AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Debunking Stupid Liberal Memes, Part VII: “Bush Lied, People Died!”

Back in 2006, Bill Whittle wrote a brilliant piece entitled “Seeing the Unseen” in which he dismantled many of the typical Liberal mantras, most of which could be found proudly and ignorantly plastered on the back of their car bumpers. This post by Mr. Whittle was the first one I read by him and it made me an instant fan of his work. Read on and you will soon see why:

Bill Whittle:
Pajamas Media
PJTV Afterburner Series
Facebook
Twitter
Big Hollywood

Bush Lied, People Died.

Recent reports of the advanced state of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and the confirmed presence of 700+ chemical shells leaves this chestnut in some disarray. However, even if you take that away, the entire concept is a cowardly and petty retreat spoken by people who know better.

Here is a pretty decent encapsulation of what both Republicans and Democrats had to say about Saddam and WMD’s. You will find Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s rhetoric somewhat less adamant and warlike than that of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Hans Blix, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger and all the rest. These were elected representatives who studied the same intelligence that the White House did, and came to the same conclusion.

Unfortunately for them, Al Gore in his unbridled enthusiasm went and invented the Internet, and so now there is a record of what they said and when, available to the great unwashed masses. It shows a group of people deeply concerned about what was a pressing threat to this country. And now, almost all of them claim they were lied to? Are they capable of reading intelligence reports themselves, or did Bush have to read it to them aloud, with them seated at his knee in My Pet Goat fashion, skipping the parts he didn’t think would make a good sell? Some people say that they did not get the same intelligence that Bush got. To the degree that is or isn’t true, the record shows that it was the more outlandish claims that were not included, so that the intelligence that led them to come out against Saddam and in favor of military action was less provocative than the intelligence the President and Secretaries of State and Defense saw.

The invasion of Iraq was meant to prevent Saddam Hussein from using Weapons of Mass Destruction. This mission was accomplished by the time President Bush stood on that carrier deck. The huge majority of casualties we have incurred in the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq have come about by our willingness to rebuild and secure a country that we owed nothing to whatsoever.

Here is the legacy of the Bush Lied, People Died crowd: in the future, we know that no good deeds — building of hundreds of schools and hospitals — will go reported. We know that no foul deeds — a handful of idiots humiliating prisoners over the course of a few days — will ever be put into perspective.

So why do it? Why build schools and hospitals, and protect polling places, and suffer the casualties we have suffered to get a country on it’s feet, if all we hear and see is the negative and the undeniable failures? The next time we have to go and kick the hell out of some band of rabid crazies, why not just kick the hell out of them and then go home? Because there will be a next time, and I suspect sooner rather than later. By refusing to report the myriad successes and kindnesses, our compassionate and caring moral betters in the media have only shown there is very little reason to do them in the first place, except for the satisfaction of our own morality and conscience — which I hope will be enough.

Let me leave you with something very, very important. It is the greatest logical fallacy of them all, and if you hope to gain any perspective in the world today, I believe you have to understand what I am about to say in your bones.

You cannot just count the hits and not record the misses.

May I show you something to make this point?

What you are about to see is a graphical representation of commercial air flights over the US on any given day. You will see dawn on the east coast as more and more flights get airborne, and watch morning spread to the west as the country comes alive. It is one of the most beautiful marriages of science and art I have ever seen. It is here. Go take a peek then come back. I’ll still be here.

Every dot in that animation is a jetliner, carrying hundreds of people. This is the first time I have ever actually seen the miracle that takes place in our skies every single day.

Why am I showing you this? Well, because every single dot in that ocean of sparks is a successful flight. Tens of thousands of flights land in this country every single day and no one says a word about it. And yet, when there is an accident — and you would have to watch every dot in that animation almost 2000 times to get back to the last fatal accident by a large-scale carrier — that sticks in our minds, obviously, and that image of burning wreckage is what stays with some people on their entire flight. They do not think about all the millions of flights that land safely. Nor do they think about the thousands of car accidents that occur with so much greater frequency.

Why?

