, siding with the Left is a strategic move based on the Left's history of not wanting to go to war.
Logic Point #2: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The friend of my enemy is also my enemy.
Democrats don't want to do anything effective to keep terrorists out of power, no matter how much you want to argue that point. Terrorists want the Democrats in power so they too can stay in power. Thus, the Democrats and the terrorists have indirectly formed an alliance since they both have a common goal in mind: not removing the terrorists from power. That makes both the Democrats and the terrorists American enemies.
If you look at that combined with Osama's basic ENDORSEMENT of John Kerry in 2004, only a fool would deny that the Democrats don't align often with terrorism.
Come on, Mark. Don't you watch the news? Basically every Lefty is anti-war and specifically against the WoT:
Cindy Sheehan
Michael Moore
Sean Penn
Susan Sarandon
The Hollywood List goes on and on
Howard Dean is sometimes for the war, most often against it.
John Kerry was sometimes for the war, most often against it.
At every opportunity, most Liberals will attempt to discredit the US and the WoT. The terrorists are also attempting to discredit the US and defeat the WoT. Oh, look, another common link between terrorists and Democrats.
BB: I suspect that any opponent of the US in war would want to take their chances on the other political party. It's not a given, though, that Osama and his ilk would be any safer if Al Gore would've won in 2000. Osama and his ilk would probably have been far less safe if we hadn't become so committed in Iraq.
r80: The Left doesn't want us to fail in Iraq. The "bill of rights" thing you're referring to is probably the torture issue, correct me if it isn't. I question torture's effectiveness and so, whether it's worth using. And don't even pretend to talk all high and mighty about "scoring cheap political points". The Right has been doing this since 9/11.. and the demagoguery of conservatives in this and other threads is a testament to it.
MW: Your characterization and that of others here isn't representative of the Leftists in American politics either.
DD: Ahh, I suppose it's just a coincidence that the worst post is the last one I respond to. I'm touched by the attention you pay to me and if I were heterosexual I'd probably be a little turned on by it.. but I digress.
- The al-Jazeera video: That says a lot about Osama's idiocy, but it doesn't say anything about the Left. Your predisposition against the Left is what fills in the blanks.
- Conservatives/Democrats going to war: In order for this to be applicable, we have to determine what "war" we're talking about. If we're talking about Iraq, yes.. Democrats would've been less likely to invade Iraq and get us committed there for years. If we're talking about the "War on Terrorism", this logic is anything but. Democrats and the rest of the Left supported the hunting of Osama and the pursuit of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The disconnect has always been Iraq. Democrats and the Left want us to pursue terrorists and terrorism in other ways and conservatives want to adhere to the "flypaper" strategy while we nation-build. None of this suggests a lack of willingness, on the part of Democrats and others on the Left to prosecute the "War on Terrorism".
Terrorists *think* they'd be safer with a Democrat in the White House. I didn't know the standard with which we determine those things was the musings of terrorists. Please don't let the enemy shape how you think of your fellow Americans.
- Your "logical point #2": Again, you're confusing the issue. The war in Iraq, the "flypaper" strategy, is one way to go about attacking terrorists. It is not the only way, or even the only effective way. I said it once and I'll say it again: EVERYONE SUPPORTED BUSH'S INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN AND THE HUNT FOR OSAMA AND AL-QAEDA. Support for President Bush was the highest it's ever been during those times, with some 95% supporting him. What does that mean? Does it mean that Democrats and liberals support Osama and terrorists? No, it means they wanted revenge for 9/11 as much as any Republican or conservative. If the hunting of Osama and al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations pre-Iraq was worth doing then, why isn't it worth doing now.. and why are Democrats labeled by people like you as "not wanting to do anything effective against terrorists" for wanting us to focus more on that and less on Iraq?
- Hollywood list: As far as I know, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, and everyone else on your Hollywood list don't determine anything about our foreign or domestic policies.
- Your last paragraph: At every opportunity, most conservatives will attempt to paint their liberal peers as supporters of terrorists. Oh, look, another example of demagoguery.
Mark: I dig you, man. Your interaction here keeps debate lively, so don't stop, although I'm sure you have no intention of stopping.
