Will The Left Finally Get It?
Tweet
Here’s Patrick Ruffini, until a few months ago a paid member of the Bush-Cheney re-election team unleashing a long string of spin about how supposedly liberals have not been supportive of the war on terror. Patrick even goes so far as to revive the canard about John Kerry waging a more sensitive war on terror when both Dick Cheney and George Bush urged sensitivity in the global war on terrororism.
Is this an oversight on Patrick’s fault? Did he just forget? No, not at all. This is how they operate. If it means smearing half of our nation in order to prop up their political idols, the right is ready willing and able. If they can get help from the useless liberal wing of the left, the better for them, but they’ll defile our side any way.
I have been harping on this for years now, I thought people would wake up after 2000, wake up after the 2002 midterms, wake up after the 2004 election: these people are the enemy and the only way to defeat them is to fight back as hard as they kick us down.
Are we learning yet, folks, or do you want to lose some more?
17 Responses to “Will The Left Finally Get It?”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Coming from the guy who smeared half the nation by suggesting that they’dve risen up and gotten violent had Bush not been re-elected, this falls a bit flat.
“Exposing” things will get you nowhere. You haven’t learned yet then.
Half the nation? No, another lie from the right again. I was, and have been, talking about the base, the people in the know on the right who talked about arming up if John Kerry won.
No we don’t want to lose but what do we do?
I hardly think that lying as the right wingers do is the right thing to do.
There must be a way to expose all their distortions without resorting to their tactics.
According to recent polls, 53 percent of Americans think the war was a mistake. And 56 percent think Bush is doing a crappy job running it.
And Rove wants to tell us his team thought of it?
Go for it, Karl.
Oliver,
OK, I agree, just exposing things isn’t enough.
It is easy to say what won’t work. What will work? I assume you aren’t suggesting lowering ourselves to their level in terms of dishonesty.
“Another lie from the right.”
Oh Oliver. Is that kryptonite burning you yet?
Might’nt it be wise to make a distinction between the President making this comment:
“Now in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is — we need to be very sensitive on that.”
and John Kerry making this one?:
“I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.”
The first, is a consideration of the possibility of unjustly convicting members of the local communities.
The second, by contrast, speaks of reaching out to nations not aligned with the U.S. in the war on terror.
How is it that these two statements are analogous?
The link you provide for a Dick Cheney quote, via the Washinton Post simply says:
Cheney said in Dayton. “President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare — nor did President Roosevelt, nor Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. A ‘sensitive war’ will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.”
You might want to read the links you post before you make incorrect claims about statements the President and Dick Cheney had made about the war on terror.
Careful, Oliver. As a wise green muppet once said “Once you start down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny.”
Then again, Darth Vader was a lot less whiny than Luke.
I’ve always thought the hubub over the “sensitive war on terror” was a bit silly. I’m no fan of John Kerry, but I think it’s really pretty obvious that he didn’t mean “sensitive” as in “therapy and understanding.” In fact, I think both of the comments, from the President and from Kerry, that were quoted above each are entirely sensible and responsible statements of strategy. Anyone who condemns Kerry for that statement is just looking for ways to attack Kerry for things that he doesn’t really deserve to be attacked for.
I don’t think the man’dve made a great Commander in Chief, but when taken in context, his comment on a “sensitive” war on terror is entirely justifiable.
I’ll add that I think Cheney is both right and wrong. “Reaching out” to other states doesn’t kill terrorists in and of itself. On that, he is correct.
What he seems to be ignoring is that it will make it easier for us and/or our allies to do so. Then again, I think it’s hardly surprisng that the Vice President didn’t have any kind words for the proposed strategy of his political rivals. But that’s politics. It’s not like we’ve seen too many partisan Democrats offering much in the way of positive opinions on the Administration’s successes, or even honestly admit that they exist, period.
I find it interesting that while the Neocons talk about being aggressive in fighting the “War on ‘Terra”, they are “sensitive” about actually bringing OBL to justice.
I remember Bunnypants talking about us confronting any country that harbors terrorists, but still, no invasion of Pakistan, which is where most agree that OBL is.
If you want to know what the cons are really doing, find out what they are accusing liberals of doing.
John Kerry made comments about a sensitive war in such a way that was not only nonsensical, it was proven to be unworkable. What support would the French, the Russians or the Turks given? How would JK get the French or Germans to join in the war, when both governments issued ironclad statements saying they’d stay out of it?
Poor analogies do not sound analysis make, young Jedi.
If you’d re-read the statements that Oliver attempts to use as evidence supporting his point, you’ll see that they are not analogous. One is a domestic intelligence gathering comment, the other an internationalist wish which doesn’t reflect reality.
What sense would an invasion of Pakistan make when Musharref is accomadating U.S. requests?
Speaking of lies, this: “Dick Cheney and George Bush urged sensitivity in the global war on terrororism.” fits the bill.
“What sense would an invasion of Pakistan make when Musharref is accomadating U.S. requests?”
I don’t know, your president is the one that said he would confront any country harboring terrorists. Since the US doesn’t attack Waziristan, because they want to accomodate the dictator Musharref, I read that as another flip-flop.
Kind of funny that the US is all about “spreading democracy” to Iraq, but a dictator next door, harboring a terrorist who murdered 3,000 of our citizens, is off limits. Then again, Saddam was off limits also in the 1980′s when Reagan/Bush were selling them chemical weapons, and Bin Laden was off limits in the same period as he fought the Soviets.
Vlad, I’m not sure you realize but the majority of battlefield arrests in Afghanistan have been made by France.
You might want to open your eyes to the fact that terrorism isn’t something that just the US is fighting, many other countries are doing much more globally than the US (I know, you’re now totally shocked).
Most other countries realized, however, that fighting terrorism isn’t a “war”, its a military action that requires precision and thought, something the Iraq Invasion and Occupation never had.
“…A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.
Is this why we’re in Iraq, Uncle Dick? To fight a ‘sensitive war’? Because we sure ain’t finding any of those “evil men” there. The “evil men” are mostly still on the loose (unless you count the taxi drivers, shepherds, and errand boys still in Camp X-Ray). Maybe Rumsfeld knows exactly where they are, like he knew the exact locations of Saddam’s WMD. Do the “evil men” even exist? I mean, the over-hyped, color-coded terror alerts did seem to stop after the last election…