Because we are recording only the hits — the crashes — and not recording the misses, namely, the safe landings. If you had to drive to work every day listening to radio announcements of every successful landing, you would be listening to a cacophony of flight numbers twenty-four hours a day. After a few years of this you might be able to get a glimmer of perspective on the safety of modern air travel.

Likewise in Iraq. Hand out candies to children on a daily basis, and the smiles and gratitude are nowhere to be seen on US television. But if some death-loving lunatic decides to scatter body parts to the four winds you can bet that will get the News media’s attention. Complete a new hospital, or a water treatment plant, or bring electricity or television stations to neighborhoods that never had them before? Yawn.

On the day of the last Iraqi elections — the day they ratified the constitution the press said these people would never ratify — CNN’s lead story was about nasty rain showers sweeping the southeast. About these historic elections there was heard not a peep.

Iraqi TV has a version of American Idol. Did you know that? They produce hundreds of hours of comedies, game shows — all that stuff. Sounds a little arcane for Iraq, you say? A little normal? That’s because people who believe they are smarter than you have decided that such stories of hope and success do not fit the narrative needed to teach you poor ignorant slobs the lesson that you are supposed to be learning, and that lesson is that George Bush is a murderer while Saddam was a statesman, and that Iraq is a failure fueled by the blood of poor, innocent, child-like soldiers too stupid to realize that they are dying to line the pockets of Halliburton.

My critical thinking skills, such as they are, tell me that you might be able to corral an army and send it over there under such false pretenses. What I cannot explain is why so many people in the military re-up, two or three or four times, to go back and fight for this oil-soaked lie that people here maintain is the truth, despite what the people who have actually been over there have to say about it.

This is an all-volunteer military. Why would so many of these people keep returning to such danger, and put themselves and their families at such terrible risk, for a lie or a mistake?

If Iraq is a con game and an oil steal and an unwinnable quagmire then this just doesn’t make any sense. But back they go! That’s the data. The people most optimistic about Iraq — and those with the most to lose — are generally the same people. They are the men and women who are over there now because they believe they are doing something honorable and good. No one is forcing them to reenlist. Hear that John? I’d hire any one of these people in a heartbeat. They are brighter than the general population, and they are so far beyond their Ivory Tower critics in terms of discipline, courage, ingenuity, integrity and honor that it makes one’s head spin.

Are we beating these terrorist scumbags and child-targeting insurgent bastards? Are we winning?

Well, let’s see if we want to switch sides with them. Let’s imagine the war where the insurgents have our cards and we hold theirs.

Imagine the US completely occupied by Al Qaeda forces, subject to Sharia law. We are able to take pot shots at a few of them, and we manage to murder a few dozen of our own people every day in an attempt to stop the population from collaborating with the hated invader. But more and more Americans seem to be turning to Sharia and want to get on with their lives. We find sixty percent of the population wants Al-Qaeda to leave, but hatred for the US insurgent forces — the Wolverines — is at about 98%. The people hate the occupiers, but they despise the Wolverines.

Now imagine that a year into the occupation of America, George Bush’s two daughters were killed in a firefight with the enemy, which had surrounded the college sorority house where they were hiding. A year after that, President Bush was pulled out of a septic tank in Crawford by the Fedayeen, then put on trial and sentenced to hang, which he did on national television to widespread cheering. Condi Rice, captured in an early morning raid several years ago, has been a great source of useful information to target the American resistance, and Donald Rumsfeld was killed by a suicide bomber this last summer.

Everywhere you turn — in every street and every city in America — Al Qaeda forces run security patrols, training Americans to do this for themselves. The only way to stop this is by killing our own people, which further alienates us from a populace that already despises us.

Does that feel like winning to you? Me neither. Welcome to the insurgency.

March 7, 2010 , 2:01PM Posted by | Bill Whittle, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Iraq, Liberalism, Military History, Operation Iraqi Freedom, WMDs | Comments Off on Debunking Stupid Liberal Memes, Part VII: “Bush Lied, People Died!”

