« three | Main | Do Not Drink and Detonate »

More Ramblings About the Right and Left, Moore or Less

Through Simon's new showcase, I came across Harvey, which lead me to Michele. Harvey tells Michele's story, which is quite similar to another "one l" Michele you know: This Michele also lost loved ones on 9/11. She also was once part of the the left. She also changed her political beliefs in the wake of 9/11. And she, too, has been losing friends and gaining enemies over that. Not only have those on the left she used to associate with all but dismissed her, but they hijacked her site as well, after she posted the announcement that she was leaning away from the left. Michele is up and blogging at a new site now. It's been almost two years since my conversion to the right-of-center was cemented. It was a slow process that I wasn't even aware was happening until something triggered my awakening. I still get the emails, I still get the comments once in a while and I still get a good dose of ridicule on sites of former friends or blog acquantainces. It just goes with the territory. I expected it and I suppose the other Michele expected it as well. I think the venom with which they come at you is what's surprising. Anyhow, I wish Michele the best. It's not easy to come away from personal attacks with your self-esteem left standing, especially when you've been dealing with such introspection and self-doubt while acknowleding that you've changed, that your ideals and politics are just not what they used to be. We downloaded F911 last night. I really wanted to see this movie just so I could write/talk about it without relying on other people's reviews or comments. Of course, I wasn't going to pay to be lied to, so we stole it. It's the socialist way! I watched the first ten minutes or so and had to turn it off. Perhaps attempting this on a Thursday night at 11pm, after feeling so good about Spiderman 2 and so cranky from being tired, was not a good idea. We'll attempt it again tonight, armed with apple martinis and maybe some cannolis (You say canole, I say cannoli. I'm the Italian, that makes me right). Maybe it was more than ten minutes we watched. I got through the part about Bush being on vacation all the time. That always irked me. Even back in the beginning of his presidency, when I was still considered an anti-Bushite, it bothered me. Do these people think that Crawford, Texas is fenced in an alienated from the rest of the world, cut off from all communication? That ranch is like White House South. Yea, the man golfs and cuts down brush. Personally, I'd rather have a president who cleans up his yard in his spare time than one who has his dick cleaned by his intern when he's got nothing else to do. Watch ths drive, bitch! Now I'm wondering why they would want the soldiers on their side, anyhow. After all, our soldiers are not heroes. In fact, they represent everything the left hates. I wonder what they do consider a hero. Mr. "Free" Mumia? Che? Michael Moore? I gave a lot of though to the subject of heroes last night after seeing Spiderman 2. In my eyes, a hero is someone who sacrifices for the common good. A fireman, like Pete Ganci, who went into a burning building to save lives on 9/11 and never came out. A soldier, like Sgt. Hook or Lt. Smash, who put their lives on the line to preserve and/or bring freedom. No, their heroes are cop killers. Their heroes are profiteers who engage in opportunistic pandering in order to benefit themselves and their bank accounts. Hey, I thought capitalism sucked? Then again, hypocrisy seems to be their strong point. Some people say that I'm being unfair to the left by not pointing out the zealots on the right. Like I've said before, it's not my job to be fair and balanced here, nor do I ever purport to be that. However, in the interest of fairness I can tell you that I don't give much credence to the far right. I don't listen to Rush. I don't care for Ann Coulter. In an email conversation yesterday with Stacy, she reminded me that I am not the right. I'm a centrist, I guess, though she calls me - and herself - a libertarian. Honestly, I'm not sure what I am. I know that I believe the war in Iraq is just. I believe that the war on terrorism is worth fighting. I believe that George Bush would be a better president than John Kerry. I believe that the security of this country and the need for freedom and democracy in the Middle East are priorities. Those are the things that align me with the right. Those are the things that make me hated by the left. They don't want to know about my stance on taxes, abortion, gay rights, religion or anything else. They get angry that I haven't put their needs at the top of my list of things to look for in a candidate. I have my priorities and because they are not their priorities, that makes me Public Enemy Number One. With a bullet. Oh, you're there as well. It's a collective number one. If you have a Blogs for Bush button on your site, if you support the war, if you think Iran is a dangerous threat, if you are pro-Israel, you're on their list. Listen, I've been on the right's list. I've been targeted by them before because of certain views I have or had. But it's nothing like what I see from the left. They've turned vicious. They've become rabid dogs. And here I go again, yet another post lamenting the fallen ideals of the left. I can't help it. I'm confronted with it every day. Today it was the plight of the other Michele that got me going. So I'm preparing myself to watch F911 tonight. I'm sure most of the lefties who stop by here would love it if I finished the movie, took off my tin foil hat and declared myself a devout Moore follower, going AWOL from the Bush camp. Alas, I am able to think on my own, something they just don't give anyone else but themselves credit for. Of course, these are the same people who insist I was brainwashed into becoming a Bush supporter. The moral of the story? If you support Kerry or the left, it's because you are a smart and a free thinker. If you support Bush or the right, it's because some nefarious underground cabal of neocons spiked your Kool Aid. They think we're idiots. We think they're misguided. And never the two shall meet. It's a shame, really. Feels a bit like '68 around here lately.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Ramblings About the Right and Left, Moore or Less:

» Steal This Meme from Mac Frazier's Place
Blogger to Faranheit 9/11 distributor, Lions Gate Films: Sue me. I double-dog dare you. [Read More]

» MY LITTLE TROUBLEMAKER from Bad Example
Funny, the way things work out sometimes. Michele of Letters From New York City started out as just another blogger who wanted to say a few words to the world at large. But shortly after she submitted an entry to... [Read More]

» Blog word creation from Arguing with signposts...
Another entry in the AWS dictionary of blogging terminology (okay, so it's the first entry): Rags-to-traffic: /adj./ descriptive term used for the way most bloggers arrive at high traffic numbers, through a combination of early start (circa 2002-03), f... [Read More]

» seven card stud 888 compoker freeware from seven card stud 888 compoker freeware
In your free time, check out the sites dedicated to poker best cards tournaments [Read More]

Comments

Enough with the fricking labels and the "if you don't agree with me I have the right to shut you up" attitude! What her "friends" did to her blog is inexcusable. I don't care if you're left, right or whatever the hell. As long as you're not a Yankee fan, it's all good.