No one even hinted at sexual preference in this thread, so I'm enlightened and humored that you essentially found that as another way to stir things up a bit in your previous post. *Extra points for creative effort*
And I second MW's take that by using the word "Lefty" as a loose term, that was not meant to paint you. You often take contrary positions on topics, but from what I know of you, you would NEVER associate yourself with the radical view of siding with terrorists. That said, WHY respond as if you include yourself in that crowd?
It's like someone yelling the name "Bill!" out loud several times, and finally I get mad and scream "My name's NOT Bill!"
I don't get that about you.
DD: Your point #2 is dead-on. Even if two groups loath each other...if they have a common goal, then...they have a common goal. Kinda hard to argue that logic.
The terrorist bill of rights includes the current "right to privacy"(NSA wire-tapping) debate for terror suspects on our soil making calls to Zarqawi. McCain's torture bill(that the Dems and their Leftist base clamored for) is going to remove any incentive for captured terrorists to spill the beans to our guys. If "political correctness" wins, our military recruits in basic training will be treated worse than terrorists in our custody.
This are recent examples of "scoring cheap political points"....
[Naturally, Howard Dean chose this time to announce that the war is unwinnable, John Murtha demanded a complete and immediate withdrawal and John Kerry accused US forces of terrorizing Iraqis. House Republicans forced a vote on Murtha’s proposed pullout, which resulted in a route of 403 to 3 against, with 6 abstentions. This forced Democratic spokesmen to deny that they ever wanted a timetable to withdrawal, but rather, a timetable to eventual victory.]
"Democrats and the Left want us to pursue terrorists and terrorism in other ways"
The problem is that the Left never provides an effective alternative to the Iraq war. I've heard some say they want us to completely forsake Israel. I've heard some say Iran or North Korea should have been invaded first, but they never think about why those could be catastrophic alternatives(twice as much territory to occupy, Chinese intervention?) compared to Iraq. Some say we should have targeted "Bush's buddies" in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
"EVERYONE SUPPORTED BUSH'S INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN AND THE HUNT FOR OSAMA AND AL-QAEDA."
Ramsey Clark's International A.N.S.W.E.R. didn't.
The media's summer darling, Cindy Sheehan, wants us out of Afghanistan(and New Orleans). I think Pelosi would jump on that bandwagon too....
[On Tuesday, Mrs. Pelosi and three other top Democrats called for a commission to investigate reported abuses of detainees from the war on terror. Mrs. Pelosi said it is past time that the administration established a policy on determining the fates of the detainees at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that most are from Afghanistan and that the conflict there has ended.
"I assume that the war in Afghanistan is over, or is the contention that you have that it continues?" she said to a reporter.
A few moments later, she said: "This isn't about the duration of the war. The war in Afghanistan is over."] (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050623-121633-8873r.htm)
There is no war in Afghanistan, but she isn't calling for a troop withdrawal there?
"and why are Democrats labeled by people like you as 'not wanting to do anything effective against terrorists' for wanting us to focus more on that and less on Iraq?"
Thanks to John Kerry, Democrats are viewed as 9/10 thinkers that want to go back to fighting terrorism as a domestic security/law enforcement matter as opposed to a military matter. With all of the paradoxical bitching over "domestic spying" and interrogation tactics, I don't see how they can possibly be more effective than the Bush adminstration's policies.
I will admit that most Leftists aren't like the freaks that I usually envision them as, but I've seen too many of them in the media and it is starting to have a spillover effect into my reality....
JP: I don't argue on here as a means of including myself in that crowd. I argue on here simply to bring the right-wing euphoria and demagoguery of the Left down a peg or two. Regardless of what anyone says or thinks, it just doesn't strike me as terribly convincing when right-wingers say bad things about left-wingers. It's predictable, and anyone with a shred of objectivity will be very tempted to dismiss it as distortion. It's very much like watching a Ford commercial, one in which they denounce Chevy vehicles. Imagine that.. Ford saying bad things about Chevy vehicles. And what's this? Chevy says bad things about Ford vehicles? What are the odds of that? What a newsflash.. story at eleven.
DD's point that you refer to is invalid because the goals of terrorists and the goals of Democrats /liberals are not the same.
r80: I have no problem with arguments about how what the Left is proposing isn't going to work very well.. but there's a difference between denouncing the suggestions and questioning the motives. That's what this is really about.