Debunking Stupid Liberal Memes, Part VI: “Give Peace a Chance” & “War is Not the Answer”

Back in 2006, Bill Whittle wrote a brilliant piece entitled “Seeing the Unseen” in which he dismantled many of the typical Liberal mantras, most of which could be found proudly and ignorantly plastered on the back of their car bumpers. This post by Mr. Whittle was the first one I read by him and it made me an instant fan of his work. Read on and you will soon see why:

Bill Whittle:
Pajamas Media
PJTV Afterburner Series
Facebook
Twitter
Big Hollywood

Give Peace a Chance

Sounds reasonable to me. How much of a chance? Three years? Five? Ten years? See, now you’re playing me for an idiot.

We gave Saddam Hussein thirteen years before the Great Rush to War. He could have stopped the whole thing by coming clean, up until the instant the first tanks crossed the border. But he did not. We know what ‘coming clean’ to weapons inspectors looks like in the real world, because a few days after they pulled Saddam from his hidey-hole, Libya’s Colonel Khadafi turned over all the details of his nascent nuclear weapons program: blueprints, locations, stockpiles — the whole enchilada. We gave peace an even longer chance with the good Colonel, and we got bupkis: bupkis, and Pan Am 103 exploding over Lockerbie. That was our peace dividend. I can not see how anyone can deny that the idea of a little old-fashioned war and its consequence on dictators may have focused Mr. Khadafi’s mind somewhat.

War is not the Answer

Okay. I’m listening. What is the answer?

No, you don’t get to say I don’t know but I know it’s not war! If you admit you don’t know what the answer is, then it logically follows that you are in no position to say what it is not.

With regards to Iraq, Saddam started a suicidal war with Iran, and then with the United States. He then proceeded to break every single element of his cease-fire agreement — shooting at allied airplanes trying to belatedly enforce no-fly zones to prevent him from massacring even more of his own people, continuing with a well-documented and undeniable effort to obtain nuclear weapons, and all the rest.

So what is the answer, Mr. Moral Superiority? Sanctions? We sanctioned him for 13 years. He bribed the UN and stole billions of dollars for new palaces and industrial shredders for the opposition. Should we just leave him alone? The New York Times reported a few days ago that Saddam was a year or two away from a nuclear weapon. Do you trust the man’s judgment after Iran and Kuwait? I don’t.

War is an ugly, messy, filthy business, and the greatest slander I have seen in these last three years is the idea that somehow the pro-war crowd thinks war is a great thing. War is an awful thing. And yet I am pro war in this case. How can that be?

This is probably the most useful thing I’ll write in this essay:

Doves think the choice is between fighting or not fighting. Hawks think the choice is between fighting now or fighting later.

If you understand this, you understand everything that follows. You don’t need to think the other side is insane, or evil. Both hawks and doves are convinced they are doing the right thing. But it seems to me there is a choice between peace at any price and a peace worth having.

We cannot undo the invasion and compare that timeline to the one we have. The only data we can use to compare these philosophies is embedded in the pages of history. What does history show?

I cannot think of a single example where appeasement — giving in to an aggressive adversary in the hope that it will convince them to become peaceful themselves — has provided any lasting peace or security. I can say in complete honesty that I look forward to hearing of any historical example that shows it does.

What I do see are barbarian forces closing in and sacking Rome because the Romans no longer had the will to defend themselves. Payments of tribute to the barbarian hordes only funded the creation of larger and better-armed hordes. The depredations of Viking Raiders throughout Northern Europe produced much in the way of ransom payments. The more ransom that was paid, the more aggressive and warlike the Vikings became. Why? Because it was working, that’s why. And why not? Bluster costs nothing. If you can scare a person into giving you his hard-earned wealth, and suffer no loss in return, well then you my friend have hit the Vandal Jackpot. On the other hand, if you are, say, the Barbary Pirates, raiding and looting and having a grand time of it all, and across the world sits a Jefferson — you know, Mr. Liberty and Restraint — who has decided he has had enough and sends out an actual Navy to track these bastards down and sink them all — well, suddenly raiding and piracy is not such a lucrative occupation. So, contrary to doomsayers throughout history, the destruction of the Barbary Pirates did not result in the recruitment of more Pirates. The destruction of the Barbary Pirates resulted in the destruction of the Barbary Pirates.