So what exactly are you saying, Solly? :)

Gosh...you're last sentence is telling. It does feel a bit like hippies against squares.

I believe I have concluded that I don't firmly fit in any one box and am terribly saddened by the fact that at the most important time in our lives, when we need to work together, we are further segregating ourselves. The feelings of Americans after 9-11 should have held out, but instead that event and subsequent decisions have polarized us. It's disheartening.

Most all of the people that have gone off on me over this topic have obviously never grasped he concept of "projection".Makes me wanna go all Pee-Wee on'em and say"I know you are but what am I?"

For a really good brainwashing, we on the right recommend a double rinse with warm water, no fabric softener. Fluff dry.

For this conservative (and I wear that badge proudly), it's an "I told you so" moment (even if it wasn't really me who "told you so").

Honestly, we conservatives have been lamenting this for years. We all knew the left was this bitter, hateful, know-it-all group, who thinks that anyone not agreeing with them is somewhere between dumb yokel and the anti-christ.

Say what you want about Ann Coulter and Rush, they've been saying for years what you've just come to realize.

TV (Harry)

Michele,

You have every right to change your mind about your politics, but this "shunning" phenom is hardly a left-only thing. One needs only to look at comments about Richard Clarke, Colin Powell, John McCain, etc., etc. on sites like Freep or Lucianne to know that the right is as guilty of it, too. And in Powell and McCain's cases, we're talking about individuals who are still Republicans, but have veered off message a few times.

The people who hijacker her site sound like maroons. People who ostracize their friends for political beliefs don't understand democracy. Why not think of someone with differing political views as the friend with whom you can have interesting debates? AlthoughI must say, I always try to checkmyself when I use the word "they" in a setence, and wonder who precisely I am referring to...

Angela, you're right. Which is why I steer clear of Lucianne and Free Republic. Those are NOT people I really want to be associated with, as they engage in plenty of the same hate tactics as their leftist counterparts.

Although, I should clarify, the reason the left scares me more than the right is because I think in the past year or so the mainstream left has become indistinguishable from the left of Michael Moore, and that's frightening. I really don't see that happening on the right, at least not to the same degree.

Wow, M. Your taking some pretty broad strokes here, aren't you? You point out that many of your views could be regarded as leftist (abortion, gay rights, etc.) yet fail to allow us the same flexibility. Because we disagree with certain Bush administration policies we're all rabid dogs who want to set cop killers free.

The problem here is that you are lumping anyone who supports Kerry in with the lunatic fringe who would gladly make New Jersey an Islamic state. John Kerry is the mainstream and regardless of how you spin the poll numbers they always come out to within a few points of 50%. I find it hard to believe that half of this countries population is comprised of barking moonbats who want to free Mumia, retreat from the Middle East in disgrace and open the borders to all.

Please have the courtesy to allow that Kerry supporters are individuals. We all have our own priorities (not necessarily in the same order) and as you well know it is not necessary to agree with every single position a candidate takes to decide he is the best man for the job. There is a measure of irony in your conclusion that we on the left regard all who disagree with us as misguided idiots after going to such great lengths to paint us all as extremists who think alike.

This leftie hopes that you watch the movie with the knowledge that despite Moore's ham-fisted handling of complex issues that there are kernels of truth buried in the rubble. Why anyone would subject themselves to rooting through a giant pile of shit for a shiny new quarter is beyond me, but it's your business how you spend your time. I don't expect you to become a Moore 'follower' -- the guy is a hack and a mediocre director at best -- it would be like expecting you to become a J-Lo follower.

yeah, you're right. michael moore is what's wrong with this country. i mean, make a movie espousing your political beliefs? how passee!

remember that time michael moore started a war and his dad and friends made a bunch of money off of it? that was cool.

You know what I'm sayin', Michele. I'm through with this whole attitude you have. Puttin' down other people just because of their beliefs. Showing gruesome pictures on your blog. If you don't quit it, I'm going hack in and replace your blog with THIS

Oh, we're not talking about baseball anymore? Crap. Never mind.

As far as the leftie/rightie stuff goes, you know where I am on that. The hatred spewed by both sides disgusts me. And, no, "the other side is worse" arguments don't help.

You know, I've had it with you, Sol. You come here and think you can just drop your commentary in my comment section because I'm supposed to offer you some freedom to dissent or something. Well let me tell you, I am NOT YOUR DOORSTEP. I am not here to give you free soapbox time!

I can stand a lot of things, Solly - and we've been through a lot together - but this whole business of you trying to turn my readers against me and towards the Red Sox is just unforgivable.

JETER ROOOLZ NOMAR DROOOOLZ!

Bite me, Skankee bitch!

Pretty disgusting about the other Michele's blog.

It seems to me the brown-shirt thug-and-vandal action IS coming from one side...