"Thanks to John Kerry, Democrats are viewed as 9/10 thinkers that want to go back to fighting terrorism as a domestic security/law enforcement matter as opposed to a military matter."
Well, domestically that's exactly what we need to be doing more of.. and a better job of it. John Kerry never suggested that we shouldn't use the military to prosecute the "War on Terrorism". Again, you're making the war in Iraq out to be synonymous with the "War on Terrorism". The war in Iraq is a part of the whole.. not the whole itself.
Props to you for using your sexual orientation to deflect some of the criticism. Moving right along.
Oh, so the Left bears NO responsibility whatsoever in the fact that Osama endorses them publicly? THAT is some mad crazy propaganda skills! Ha! Once again, you are trying to put up a show of mirrors to disprove the fact that al-Qaeda hearts Democrats. It's not al-Qaeda's "idiocy" that makes them want the Left in power, it's their genius because they know that the Left won't do anything effective to stop them, unlike the Right. You're refusal to see the facts doesn't change the facts themselves.
Democrats only supported the initial WoT actions because they didn't want to appear weak. Now, most Democratic figureheads openly oppose the WoT. They'd rather do a Hugs on Terror or something of the sort. But your acknowledgement that the Left was less likely to invade Iraq proves my entire point: The Left and the terrorists have a common goal. While women and children were being tortured and rape and men fed into paper shredders in mass graves, their leader was engaging in nefarious activities and openly hostile to any sort of Western influence. That, my friends, is terrorism. Killing 1 million of your own citizens is genocide...and terrorism. The Left was less likely to invade Iraq which means they are LESS LIKELY to do anything about terrorism. Democrats and liberals don't want us pursuing terrorists because it only highlights their ineffective national defense ideologies. Oh and since you brought up the idea that Democrats support the Afghanistan invasion and pursuing Osama, how come many Democrats are calling for a trial of Osama to ensure he gets the same rights as you and I as American citizens? Once again, aligning with the interests of the terrorists. Oh and you're entirely wrong: Democrats WANT us to fail in Iraq so they can further their self-interests. Talk about unwillingness. Read one of Dean's screams or any one of Hollywood's incessant anti-war ramblings. They all want us to fail in Iraq to prove to the world that Republicans are evil.
You make absolutely no sense here.
Um, I doubt that (see Reagan's shooting down of your skewed logic). But even if some Democrats supported the invasion of Afghanistan, it was only to temporarily regroup so the Left could come up with some new scandal or attack plan. I think it was 3 whole weeks this country was unified, then the Left started whining about Bush's handling of the WoT.
Thank GOD that these lunatics don't determine our foreign policy. But they do give a pretty clear representation of the Left.
At every opportunity, Democrats criticize anything positive happening in the Middle East and WoT, thereby proving the Conservatives' "paintings" of the Left true.
Mark, you said: "I don't argue on here as a means of including myself in that crowd".
Thank you for giving the "My name's not Bill" analogy some traction, because I never even came close to suggesting what you responded to.
There's a term for defending yourself against an unspoken accusation- it's called a guilty conscience.
I can come up with no better reason than that as to why you repeatedly deny motives no one accuses you of having.
Other than that, you're a riot.
This thread isn't about "Fords" calling "Chevys" bad things. Although your analogy is true in many cases, and has much merit, it doesn't fit here. This is more about simple math.
Osama wanted Kerry rather than Bush in power. WHY? Did he like Kerry's hairstyle more than Bush's? I doubt it.
The terrorists in the original story MW quoted DID let the parents go after finding out who they were. WHY? Did they have a sudden case of compassion? I doubt it.
When simple facts of logic are set aside in favor of labeling them "name calling", the issue is simply side-stepped.
If the majority of the hard political left have even unintentional likeminded goals as terrorists do, why is that so disconcerting? It just is as it is. I don't believe the facts themselves are "bad". They're just facts.
For instance, the pro-choice crowd advocates killing as it's primary solution to pregnancy. That doesn't mean that they hold hands and sing kum-by-ya around the campfire with murderous death row inmates.
It just is what it is.