And it is just so with terrorism. When the results of terrorism do the terrorist more harm than good, terrorism will go away. We need to harm these terrorists, not reward them, if we ever expect to see the end of them.

There are endless examples of this sort of thing. It makes me wish I had a mind on the level of Victor Davis Hansen so I could name every single one of them for you. But one example rings very loud to my ears.

After World War II, the allies captured the records of the German High Command. I was stunned to discover that the Wehrmacht’s generals were so appalled at Hitler’s decision to test the resolve of the Western Powers (by marching into the demilitarized Rhineland) that they were prepared to remove or even assassinate him should there have been any resistance to the move. They were terrified of finding themselves in another war. Hitler, on the other hand, couched the violation in the same reasonable-sounding terms that Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi would have undoubtedly approved of, and in he went.

Thus began the most horrible and tragic appeasement in the history of the world.

According to the Germans’ own records, a platoon of French soldiers, stationed on that bridge and unwilling to retreat (there’s your problem right there) would have caused the overthrow of Adolph Hitler, and the abandonment of his expansionist policies. Why? Because it wouldn’t have paid, that’s why. As it happened, intimidating the West paid handsomely: The Sudetenland, Austria, Czechoslovakia. It was only when the West finally realized the fruits of appeasement that Hitler was stopped. If it had happened much sooner it would have been much easier. If it had happened at the beginning it would have been painless.

Even though I did not live through it, I don’t forget lessons like this. Not something this clear. Likewise, I do not forget things that I did live through: that bullies who take your lunch money will beat you up more if you give them money and less if you fight back. There’s a logic behind this — predators have to survive every encounter with their prey, so why take chances on anything other than the sick and the weak — and there is an emotional component, too: and that is respect.

Thugs and bullies cannot produce anything of value. They have to take it from those who can. Giving it to them in the hope they will go away does not engender love or respect in them — just the opposite. It creates more contempt and confidence. If it didn’t — if they behaved like sensible people — they wouldn’t be thugs and bullies in the first place.

This projection of rationality onto irrational people is the linchpin of the liberal failure to understand human nature. To those who tend to believe every claim on innocence from career criminals, I recommend COPS therapy. Watch any single episode of COPS and you will see people earnestly swear — I swear to God, sir! — that they do not possess the drugs they are holding in their hands. What’s that crack rock on your car seat? That’s not my crack rock, sir! It’s in your car. This isn’t my car! I swear to God sir! There are five crack rocks in your pocket. These aren’t my pants, sir! A friend gave me these pants just before I left the house! I swear to God, sir!

I have heard it reliably reported that once a police officer confronted a heroin addict who had passed out with a needle in his arm. When confronted with this, he supposedly said, that’s not my arm!

Telling reasonable people what they want to hear is a survival skill for criminals. They don’t get very far without knowing how to play people. In Narcotics Anonymous they have a spot-on term for this kind of behavior. They call it ‘dope-fiending’. How did you get that car? I dope-fiended my mom into letting me drive it. When a spokesman for Hamas or Al Qaeda tells you that they are only fighting America or the Jews because they are worried about Global Warming, you are being dope-fiended.

How much more control do we have over terrorists if they are people with a series of reasonable demands, rather than murdering misogynists who want women enslaved and Jews and homosexuals killed on sight? See, if it’s our fault, all we have to do is change and they will go away. But if it’s who we are, rather than what we do — well that’s a little more scary, isn’t it? That might be a little too much for the kind, gentle, sensitive latte-sipping lunch crowd to fully get behind. But that is what I hear these 7th Century murderers saying, and that is what I see them doing, and I choose not to look away just because I do not much like what I see.

Some people will believe anything if they want to believe it hard enough. Which leads us to…

March 7, 2010 , 12:19AM Posted by | Bill Whittle, Iraq, Liberalism, Military History, Saddam Hussein | Comments Off on Debunking Stupid Liberal Memes, Part VI: “Give Peace a Chance” & “War is Not the Answer”

Rush Interview with Sarah Palin: National Security

Rush had an absolutely fantastic interview with former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin this afternoon. Be sure to go to his website to listen to the audio or read the entire transcript. I’m going to make a few posts to excerpt her answers to questions on specific issues.