First of all, Jeter sucks, which is being revealed now that the Yankees have a far better player against whom to compare him. I'll still give you 5 to 1 that Pay-Rod ends up playing short before the end of the season, because not only has Jeter's unimpressive offensive talent been brought so sharply into focus, but let's not forget that he's really never been tip-top defensively, either. Unfortunately, since the Red Sox have once again fallen completely apart in June, anything I say about the Yankees goes double for my team. The bottom line is that right now we suck, and I am so frustrated with it that I've decided to boycott watching Sox games until further notice. I just can't believe we're 8 1/2 games out after the way the season started. So Michele, on the Sox-Yankees question, you have the advantage as usual.

However, on the Left-Right question, you're pretty far off base, not in criticizing Michael Moore or any of a number of other left-wing groups, but in claiming that the vitriol from the Left is somehow stronger or more powerful than that from the right. You brush off Rush and Ann Coulter by saying you "don't care for" them, but try to put it in perspective. Just those two alone are as shrill, single-minded, pigheaded, and inflexibly doctrinaire as anyone on the left, including Moore. I think what you might want to consider is the simple fact that, even though you may not agree with a lot of what Coulter and Limbaugh say, you are closer to them in ideology than you are to Michael Moore or whatever other fringe liberals happen to draw your ire; this is probably the main reason you (and others on the right) view the left as "more shrill" than the right. I assure you, however, that the view from the other side is as sincere as yours, and precisely the opposite. As far as I can tell, a few token liberals get a hearing in the mainstream press, but they seem to be primarily used to discredit the most threatening opponents of the right, the center-left. Whereas liberals tend to embrace people like John McCain, who may not agree with us on every issue but is at least self-critical and open to discussion, right-wingers tend to ignore everyone on the left except those whose statements can be intentionally taken out of context or twisted as part of some right-wing sermon against those damn America-hating terrorist-sympathizing commies who hate America and sympathize with terrorists (and communists). Pretty much anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman can be tarred with this brush, including Kerry, who I'm sure you all know perfectly well is far from a fringe liberal. It gets old real fast, and I imagine now that Moore has come out with a blockbuster, a lot of the legitimate criticisms will be more or less ignored thanks to a "boy who cried wolf" effect.

Re: canole / cannoli -- I wasn't sure which spelling to use, but I'll defer. The changes have been made on my site.

"It seems to me the brown-shirt thug-and-vandal action IS coming from one side..."

This is hysterical.

This episode says far more about her judgement handing out her username and password than it says about anyone else. It's like leaving cash on a bench in the park and complaining about the crime rate when it vanishes.

Interesting how, for all the whining from the far left about how their free speech is being taken away, they seem to be the ones who shut down any dissenters.

They also routinely ban people from comments and delete those comments they disagree with. Some go back and edit or delete their archives. Down the memory hole!

Michele puts up with some nasty trolls here and lets them go on and on and on. And gets personal attacks daily. They even go so far as to publish her personal information. (Yes, I know the offender apologized - but she didn't think a thing about doing it beforehand, did she?)

While the Michael Moores go on national TV to explain how their dissent is being crushed.........Uh huh.

People have been disagreeing over politics forever. It can be a really good thing. Frankly the far left in this country has lost all credibility. And Al, you are one of the very few Democrat supporters lately that I have seen that have actually denounced MM's crap. (Fairly mildly, but at least you did!)

As for the "nuggets" - if you have to lie or twist the truth to make a point, I have no interest in any nuggets you might have buried in the sewage.......

All I have to say is that NYC better be intact when I get back after the Republican Convention. I don't care who makes the mess, but it better be cleaned up come Labor Day.

Among my friends, I have both liberals, conservatives, and "other". My husband calls himself an digital agrarian anarchist, and I call myself a historical libertarian reactionary (or something, we keep coming up with new labels). I don't discuss politics when someone is firmly entrenched - I don't see the point in wasting my or their time. And it's rude -- like an evangelical Baptist trying to convert a devout Catholic.

It's lame and thuggish to destroy someone else's blog whether you have the password or not.

She asked for it, it was like leaving a dollar on a park bench and expecting the bums to leave it unmolested.

They knew it was her site and her content, it's not like loose change left in Central Park. It's like finding her purse full of money.

Decent folk would turn it in.

Should be

"you are saying she asked for it, it was like leaving a dollar on a park bench and expecting the bums to leave it unmolested"

The left has just become one giant "civil disobedience" re-enactment society. They want their Vietnam, they want their Nixon. It's too bad pesky facts keep on getting in the way. Expect there to be a big music festival "protest" sometime this summer, complete with "Don't drink the brown latte!" announcements.

Ray, I think 'denounce' is too strong a word for what I'm doing. It implies that at some point I identified with Moore and have since changed my opinion; or, at the least, that Moore is a spokesperson for someone other than himself. I have never much cared for his work and to denounce him would imply that he had credibility with me in the first place.

No, Sarah, I'm not saying she asked for it. I'm saying she showed poor judgement in choosing her friends and is paying the price (a very small price) for that error.

I'm also saying that it is absurd to project the actions of the evil blog hijacker onto a larger group. I have no idea who any of these people are but can guarantee none of them speak for me.

In my eyes, a hero is someone who sacrifices for the common good.

According to Hillary we should all be heroes, whether we like it or not. ;) Don't get me wrong, Michele. I get your point... just not a fan of "the common good" right now.

Oh, and looking forward to Spidey 2 (rewatched 1 last night).

Would disavow fit better, Al? Let's put it this way, very, very few people from left-of-center have said one negative word about F911. Far too many have praised it to the sky.

Propaganda is propaganda. Everyone should recognize it.

Disavow is closer, but still carries the connotation that he is speaking for me. I no more have to disavow Moore than I have to disavow David Duke.

I prefer 'don't like' or 'agree with'.

it is absurd to project the actions of the evil blog hijacker onto a larger group

Al,
That's presuming this is the only example of shut-down, shout-down or rough-up behaviour I've seen. And I'm saying that I mainly see it from the other side, the supposed champions of speech, liberty, and tolerance.