If Osama believes his life would not be in danger were there a Democrat in the White House because of the opposition Democrats have toward how Bush chose to prosecute the "War on Terrorism", that speaks to how little he understands the enemy he has in the United States.
Your proclamation that Democrats wouldn't do anything effective to stop terrorists isn't a fact, it's an opinion. It's interesting to me how readily you validate as if it were gospel Osama's belief of his safety under a Democratic President.
That's some pretty good spin yourself, kiddo. Let's take it one item at a time:
- You contend that support for Bush's initial actions in the WoT was simply to avoid the appearance of being weak. That's "conservative ESP" if ever I saw it. Is it so impossible to believe that Democrats and liberals were as enraged by 9/11 as Republicans and conservatives were? Why do you automatically assume the worst of Democrats and liberals while assuming the best of Republicans and conservatives? You also contend that "most Democratic figureheads" openly oppose the WoT. Don't make the war in Iraq, and Democratic opposition to it, out to be everything there is to the WoT.
- Your continue to contend that the Left and terrorists have common goals because the Left was unlikely to invade Iraq and since "terrorism" was going on in Iraq, the Left is less likely to do anything about terrorism. That doesn't add up, my dear. Here's why: the Left didn't oppose the invasion of Iraq because it doesn't care about terrorism. The Left opposes the invasion of Iraq because there were no WMD and because they believe Iraq was not and is not central to the hunting of terrorist organizations all over the world.. not because they don't want to go after terrorists. I don't know why anyone would want a trial for Osama, but I'd like to see your documentation of who is among the "many Democrats".
- You contend that Democrats *want* us to fail in Iraq for political reasons. And you have the audacity to call ME a master at propaganda? Oops.. I remember now.. you're firing up that conservative ESP again. Just because you think they want us to fail doesn't make it the truth.
Oh, come on DD.. it's not that tough. Terrorists think they'd be safer with a Democrat in the White House and because of that you conclude that Democrats wouldn't do anything to stop terrorists? Apparently the threshold for believing the worst of your Democrat/liberal compatriots is pretty low for you.
Reagan didn't shoot down anything. He pointed to one organization. I suppose you missed this polling information:
"After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, for example, President George W. Bush's approval rating jumped 35 percentage points, from 51% to 86%, then reached a record high of 90% a week later. The effect is rarely permanent, although it is important to note that, while Bush's approval declined over the next 18 months, it did not fall as low as 51%, where it was just before 9/11."
Your contention, that the country was unified for "3 weeks", is inconsistent with this data.
Democrats don't criticize anything positive happening in the Middle East and WoT. A few liberals may, but not the broader Democratic party. Clarify what you're talking about. Democrats and "the Left" are not synonymous.
JP: You asked:
.. and I explained that I don't respond as if I include myself in that crowd.
Osama wanted Kerry in power because he believes he'd be safer. The questions that belief raises are:
- Why would he believe this?
- Why should we validate his reasoning?
The second question is the most important.. and so far no one has given a good answer for why we should put faith in his reasoning. A preconceived belief on the part of conservatives that Kerry, being a Democrat, would be a whimp when it comes to national security is NOT evidence that Osama's beliefs are valid. It may fit the lowered burden of proof that conservatives have for believing bad things about liberals, but it doesn't pass anything close to an objective analysis.
Why did they let the parents go? Probably for the same irrelevant reasons that Osama thinks he'd be safer with Kerry in the White House. The simplest explanation is most likely the right one.
You're the only one here to even mention the concept of "unintentional" when referring to the broader concept of the goals of terrorists and the goals of the Left. If everyone else in this thread were approaching the issue from that standpoint, I'd have fewer concerns. Instead, what we have here is a lot of heresay, propped up as fact, about the INTENTIONS of terrorists and the Left being identical or similar.
That's spin. The "pro-choice crowd" doesn't advocate killing as it's "primary solution" to pregnancy.
Mark, you say that there's no evidence that Democrats in power would in fact be less of a threat to the terrorists. What about the fact that the Democrats have no plan for dealing with them, other than running away?
ROBIN: Would it help to confuse it if we run away more?
ARTHUR: Oh, shut up and go and change your armor.
GALAHAD: Let us taunt it! It may become so cross that it will make a mistake.