RUSH: You mentioned earlier you wanted to talk about national security, that you hoped it came up. Well, here it is: What do we face? What are our threats, and are we prepared, or not?

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think domestically a threat that we’re facing right now is the dithering and hesitation in sending a message to the terrorists that we’re going to claim what Ronald Reagan claimed. Our motto is going to be: “We win, you lose.” The way that we do that is allow McChrystal to have the reinforcements that he’s asking for in Afghanistan. That sends that message to the terrorists over there that we’re going to end this thing with our victory. We need to start facing Iran with tougher and tougher sanctions that need to be considered. We need to work our allies with the Iranian issues, like Britain and France and not allow access to favorable international monetary deals. That’s a great threat that I think would kind of shake up Ahmadinejad and get him to listen. We need to look at halting Iran’s imports of refined petroleum products. They’re quite reliant on imported gasoline, and we need to use that hammer to wake up the leadership there, too. Those are two big challenges that we have right now, domestically and in naming those two countries, Afghanistan and Iran. Two big challenges there, too.

RUSH: Thirty seconds: Immigration. Can you do it in 30 seconds before we have to go?

GOV. PALIN: I can’t do it in 30 seconds but just know that… You know, let me put it simply: Illegal immigrants are called “illegal” for a reason. We need to crack down on this. We need to listen to the border states where the governors there have some solutions and we need to get serious about that.

November 17, 2009 , 4:16PM Posted by | Afghanistan, Conservatism, Illegal Immigration, Iraq, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin | Comments Off on Rush Interview with Sarah Palin: National Security

New Theme Song of the Obama Voter – “Promises Broken”

Full scale retreats are costly. Phased draw downs are a bit less costly. But, the left (and the Obamatrons) insisted that we get out, and get out now… or soon, or rather quickly.

Now, about those bald-faced lies about how ending this Iraq thing was going to provide such a huge savings.

Go back to all the campaign promises, and post-inaugural promises, and all the decisions regarding the budget and bailout and stimulus that were all predicated with this false savings lie…

All one big lie, and it seems most of America bought into it, all of it.

So, where’s the outrage? [ … ]

coldwarrior on March 26, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Upon reading this comment by “coldwarrior” at HotAir in response to this post by Ed Morrissey, “Iraq Will Cost More to Leave than Stay”, a song came to mind:

And every little thing about this tells me
Nothing out there is ever gonna help me
And all these words that I hear spoken
Just promises broken now

The sad thing is that I bet most Obama voters are still clueless to the fact that our Teleprompter President has broken every single one of his campaign promises so far. That’s what happens when you drink the cult Kool-Aid and treat a dirty, filthy corrupt politician whose entire political background is in socialism, communism, Marxism, Black Liberation Theology and dirty Chicago politics as a sort of do-no-wrong perfect messiah.

March 26, 2009 , 10:16AM Posted by | Barack Obama, Economy, Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom, War Effort in Iraq | Comments Off on New Theme Song of the Obama Voter – “Promises Broken”

Obama Lies About Iraq Drawdown

Brilliant post and series by Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette about the lies Barack Obama has been telling about the drawdown of troops in Iraq and how the mass media is covering up for him. Here’s his summary in Diversions (III):

Let’s recap the salient points here:

1. In September, 2008, the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) – after months of preparation – is ordered to Iraq. (One of two SBCTs that were then scheduled to replace the two currently in Iraq)

2. In February, 2009, President Obama announces his Iraq drawdown/Afghanistan surge – the 5th SBCT will be diverted to Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

3. March, 2009, the DoD announces the 4th SBCT will deploy to Iraq this fall, several months ahead of the original schedule replacing the 5th SBCT in the rotation in order to maintain two Stryker Brigades in Iraq.