They don't speak for you, fine; maybe you can get your party back by adding to the civil discourse.

If a more moderate party is your wish, I think you aren't going to be able to retrieve it from the bulk of it's present members.

You might want to have this by your side as a guide: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

"And I'm saying that I mainly see it from the other side, the supposed champions of speech, liberty, and tolerance."

This all depends on where you look.

I'm not going to do the whole: "Hey, you guys started it, look here ____," routine. It is easy to cite specific instances of bad behavior on both sides and there isn't much you or I can do about it -- except to make a conscious decision not to play that game.

I cannot bring civility back to my party anymore than you can bring it to yours, but we can both control how we interact with others. It's not much, but it's two people and a start.

Has the baseball season started? Damn, I missed it.

It is not hippies vs squares.
I would call it the silly people vs the adults.

It is not hippies vs squares.
I would call it the silly people vs the adults.

It is not hippies vs squares.
I would call it the silly people vs the adults.

I'm struck by how Michele paints herself as a victim in this post. "Poor me, the left is mean boo hoo hoo."

Considering the amount of vitrol and spite that is spewed on this blog towards Moore, the left, Micah Wright, other bloggers, and anyone not as filled with rightiousness as Michele, complaints like this are a serious case of calling the kettle black.

Because I disagree with the Bush regime energy policy that makes me a cop-killing moonbat? If you really believe that, you're already too far gone.

As Andrew points out above---Bush started a war based on lies that made obscene profits for his friends and campaign contributors. Moore made a movie. A sense of proportion seems sadly lacking here.

Al's earlier point about not tarring all Kerry fans with the Moore brush would be fine if there were any evidence that there are actual Kerry "fans". It's my impression that almost all of them are Bush Haters (and yes, I recognize the tremendous irony in saying that with the blog I'm running).

One good thing about this post--it convinced me to finally change my password, which was a little too predictable for hackers.

Don - Michele didn't say YOU were a cop-killer, only that many on the moonbat left admire cop-killers.

I've read your site. You ARE a moonbat. The first step to solving this problem is to admit you have one.

Ignoring the rest of Don's dribble, I'll expound on one point:

Bush started a war based on lies that made obscene profits for his friends and campaign contributors.

And here we go with the currently standard lefty meme. Just a statement with nothing to back it up, but that's the point, isn't it? Repeat, rinse, repeat. Eventually, people will believe it, right Don?

Bill Clinton said Hussein had WMD. Al Gore said Hussein had WMD. The UN had several resolutions in a row, stating unequivocally that Hussein had WMD. And yet, GWB is the liar.

And you wonder why we righties think you lefties are brain dead. With that kind of logic, what did you expect?

TV (Harry)

Inspector,
Don's statement is backed up by so many authoritative sources that the only way to list them is on a blog, which many of us Lefties have done. But why don't you start by going here:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

which has a searchable collection of 237 specific misleading administration statements about the threat posed by Iraq. You might also want to read this report:
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/home.htm

or this Atlantic article by Kenneth Pollack, an early supporter of the war:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/pollack.htm

That should be enough to get you started. The truth is out there, bud, if you're willing to open your eyes and see it.

Great post, Michele!
It sums up many of the things that bother me about the left, and caused me to leave the left.
The comments above illustrate the problem quite well.
Leftists are not comfortable with a civil debate. They must out shout the opposition at all costs.
Keeping alternative viewpoints from getting out keeps leftists busy.

Thank you Brad.

Inspector, you should also check out THE BOOK ON BUSH: HOW GEORGE W. BUSH (MIS)LEADS AMERICA by Alterman and Green. Espically chpter 12, which delves into the profit motive of the war. You can read the introduction to the book for free at www.thebookonbush.com/intro.htm, then head down to your local library or indepnedant bookstore.

I'm afraid it's the right and the Bush regime that is most guilty of the repeat, rinse, repeat tactic. If you'd stop depending on the right-wing media for 'news' you'd realize that pretty quickly.

BTW Inspector---are you saying that Bush's friends and campaign contributors HAVEN'T made a hefty profit on the war?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14063

Here's an interesting article about another leftist human shield recruiting project.
Yes, they're pathetic. But they still kill people.

I'm not saying they didn't make any profits. To be honest, I don't CARE if Bush's friends made profits. But there is no proof, in any of these cites, that the REASON to go to war was profit. At best, these cites are conjecture, outright bullshit at worst.

And how do you explain me, someone who didn't profit from the war? I agree with the war, I agree with the reasons stated (even if I accept your contention that the reasons weren't real). And I see good reasons that were not stated. What did I have to gain, other than keeping terrorists out of my country?

And regarding those 237 reasons, (besides the fact that Henry Waxman (D-Hollywood), a very leftish Democratic politician authored that report), we know now that the intel may have been sub-par to say the least. However, Clinton and Gore used the SAME INTEL when they said the SAME THINGS (wonder why Waxman didn't write his report back then - maybe partisan politics?).

You STILL haven't answered my question about that - why is GWB a liar, but Clinton, Gore, and the UN NOT liars?

TV (Harry)

Well, now that I've read Henry Waxman's database of Bush "lies", I'm voting for John Kerry. Can't wait to read the Alteredman's book.