ARTHUR: Like what?
GALAHAD: Well,....
Dealing with terrorists isn't a problem that requires much creativity. You either have the will to fight and kill them, or you surrender and submit to them. The Dems keep looking for some third alternative, and it simply doesn't exist.
There is also historical evidence of democrats being weak on terror. The Clinton administration was as weak and placating as there ever was for 8 long years. No way he would take a stand lest he be seen as a having a backbone. Kerry followed right along that same vein..swaying in the wind using polls and European approval as his guide. Kerry would never have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq or any other country. Seriously, how many acts of war (being shot at with missles in Iraq) and how many violations of the UN mandates (almost all of them) do you allow before you take action? According to Europe and the democrats - forever. Osama saw it and so do many others. The fact that you don't is very telling. Maybe a strongly worded reprimand to these terrorists is what you consider as a strong response?
Mark:
C'mon, Mark, that's ridiculous, even for you.
That's what the whole pro-choice movement is about: To keep the choice of killing on the table as a viable option for so-called justifiable reasons. It's not spin, you just choose to label it that way.
But lets not digress to that topic anymore, lets just leave it in the limited analogy I drew with it, which is that I don't think "Leftists", for lack of a better term, purposely align themselves with terrorist views. Admitting the fact that they might possibly share goals (reaching those goals independently, and for different reasons) doesn't mean they're evil traitors. That was my point.
What could be simpler than the obvious? They were told who the people were, and they let them go, Mark. That's more obvious than fuzzy logic about how to validate "possible" thoughts they might have had.
And irrelevant and silly as the notion might be, attempting to rig an election by publicly declaring a Kerry win to equal safety from more Osama attacks is NOT exactly a difficult thing to understand.
Osama knew Kerry had history of shifting loyalties and less than firm stands on ideals. He may be dumb to screw with the US, but he's obviously not a stupid man. Clearly a Kerry win would have suited him just fine. Why is that so hard to understand?
Or is it that you don't like the outcome of following through to the obvious conclusion? It seems that unfavorable answers prompt you to bury the debate in a wash of impossibility.
BB: Your premise, that their only plan is to run away, doesn't quite work because Iraq isn't the only front on which we're fighting terrorists.
The "third solution" you talked about is exactly what I've been talking about for a long time. The third solution is one that involves fighting the terrorists as well as finding and implementing ways of eliminating the favorable conditions in which new ones grow. I surmise the nation-building in Iraq is something of an attempt at that. I don't think it was the right thing to do, but that's irrelevant of the fact that we must be successful.
6K: Before 9/11, no one took terrorism very seriously.. even President Bush.
And while it may seem to be a technicality, Kerry wouldn't have been the one to get a chance to invade Afghanistan.. Al Gore would've if he won the election in 2000. And since you're not particularly an expert on what Al Gore or John Kerry would or would not have done in a hypothetical scenario (where either of them became President).. perhaps you shouldn't speak so authoritatively on the subject.
Where in anything that I've said does it suggest that I don't think military action is necessary against terrorists?
JP said:
Ahh, but that's not what you said earlier. You said earlier that the "pro-choice crowd advocates killing as its PRIMARY SOLUTION to pregnancy". The part about it being their "primary solution" is what's spin.
That's great! I have no strong disagreement with that point. Perhaps you should address that point to others here, like Ben Bateman and especially DeoDuce.
The reason they let them go is not what's in dispute here. They let them go because they were seen as a part of the group of people who, according to terrorists, would be of no threat. The dispute here is over whether or not the terrorists are right about that.
Who's having difficulty understanding it? I'm not. I have no doubt at all that Osama wanted Kerry to win. The key, to me, is whether or not he was a fool for that. I contend that he was.. and is.
Again, nothing is difficult to understand here. And again, whether or not we put any faith in what Osama says and thinks about his safety with a Democrat in power depends entirely upon our buying into his reasoning for coming to that conclusion. I've been saying all along in this thread that I don't think there's any objectively compelling reason to do so. Given that the people who think Kerry would've been a whimp, at least on this blog, are conservative ideologues.. loathed to say anything non-critical of a Democrat or a liberal.. I find the Chevy-Ford thing from earlier perfectly applicable.
