Posted on 03/20/2006 11:45:19 AM PST by Richard Axtell
Over the weekend I had a "conversation" with a liberal Democrat friend of mine. He is a friend, and is an intelligent and really nice guy. That conversation evolved into a debate about Bush, and of course "the fact that there were no WMDs". I pointed out that what the Democrat and leftist pundits and political leaders have really said, and said in monolithic lockstep, is that there "is no evidence that Saddam had WMD's or that Saddam had any connection to Al Qaida." It can be worded or phrased in varying ways, but that is essentially it, "no evidence". He accepted this interpretation, as I showed him example after example of leftist pundits making this particular point. NO EVIDENCE. Period.
I then pointed out that all anyone had to do is find evidence, any kind of evidence, and the Democrat-leftist argument collapses, and they are forced to argue the merits of the evidence. That is something they are not prepared to do, and have avoided even thinking about, with the exception of attacking the messenger. In effect, they have painted themselves into the proverbial corner, by playing the polemical card of the moment, which was "WMDs? I don't see any WMDs! Bush lied! He misled us into this war!" Now, they must prove a negative, which simply cannot be done. Prove Saddam never secretly talked, cooperated, or conspired with Al Qaida. How can that be proved? Answer: it can't.
The Anti-war Democrats and leftists must now deny, obfuscate, ignore, or in desperation "censor" any and all information that brings into question their "NO EVIDENCE" stance. This untenable situation was blindly adopted by the far left of the Democrat party, when Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, and others jumped over the line and made this their weapon, their "hill to die on" to try and get a knockout in the 2004 election. It failed, and now the chickens are going to come home to roost, 48,000 of them (the documents), and they will cackle and squawk for 3000 hours (the tapes) or more. The only remaining stance left to the left will be that of the ostrich, denying what everyone else can see. I don't envy that stance, at least philosophically.
So, when I mentioned the treasure trove of primary evidence that now has come to light in the form of the Saddam tapes and the 48,000 released documents, he was speechless, totally shut down. At least until he regained his composure, and said "Well, I haven't heard any of this is the press." I even mentioned that ABC was reporting it currently. He simply could not accept it. This is the Achilles heal, the key card in the Left's house of cards, and when this falls, as it must, so will any "consensus that Bush lied" must collapse. We can expect the hardcore Marxists to remain boneheaded, but they will also return to the tiny minority fringe where they belong. So, when arguing this point, remember my distinction, they have staked everything on "No evidence."
Note- that top link, while a collection of links I've gathered on the subject, takes you to reply #43. An old report from the Federation of American Scientists ( no friend of America, or Americans- I locked horns with them in Nuclear Freeze days ) which blows away the "no WMD" argument.
All I have on the docs is in the second.
Like all of my stuff, go to the "last" and work back for the latest first.
LOL!!
I agree. Intelligent and liberal = oxymoron
BINGO!!
Excellent site - thanks!
Exactly! ;*)
Or, if not an oxymoron, perhaps just a "moron"..... LOL!!
My bad!!
I was driving to a meeting this past Saturday and had to go through New Haven. (I'll get to my point..just bear with me). So, I'm passing the Green and suddenly I'm in bumper-to-bumper traffic...no escape and I'm thinking my 40-minute cushin I built into the trip is now going to evaporate. Police had the road blocked like a foreign dignitary was about to roll through. Turns out it was a few hundred protesters marching to the green. Judging from the small print on the lower portion of most of the signs, the majority were members of the International Socialist Union. Some examples of the signage:
No Blood For Oil
Stop STEALING Oil
Bush=Hitler
Lesbians for Peace
No WMD
Bush Lies
Free Palestine
Being Muslim is not a crime
Remember Rachael Corrie
Republicans a bloodthirsty
Why are the poor dying for Bush's Sins?
...and a lot of Abu Garib imagery and more anti-US/anti Israel/Anti-CIA/Anti-Bush slogans than I could count.
I think you would agree that those "self-respecting" Liberals aren't exactly too bound by reality. They have their own set of facts.
Middle America is going to wake up to the crafty BS and slant of the MSM...and the sweetest irony of the turnabout is that the moonbats are doing the actual physical labor of ranting and raving to prove the point. A lot better to help people discover something for themselves than to yell and scream at them...loaves and fishes...
Moron has become one of my most frequently used words. Whether I preface it with "oxy" or "ignorant" it works well in the times in which we live. ;*)
We could use this thread as one place to compile evidence.
Deos anyone remember Salman Pak? It was a terrorist camp about 15 miles SE of Baghdad that we took, along with our Kurdish allies. It was an Al Qaeda camp, and among the things found there were airplane hulls.
Sure, no connection.
That would be true if the Administration itself weren't trying to prevent the release of these documents.
Won't matter. There was evidence prior to this as well. No change. Nothing to see, move along.
Now, how could that be true if there were no WMDs in the first place? But even after the inconsistency is pointed out to the liberals, they still refuse to see it.
WMD or NO WMD... If we had known 100% that Saddam already had WMD I would have hesitated with my support of sending in ground forces. We did NOT go into Iraq solely because of WMD. The issue of WMD was made an issue that we should go into Iraq sooner rather than wait until Saddam had developed them. In speeches prior to the war Bush had said that if Saddam Hussein had the opportunity of having WMD it would change the political situation in the Middle East. The main reasons we went into Iraq was because Saddam failed to abide by the cease-fire agreement and also his ties to terrorists. It's a shame the WH has allowed the lies of the left to go unanswered to a point where even Rush Limbaugh has failed to realise this. And 99.9999% of the time...Rush is on top of this stuff.
http://jednet207.tripod.com/PoliticalLinks.html
No self-respecting liberal (oxymoron?) can make this claim because we all know 'torture doesn't work'.
Unless it serves their purposes to say it does.
For liberals, truth is whatever serves the party and if you repeat a lie often enough, it is true.
I agree. I don't think they are getting in front of this one for a good reason, as opposed to the usual lack of response for no reason.
They do only have one shot to counter the WMD pile-on, and should do it when every conceivable media-driven opposition can be countered.
As far as waiting too long to respond, it's long past the point where additional "Bush Lied" stories will get more public support. As long as they begin the campaign with the documents before Nov.
Well said!!
Imagine what will happen when middle America wakes up just in time for the mid term elections.
Delicious, isn't it??
Not as much as compassinate and liberal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.