Muwahahahaha! It is amazing what the left considers convincing evidence.

you and i could probably go for hours on this debate. i have never disguised my outright disgust for bush and nearly all of his decisions as a president.

but i'm not gonna get into that here.

the best part about living here, especially during this time of year, is that you and i have the opportunity to disagree, and we both have the freedom to do something about what we feel is right.

where i am going to comments is on your thought that the left have become like rabid dogs.

i personally don't see it. i do see the most divided, no, most PASSIONATELY divided population in recent american history. i see political animosity on both sides of the fence. support the war and bush and you are immediately labeled as a moron or a hate monger. support kerry and you are labeled as unpatriotic or even a terrorist. and one would have thought the events aroun 9-11 would have kept us unified.

perhaps this is due to you location in the heart of a blue state. but take a trip to the midwest and say someting about W and you are likely to be beaten up.

politics in america is ugly right now. i keep hoping one day i'll see a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, humanist, athiest candidate whose dick isn't in the mouth of some of trial attorney or big corporation.

"one would have thought the events aroun 9-11 would have kept us unified.

perhaps this is due to you location in the heart of a blue state. but take a trip to the midwest and say someting about W and you are likely to be beaten up."

Heh. Some comments require no response, just a little more airing.

"I agree with the reasons stated (even if I accept your contention that the reasons weren't real)."

THAT was the point that my jaw hit the floor. Are you saying you support the war NO MATTER WHAT? Well, then, I guess the truth isn't all that important.

Inspector, it's been very well documented that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism in the United States. So the war in Iraq could not and did not keep terrorists out of your contry. All you stand to gain is a crushing deficit, a giant quagmire in the middle east, and a reinstated draft come December.

As for Clinton and Gore---I was never a fan of theirs. I'm sure they told lots of lies. But they aren't in power now, and Bush is. They haven't diverted $110 billion from the war on terror to the war for Iraqi profits. Bush has. Clinton and Gore aren't running up a massive deficit in order to give tax relief to billionaires. Bush is. Do you see the difference?

Finally, I think you're being purposely naive when you claim profit wasn't a reason for the invasion. Do you really think that massive profits on no-bid contracts for campaign contributors were an accident?

http://www.belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_belmontclub_archive.html#108876919301008989

Here's another interesting look at the left's dubious links with killers. Revealing indeed, but leftists don't want you to even think about it.
I know, since I was once one of the zombies myself.

Yes, Clinton and Gore use dthe same intel. But they didn't invade and occupy Iraq. Yes, Clinton approved of Richad Perle & crew's 1998 resolution calling for regime change. But again, Clinton did not invade Iraq.
Clinton was a liar, and Clinton did some outrageous things. But he didn't invade and occupy Iraq. Richard Perle and the other authors of that 98 resolution wanted to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam, but they knew the American people woiuld not support it. The only reason Bush could get away with it is because of Sept 11.

Since not a single 9/11 hijacker came from Iraq, and Osama bin Laden was opposed to Saddam's secular Stalinist regime and was never in bed with him (having "contacts" is misleading. The U.S. had "contacts" with the former USSR, but that didn't mean we were in bed with the Communists)..in fact, Osama had called for the assassination of Saddam after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait; but since all of this supports the obvious case that Saddam was not connected in any way to Sept 11, the only way Bush could get away with it was by convincing the American people that it was in our best security interests to topple Saddam. And Bush hinted so much that Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked that 69% of the American people believe in 2002 that Saddam was behind Sept 11.

Remember, Bush never talked about invading Iraq to plant the seeds of Democracy in Iraq before the invasion--he only talked about removing a dictator who was a threat to the United States. Before the insurgency, it was never about humanitarian causes. After no WMD were found, however, and it became clear that Saddam was no threat to us, then the humanitarian casus belli became the #1 reason.

Does this not register as truth to you?
And doesn't it make you mad that you were mislead?

THAT was the point that my jaw hit the floor. Are you saying you support the war NO MATTER WHAT? Well, then, I guess the truth isn't all that important.

I didn't say what you're inferring. I said that despite the fact that you say the administration told "lies", I still think the war is a good idea. As a disclaimer, I think the whole "lies" meme is BS, and the only thing you guys got. Here are a few of the reasons for the war that I see:

1. Iraq is strategically located in the middle of the hot zone - Saudi to the north, Syria to the northwest, Iran to the east. If we have a friendly country in the immediate area, it makes it easier to keep an eye on those terror-supporting nations.

2. It removed one of the most vicious dictators in recent memory.

3. It freed 25 million from the grips of said dictator.

These are 3 good reasons. Let me put it bluntly - I don't care about WMD. Doing the 3 things above make me and my country safer, and were more than sufficient reason.

But they aren't in power now, and Bush is.

I see. So what you're saying is that since GWB tried to correct the situation, instead of sitting on his ass and ignoring it like Clinton, makes GWB in the wrong. And you wouldn't be whining about this war if Clinton WERE in power. You'd be telling conservatives that they should support the war.

Do you really think that massive profits on no-bid contracts for campaign contributors were an accident?

If you're talking about Halliburton, it is the only business that does the type of work it does. There are a zillion links about it out there, if you'd care to look.

running up a massive deficit in order to give tax relief to billionaires

This is moonbattery of the highest order, and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you want to talk tax policy, bring it up in a relevant thread. We were talking about the reasons for the war, not tax cuts.

I'll hand it to you, Don. You have your Donk talking points in order - you guys are beginning to sound like clones.

TV (Harry)

Brad,

Read my response to Don Myers - it should answer your questions.

TV (Harry)

The Mighty Jimbo, I disagree with your point completely. I do NOT think that what you said is stupid, and in fact it has an excellent logic to it that I find appealling. Indeed, I have said similar things in the past. If I had different experiences, I would be chiming in to agree with you, and, at least in your post, you come off as a thoughtful person of goodwill.