No, I just don't believe in the viability of Osama's reasons for why he thinks he'd be safer with a Democrat in the White House. You said it yourself he's dumb enough to screw with the US. Is it so impossible, and so unreasonable of me to believe, that he's also dumb enough to underestimate the lethality of one of its political parties? No, it's not.
Mark,
As I've read your thought-out responses to everyone's comments, I've come to a few conclusions:
1. You don't care about the facts. You care about winning a debate.
2. You are really a Republican college student sitting at his computer and mimicking the mad ravings of a liberal.
3. You really do have a guilty conscience, which drives you to spew incompetent rhetoric whenever a logical point is presented to you. Now, by saying this, I know that I'll get some gem of a response from you like: "I know you are, but what am I?" (sound familiar?)
Some other commenter pointed out the guilty conscience thing in one of the comments above...
It seems to me that you become so entangled within your own defensiveness and frustration that all rational perspective and processes cease within your own mind.
I'm not saying this to belittle you in any way...sometimes you have good points that make the rest of us think out of the box.
But come on, Mark, you aren't making a grain of sense in ANY of your above comments.
Instead of automatically writing us off, why don't you consider what we're saying? I wasn't born a Republican...I was allowed to choose my own political party growing up by careful evaluation of the conduct, principles, and ideals of each party.
You still haven't convinced any of us that Democrats and terrorists don't have common goals.
DD: I've come to a few conclusions of my own.
1. Your "facts" aren't facts. I demonstrated why your perception of the country's unity after 9/11 being gone after 3 weeks wasn't consistent with polling data, which suggested that the country was unified pretty much until the invasion of Iraq. Everything else you've presented is more belief than fact.. more subjective than objective.
2. I'm neither a Republican nor a college student. I'm not a card-carrying member of any political party and the only college I've attended was a technical college.
3. I don't exactly know what you mean by "guilty conscience" in this context. Please elaborate, and spare me the pop psychology.
Nothing in any of my above comments makes any sense to you? Interesting. I wonder if you yourself have, as you accuse me of doing, written me off. It's at least as much a possibility as what I've been saying being "nonsense".
Where did you grow up? I grew up in rural Wisconsin, a place where things like the "left coast liberalism" which surrounds you in many parts of CA doesn't get any play. Many conservative talking heads like to talk about Russ Feingold being some ultra-liberal.. but what they fail to realize is that the people who elected him in WI are not all from the Democratic hot spots of Madison and Milwaukee. Are you gonna tell me that all the people who elected him are "raging ultra-liberals"? Come stay a while in WI and then tell me that with a straight face.
I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything here. What you and Ben Bateman have been saying is that the Democrats and terrorists have INTENTIONALLY COMMON goals; that the Democrats want everything the terrorists want. I'm saying that is pure demagoguery.. and no facts have been presented to suggest otherwise.
One more thing..
You have also been saying that the Democrats would be no threat to the terrorists and that Osama's desire to see Kerry in office and the letting-go of the people in the original story at the top of this page are proof of that. I've been saying that Osama's belief in his safety under a Democratic US President is not gospel (whoa! what a radical concept) and that a man who was stupid enough to screw with the US is not a man whose perceptions of safety are particularly valid.
Mark: "What you and Ben Bateman have been saying is that the Democrats and terrorists have INTENTIONALLY COMMON goals; that the Democrats want everything the terrorists want. I'm saying that is pure demagoguery.. and no facts have been presented to suggest otherwise."
You build a straw man by throwing in that word "intentionally". I didn't say intentionally, and I don't recall DD saying it, either. By attributing it to us, you essentially concede our point, which is that the goals are common, intentionally or not.
BB: I believe DD's exact words included something to the effect of Democrats (and Leftists) want us to fail in Iraq and in the fight against terrorism.. if that's not a statement of belief in "intentionally common goals", I don't know what is.
You may not have said it explicitly, but the tone of your remarks certainly suggests it.
If you read the exchanges between myself and Jim Price, you'll see that the implication of terrorists and Democrats/Leftists having intentionally common goals is what I have a strong disagreement with.. and that implication of there being intentionally common goals is something I think you, DD, and MW believe in, or would like everyone else to believe in.