Tuesday, September 26, 2006

intel dump speaks for me.

ghod, i can't even talk about it. i'm too sad. and frightened for my country.

when the above was accused by the commenter of being a partisan post, the author, JD Henderson, had this to say (yes, i'm quoting most of it, it's too good to not do so):

I don't care what party the president belongs to - I really, really don't. I foolishly thought back in 2000 that it really didn't make much of a difference. I served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, and I didn't really see much difference and didn't really care.

Am I biased against republicans? No, absolutely not. Am I biased against the president? Yes, but not because of his political party, but because of the FACTS that I recounted. Facts should not be partisan, they are FACTS. And the fact is that we are still in Iraq years after we invaded, most of us did not expect to be, and there were no WMDs. That isn't partisan spin.

Politics should stop at the water's edge. Our enemies don't give a fig about which party an American supports. They don't know or care about the difference between red and blue states. They hate America - including right-wingers, left-wingers, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, Bill O'Reilly, and Lindsay Lohan. We are at war, not the Republican party.

As many here know, I disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, but I think success in Iraq is possible and would be a better outcome than failure in Iraq. I am not for a timetable or a pullout, I think we need more troops there. I am thus not "representing the Democratic side" of any issue.

Amazingly, after quoting several very real but very UNDISPUTED facts, I am accused of an anti-Bush bias. I am asked to be impartial and objective.

Ok. The Army reports on its readiness were not partisan, but factual and objective. That it makes the Bush adminstration look bad is not because the Army was partisan or a subsidiary of Moveon.org.

The frequency of attacks in Iraq and the growing civil war is not due to the insurgency secretly being a subsidiary of Moveon.org and is, it appears to me, not due to an anti-Bush bias on the part of our enemies. Maybe I am wrong and Iraqis are killing Iraqis in record numbers and in horrific ways in order to express their disdain for Mr. Bush, but somehow I doubt it.

North Korea and Iran surely do not like Mr. Bush very much, but they didn't like Bill Clinton either. They don't seem to qualify their references to "the Great Satan" or the "American Imperialist Running Dogs" with any language suggesting their insults apply only to the Republican party or Mr. Bush in particular. I think I am on pretty firm ground when I say the threat is to all of us, not just the Bush administration. And the fact of North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs is a fact, not partisan spin.

Likewise, I would bet you a dollar to a donut that most Taliban insurgents do not know the difference between the democratic and republican parties, and don't care even if they did. I somehow doubt the resurgence of the Taliban is an effort to express displeasure with Mr. Bush, and the FACT of the increased violence in Afghanistan is not a partisan fact, but simply a fact. I don't think the Taliban inquire whether US soldiers are registered democrat or republican before opening fire, and I doubt that their attacks on NATO troops are motivated by any partisan desire to help moveon.org or to harm Bush politically. Perhaps I am wrong.

The fact that the current chief of staff of the Army had to be recalled from retirement is damning and indicative of the problems between the Rumsfeld Pentagon and the US Army officer corps, but it is a fact nonetheless. Perhaps the entire officer corps of the US Army are left-wing liberals eager to help moveon.org and help the democratic party win elections, but having served for over a decade I find this, to say the least, improbable.

The existence of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program might be partisan spin. I think not, and would oppose any president of any party that ordered such a clearly unlawful program, but I have no way to prove that to you.

The conflict over "clarifying" common article III of the Geneva Conventions is not a left/right conflict but an internal conflict between the Republican-controlled Congress and the President. Many Republicans oppose the president on this issue, and I doubt they are doing so in order to further the goals of moveon.org or the democratic party in general.

Iraqi troops are not digging ditches in Baghdad in order to make the president look bad.

The elimination of the record budget surplus and the creation of the largest deficit in history is disturbing to many patriotic Americans of all political ideologies and affiliations. Math is not partisan. If you had $100, and I took it and left you with a bill for $100, if you questioned where the money went and why you went from being up $100 to down $200, I somehow think you would not be motivated to ask that question because of partisan politics. The Republican party has traditionally been fiscally conservative, and many Americans worry about our nation's staggering debt. When the bill comes due it will not be handed out only to republicans, nor only to democrats. It will be all of us that will have to pay - including our children. That is not partisan spin - unless, somehow, you can explain to me how it is actually a good thing for our entire nation (both red and blue states) to have such a deficit.

I doubt that the president's admissions regarding WMDs and Iraqi-Al Queda connections were motivated by a desire to further the goals of Moveon.org or the democratic party.

Few of any political persuasion, including Mr. Bush, are claiming that the federal emergency relief effort in New Orleans was competent and well-managed. I doubt that is because almost all Americans, including the president, are biased in favor of the democratic party.

I listed several non-partisan, undisputed, established facts, and then asked the question "is this administration is effective, productive, and making America safer?" To automatically assume that I am not being impartial and objective suggests that ANY questioning of the president is based on "representing the Democratic side of this issue."

I think I am impartial and objective when it comes to our national security, and I think this adminstration has harmed, not helped, our national security. I think an impartial and objective assesment of this administration's national security policy would come to the conclusion that it is a disaster. But if I am wrong, please point out how we are better off because of the decisions and actions this administration has taken. And when doing so, please "At least make a miniscule attempt at being impartial and objective." That means using facts, not rhetoric or spin or subjective analysis. Facts.

When speaking the truth is considered "partisan" we are truly living in dangerous times.

and this is what i don't understand about the american public, that 51% who voted for the administration a second time, that majority that to all appearances, is living in bizarro-land where up is down, right is wrong, and torture is just "a few hazing pranks."

i am so sad and frightened.

what comes next?

link via crooked timber. and damn, John Holbo is right: every voting American should be given a copy of this post, including the entire thread of comments. i dunno how much it would change things, but i've never seen these facts presented and argued in one single place in such a good way before.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com