Never the less, my experience leads me to a starkly different conclusion. In the past couple of years I have lived in both Texas and Massachusetts and have been in both majority conservative environments and majority liberal environments. I have noticed a very sharp difference between the reactions of people in these two environments to dissent from the majority view. Simply put, the left reacts with FAR more venom. They have a much greater tendency to want to silence the dissent rather than argue with it, and a very much stronger tendency to de-humanize people who disagree with them. Much more than the right, the left finds the mere expression of contrary views to be threatening. Of course, all that I have said relates to tendencies and not to every individual case, but the tendencies are so strong that I can not ignore them. In my own life I have disagreements with both "sides" and have found that it is wise to take these tendencies into account when talking to people.

As a former leftist, I agree that leftists spout far more bile. The hatred and anger coming from the left leave virtually no room for a productive well rounded life. Imagine a child raised by one of these guys. Sad.

Gee, Brad, the President said we had to remove Saddam BEFORE he became an iminent threat.

And those pesky WMDs keep turning up, too. The Poles have recovered more.

Why don't you stop revising the truth to fit your definition of reality.

"Inspector, it's been very well documented that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism in the United States."

Well other than harboring one of the suspects in the 1993 bombing of the WTC, and other than "After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," as Putin said, you have a definite point, Don.

Brad chimes in with, "Remember, Bush never talked about invading Iraq to plant the seeds of Democracy in Iraq before the invasion--he only talked about removing a dictator who was a threat to the United States. Before the insurgency, it was never about humanitarian causes."

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions."

President Bush in his speech to the UN, September 12, 2002.

I'm struck by how Michele paints herself as a victim in this post. "Poor me, the left is mean boo hoo hoo."

Nice projection there, Don. You keep whinging quite a bit yourself. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in earlier comment threads, but you seem to have started teetering over the edge here. Especially with the same sort of asshatted presumptions Brad was getting taken to task for.

Like:"If you'd stop depending on the right-wing media for 'news' you'd realize that pretty quickly."

Oh yes, if we just saw The Word as you have seen it we'd See the Light and come galloping to your side. Any more gems of wisdom, Oh Wise One?

Inspector, it's been very well documented that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism in the United States.

Odd how that was never claimed, despite various peoples dishonest quoting of members of the Bush Administration. Actually, a lot of claims about what the Bush Administration said seem to be based on rather... selective quoting. When I go back to the original transcripts, I usually find that the rest of what was said makes it look like a particular member of the Bush Administration meant something entirely different than what you and others want to claim. But then, I must be some poor sap who only watches "right-wing" news or whatever.

So the war in Iraq could not and did not keep terrorists out of your contry.

How so? That doesn't make any sense and looks more like wishful thinking on your part.


All you stand to gain is a crushing deficit, a giant quagmire in the middle east, and a reinstated draft come December.

But enough about your dreams.

Reinstated draft? How exactly is the military going to train a boatload of newly drafted trainees when they currently have to turn away volunteers and the Navy and Air Force are releasing people from service?

But hey, maybe if you repeat it enough then maybe other people who don't bother checking these things will believe it. It's Moore's secret to success, after all. Why can't it work for you?

Watching the left attempting to justify itself here(again) is immensely humorous. Particularly considering something Michele said that's been overlooked.

She's been on both sides of this fence. She states this repeatedly. And the right has not behaved as horribly towards her as the left has. End of story. You 'lose', lefties. And don't scream about my point--talk about it, rationally, quietly. Then you'll get rid of that 'lose'.

Here's a couple of points to ponder.

Someone on the right pointed out that before the war, quite a few people were documented as stating unequivocably that Hussein had WMDs. And that's true. It's a very well documented fact that people, intelligence services from various nations--and the UN WERE saying that Hussein had weapons. Yet the left insists that Bush, and his administration are the only ones who 'lied'. Why?

Here's one more

We keep hearing that this war wasn't about humanitarian concerns, that it was always and forever only about WMDs.

Yet it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom.....

Here's a pretty long paper on the reasons for war. Anyone wishing to wade through the dissertation? Brad? It might do you some good to read something other than propaganda.

http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm

Dear Patrick

Odd how that was never claimed, despite various peoples dishonest quoting of members of the Bush Administration.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Incorrect. Not in possession of the facts.

"I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government."--Cheney, NPR, 1/22/04. "Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al Qaeda network."--Cheney, the White House, 1/15/04 "We'll find ample evidence confirming the link, that is the connection if you will between al Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services. They have worked together on a number of occasions."--Cheney, Rocky Mtn. News, 1/9/04 "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding."--Bush, White House, 5/1/03

Reinstated draft? How exactly is the military going to train a boatload of newly drafted trainees when they currently have to turn away volunteers and the Navy and Air Force are releasing people from service?

Again, you're completely and utterly wrong. The army announced a second round of tour extentions back on 6/7, and called up 5,600 more reservists on 6/30. It was in all the papers. Perhaps you, like the President, don't read them. I suggest you start.

Oh yes, if we just saw The Word as you have seen it we'd See the Light and come galloping to your side. Any more gems of wisdom, Oh Wise One?

What you're trying to do here is called "reductio ad absurdum," but you're not doing it very well. Please look it up and try again.

I await your polite apology.

Hey Don, What the hell do tour extensions or reserve activations have to do with reinstating a draft?

The only people calling for a reinstatment are Democratic politicians like Rangle - a nasty piece of work.

The armed forces still have more volunteers than they can accept.

Dear Ray:

The only people calling for a reinstatment are Democratic politicians.

Sorry, but you are wrong as well. An appropriation of $28 million has been provided in the current defense budget to bring the nationís Selective Service System up to speed. Feel free to loock it up.

Don, bringing the selective Service up to date does not mean they are reinstating the draft. The old system is obsolete.