For the record, I’m in favor of commanders on the ground getting the forces they need to get the job done. I have no doubt that two Stryker Brigades are needed in Iraq, and others in Afghanistan.

I’m deeply concerned when I see troop rotations “adjusted” in what appears to be an effort to fool the American public. But I appreciate that the Obama administration can do that in plain sight, even providing press releases detailing exactly how they’re doing it.

I’m even more concerned that those efforts – and the ramifications thereof – are obvious to an American media assumed to be independent of the Executive Branch but apparently unconcerned about reporting its activities. Item two above was headline grabbing/TV news lead story material – item three indicates it was a fraud.

One year ago that would have been a hell of a story, don’t you think?

Yep, it would have been. In the comments, someone mentioned that when President Bush decided to send some troops early to Iraq, the mass media and the Democrats were freaking out and made it a HUGE story, whining and wringing their hands that the troops weren’t properly trained yet and President Bush was being completely irresponsible, etc etc etc. But now when Obama does this? Crickets…

Be sure to read the entire series by Greyhawk on this lying BS by Obama.

The Red Pill (III)

Diversions (III)

Diversions (IV)

And here is an absolutely brilliant smackdown of Leftist BS in the comments section by commentor “ECM”:

Instead of posting a bunch of non-sequitirs and revising history, can you just answer the following questions:

1. Are you happy that Obama *isn’t* drawing down troop levels in Iraq?

2. Are you happy that, as it turns out, he LIED to you about this fact?

3. Are you at all bothered that because of this little political shell game, that there are troops that are now UNDER-PREPARED for Afghanistan and are going to be put in harm’s way?

4. Are you at all bothered that because of this little political shell game, that there are troops that are now UNDER-PREPARED for Iraq and are going to be put in harm’s way?

5. Does it even matter if we ARE a bunch of knuckle-dragging, war-profiteering, troglodytes working for Halliburton? Who cares if we’re a bunch of hypocrites?! What difference does it make in the context of what is going on here and now?

Here’s my answers and you tell me if I’m being a ‘pacifist’ or a ‘dissenter’ just because there’s a (D) after the prez’s name:

1. No, actually I’m pissed because a lot of fine men and women (and their families) were expecting them home and/or not expecting to see them leave so early.

2. No, actually I’m pissed because HE FUCKING LIED TO YOU, ME, AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROPE-A-DOPE AND, APPARENTLY, ABC AT LEAST, WENT RIGHT ALONG FOR THE RIDE.

3. Yes, I’m pissed and upset because he’s going to send under-trained troops into a war zone where, thanks to said under-training, they face worse odds of coming home alive and/or in one piece ALL IN ORDER TO APPEASE BRAINDEAD ASSHOLES LIKE YOU WHO, ALL OF A SUDDEN, DON’T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS AT ALL (since, you know, you’ve been screeching for nearly a decade that you love the troops, but hate the war).

4. See answer 3 plus: we know you hate the troops, hate Bush, hate Iraq, hatehatehatehate and don’t care if another bunch of ‘knuckle-dragging, war-profiteering, troglodytes working for Halliburton’ marches off to an untimely death because you never cared about the troops and ONLY care about your precious Obama (who, incidentally, fucked you over in front of the world!)

5. None of this should matter if you give a damn about our men and women in uniform (which you don’t) because they’re the ones being fucked in this deal, regardless if we’re every bit as bad as you think we are. It doesnt matter how cartoonishly monstrous we are IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS MORE THAN YOUR PRECIOUS OBAMA (who, incidentally, fucked you over in front of the world!)

The ‘best’ part is, he made ALL Americans in general look like the bunch of rubes you’ve been calling us in the ‘Red States’ for the past 8 years and at the expense of our soldiers’ lives, you asshole. And the biggest joke is that, instead of being upset about the little political theater he gave you (before he gave you the hook), you’re mad at us because we don’t want to see the troops take it like you like it.

Posted by ECM at March 9, 2009 04:14 AM

March 10, 2009 , 11:38AM Posted by | Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Iraq, Media Bias, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, War Effort in Iraq | Comments Off on Obama Lies About Iraq Drawdown