It would take a vote of Congress. Think they'd do it?

You're cherry-picking bits and pieces of information and drawing conclusions that are not warranted. Or logical.

Nice bit of backpedalling there, Ray.

Do I think that Congress will reinstate the draft? If Bush wins, I think they probably will. If Kerry wins, I think it's still a possibility, but not as likely.

What do you think?

And those pesky WMDs keep turning up, too. The Poles have recovered more.

Could someone cite a source on this?

What backpedaling? Nice bit of distraction there.

I repeat, the ONLY politicians I have heard calling for the draft are Democrats. I do not believe the congress COULD pass a draft absent a true state of war. No matter who wins.

I also repeat, you are drawing conclusions without any proof at all. Merely specualtion on your part stated as fact.

This is what Michele was getting at (I think, apolgies to Michele if I've got that wrong). Lies, distortions and speculation, stated as pure fact with nothing to back it up.

This is not discourse. This is a propaganda barrage.

Listen, I've been on the right's list. I've been targeted by them before because of certain views I have or had. But it's nothing like what I see from the left. They've turned vicious. They've become rabid dogs. - michele
That's presuming this is the only example of shut-down, shout-down or rough-up behaviour I've seen. And I'm saying that I mainly see it from the other side, the supposed champions of speech, liberty, and tolerance. - SarahW
As a former leftist, I agree that leftists spout far more bile. The hatred and anger coming from the left leave virtually no room for a productive well rounded life. Imagine a child raised by one of these guys. Sad. - Braddon
She's been on both sides of this fence. She states this repeatedly. And the right has not behaved as horribly towards her as the left has. End of story. You 'lose', lefties. And don't scream about my point--talk about it, rationally, quietly. Then you'll get rid of that 'lose'. - jack [all emphasis mine]

You know what, we could spend all day giving personal stories to add pathos to this "left is worse then right" meme. The fact that you can produce a TV series, "The Left Behaving Badly," doesn't prove anything and won't convince anyone. If I had a penny for every time someone told me that some guys in a pickup with a gun-rack tried to run them off the road because of the "Kerry 4 Prez" bummer sticker on their hybrid, I could buy myself a coffee. They didn't convince me of anything either.

The common thread on all these comments is trying to establish something by example. The proof by example is a common and well known logical fallacy. If a lefty blogger posted a thread claiming the right was more bile, they'd get the same claims with the roles reversed.

I have to say one thing. If your former friends/associates steal your website, that doesn't really mean The Left™ is the meanest. All you proved is that you have very, very poor judgement and your former associates are assholes.

Dear Ray:

the ONLY politicians I have heard calling for the draft are Democrats.

"Deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft."--Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) 4/20/04

"The nation must be prepared to conduct a draft"--Lewis C. Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs with the Selective Service System

Not to mention Pres Bush ® included funds to reactivate the draft in his last budget.

Jesus...don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Of course, we can disagree on our predictions about a draft (which ARE speculations, of course). I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong on this one.

People like Al ("she deserved it, she shouldn't have worn such a short skirt"), Brad ("Must... take over.... comment thread...."), Soli ("I will now put on my 'Reason With the Savages' hat. Perhaps I will also offer some shiny beads."), and Don Myers ("You must all bow down to me! I have read books!") are the reason I have comment moderation on my blog. Comment moderation rocks my world.

Again, you're completely and utterly wrong. The army announced a second round of tour extentions back on 6/7, and called up 5,600 more reservists on 6/30. It was in all the papers. Perhaps you, like the President, don't read them. I suggest you start.

Actually, I did read about that. Calling up reservists is not a draft. Nor is extending a tour of duty. The people affected signed a contract specifying this could happen. In other words, they already enlisted long ago. So you're wrong. Factually incorrect, even. Perhaps completely and utterly wrong would apply as well.

If there is a massive increase in training facility capacity and staffs, then a draft will be definitely in planning. As I said before: currently, they're turning away recruits, or delaying date of enlistment. It takes time to cycle trainees through even basic training and then they still have to go to training in whatever specialty they end up in.

BTW: claiming connections to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda is not claiming Saddam had something to do with terrorism in the United States, or the usual "But Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11!" claim. You might as well claim Hitler was behind the Pearl Harbor attack because he had a treaty with Imperial Japan. All you have is innuendo and exactly the kind of quotes I was speaking of. Oh well.

Hagel is the only republican who said anything in support of the draft.

http://www.loper.org/~george/archives/2002/Jan/092.html
Even though federal law requires it, around 30 percent of eligible men have failed to register, said Lewis C. Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs with the Selective Service System. In Virginia, that figure is 24 percent. 'There's no draft today, but the nation must be prepared to conduct one,' Brodsky said in light of the war on terrorism.

This is from January 2002, well before the Iraq war.

Also found this:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2000/0700world.asp

"To make sure that any draft is as fair and as equitable as possible, we've got to make sure we reach everyone," said Lewis C. Brodsky, Selective Service director of public and Congressional affairs. "And it's difficult to know who you're not reaching."

This quote is from July 2000. Brodsky, who's worked for the Selective Service System agency since 1986, of course is concerned about the draft. These comments of his do not strike me as being supportive of one.

Patrick:

You've taken hair-splitting to Clintonesqe depths---you're telling me that the Bush regime claimed that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda but DIDN'T claim he had ties to terrorism in the US. Are you really going to spin like that with a straight face?

One could make the argument that extending tours of duty indefinately and calling up inactive reservists is a kind of 'back door' draft, but no one can deny that the Bush administration has set aside the money to restart the draft and has advertised for civilians to fill openings on local draft boards. "if it walks like a duck and it smells like a duck..."

Andrea:

You don't have to bow down before me unless you want to. But would you tell me what's wrong with reading books?

you're telling me that the Bush regime claimed that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda but DIDN'T claim he had ties to terrorism in the US.

Actually, your initial claim was that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism in the US, which I took to mean you were saying he wasn't involved in planning or execution of any attacks; an active role in other words. Not "had ties" with it, which would mean he had some sort of relationship with a group that did plan and perform attacks in the US; a more passive (and vague) role. Makes it look like you were trying a bait-and-switch.

Or perhaps you truly think they are the same. That would mean that if a friend of yours committed a crime, then your ties with that friend would mean you had something to do with that crime. Right?

One could make the argument that extending tours of duty indefinately and calling up inactive reservists is a kind of 'back door' draft,

...and when called on it you spin with the above. How unsurprising. Sorry, but that is part of serving in the military. Not a "back door" draft, or a real draft as you were using those recalls and extensions as "proof" that there was an honest-to-Gods real draft coming.

but no one can deny that the Bush administration has set aside the money to restart the draft and has advertised for civilians to fill openings on local draft boards. "if it walks like a duck and it smells like a duck..."

If we're going to have a draft soon (December), where are the added instructors and other training staff? Looks like you're trying to claim a goose is a duck.

re: Leftist memes, Don Meyers, brad, et al
A couple of other "Guests" and I have been arguing with a moonbat "Honesty2" over in these forums:
http://forums.prospero.com/kr-question/start

He points to the same sites as these guys, drops the same tired phrases,etc....Memes!

They're everywhere!

I hadn't heard of Hagel. So what?
That, by the way Don, does not make me wrong, merely uninformed. Unlike you, I can't possibly know everything.

Again, it would take the majority of Congress to enact - won't happen absent a real "hot" war.

Funding a system BEFORE it is actually needed would seem prudent. A little too late afterwards.

A young man I know is finally reporting for basic. He had to wait EIGHT MONTHS after enlisting to go because there were no openings in the camp. Patrick is correct. Where the heck would they put the draftees?

I repeat, you are drawing conclusions with no proof. Your duck smells like turkey. Get some proof, we'll talk.

I registered for the draft on my 18th birthday and carried my card until the day they ended the draft. That was a different time and a different kind of threat existed. Today's armed forces are made up of volunteers. It is unlikely that the type of force we use today could even function with draftees. The armed forces are made up of professionals today. The enlist with the knowledge that they can be sent where needed, when needed. And can be recalled to active duty until their terms expire.

I'm struck by how Michele paints herself as a victim in this post. "Poor me, the left is mean boo hoo hoo."

Considering the amount of vitrol and spite that is spewed on this blog towards Moore, the left, Micah Wright, other bloggers, and anyone not as filled with rightiousness as Michele, complaints like this are a serious case of calling the kettle black.

This might help explain conservatism as seen on this blog:

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (-.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

(Translation: Political conservatism is strongly associated anxieties about death and instability, and an inability to deal with ambiguity or uncertainty. It's also associated with a lack of complex thought and a need to impose structure.)

Thanks for the instant analysis, Phoeni.

Too bad I'm not a true conservative.

Too bad those studies are bunk.

Phoeni,

Have you looked through this with any real rigor?

They seem to be concluding that conservatism needs to be treated. I would submit this is a hack paper put together with an agenda and a conclusion drawn before the "study" began.

Michele is right. Bunk.

And Bob's comment illustrates exactly what the far left has become.

Michele, maybe it's finally time to consider buying a bridge for all of these folks to live under.

Too bad those studies are bunk.

"openness to experience (-.32)"

They seem to be concluding that conservatism needs to be treated.

"integrative complexity (-.20)"

I would submit this is a hack paper put together with an agenda and a conclusion drawn before the "study" began.

"dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34)"

The value of your submission can be assessed by the fact that you don't even seem to know what the word "meta-analysis" means...

Nice try, moonbat.

That "study" was put together by a few leftist academic hacks trying to affirm that liberals are "enlightened" and "nuanced" while conservatives are "simple" and see things only in "black and white".

Mindlessly citing excerpts from that piece of academic crap does not help your case.

It merely proves the notion that you're just another pseudo-intellectual asshat waving some dubious thesis around in a vain attempt to showcase your self-supposed "superior intellect".

What "Phoenician" the leftist asshat doesn't realize, his/its posts are the intellectual equivalent of someone repeatedly breaking wind.

Michele - just wanted to thank you for shining some light on this :-)

I always thought Clinton's dick cleaner was a good idea. If it was me I wouldn't talk to Arafat any other way.

BTW I'm a Bush supporter and a warhawk (did I mention I was a veteran? Tonkin Bay Yacht Club '66). Did I mention that I was for all practical purposes a communist from the late 60s to the early 80s? The boat people and the re-ed camps did it for me.

The left talks a good talk but kills millions who get in their way. The right at least has the courtesy to try to be economical in these matters. Killing? Sure. But no more than necessary. It's bad for business.

Which is why in general it is better to be ruled by robbers than people on a moral lift crusade. Robbers sleep. Once in a while they get their fill. Belief does not bother them as long as the cash keeps flowing.

The moral uplift people are never satisfied and they never sleep. Stand in the way of utopia? Off with their heads. Disagree with perfection. Death.

NOTE TO ALL -

www.Morewatch.com is the most bias right winged conservative site I have ever attempted to participated in.

After expressing my slightly left views I was banned by Lee and JimK for no apparent reason, w/o warning.

The rights spit alot of smack about free speech and so on and yet defy their members of that very same right.

Out with Bush and down with the hipocrytes admins of www.Moorewatch.com !!

Sure Moore can be slanted but he opens peoples eyes.