The Politics of Hypocrisy

[Blotan Hunka]

The Politics of Hypocrisy

The modern liberal loves hypocrisy. It's just too easy and so politically correct. When faced with a diverse point of view, just raise the notion that your opponent is not worthy of taking a position. Some favorite fodder for liberals in our national history include slavery, our treatment of the American Indian, ignoring the Holocaust, US support for the Shah of Iran, the Iran-Contra fiasco, Viet Nam, and, of course, faulty intelligence about Iraqi WMDs. No matter the topic of discussion, you can bet the liberals will bring up one of these as proof we are we are not allowed to assume the moral high ground.

Every now and then I watch Prime Minister's Questions on C-Span. This is where the Prime Minister of Great Britain stands before the House of Commons and answers their questions. The first time I saw this I was astounded. Here was Tony Blair of the Labor Party receiving questions from his Conservative rivals and actually responding on-topic to the question at hand. They actually addressed each other, made extremely persuasive arguments, and debated national topics. Unlike our Congress, where most speeches are political sound bites made to empty chambers, or our presidential debates, where the candidates are not allowed to address each other directly, these men and women actually called each other on the carpet. At the end of the evening, the average British citizen not only knows why Blair supports an issue, they know both sides of the issue and can form their own decision.

Although all politicians are capable of political-speak, I've never heard a liberal actually answer a question with a salient, on-topic answer. They constantly criticize the war in Iraq and our efforts to fight terror, but when asked what they would do differently, they spout something like, "George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and took us into this war under false pretenses. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th. We must change course. New leadership is required, a new vision, a new strategy." Did I miss something here? The President's stated strategy is to train the Iraqi security forces until they can handle the job themselves, then bring our forces home. This may or may not be a good strategy, but it is a strategy. If the Democrats have a better one, what is it? I'm not opposed to a better strategy. How about giving us one, please!

 

[jazkiljok]

The Politics of Hypocrisy

which is why the democrats with a perfect moment to rise to the occasion and retake the house, will probably still screw it up. no they don't give any unified anwsers on the topic and the best they came up with Kerry was he was going to send a lot more troops-- ready for service? from a billionaire's mansion? we already got that.

 

[Phoenix44]

Here's one. It's called the Three State Solution.

http://www.salve.edu/pellcenter/functions/biography_detail.cfm?bio_ID=43

Here's another:

http://usatoday.printthis.clickabil...1-28-richard-clarke-edit_x.htm&partnerID=1660

And another:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0405-22.htm

In fact, a lot of exit strategies have been proposed. You just have to want to read them.

Or was that a rhetorical question?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Here's one. It's called the Three State Solution.

http://www.salve.edu/pellcenter/functions/biography_detail.cfm?bio_ID=43

Here's another:

http://usatoday.printthis.clickabil...1-28-richard-clarke-edit_x.htm&partnerID=1660

And another:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0405-22.htm

In fact, a lot of exit strategies have been proposed. You just have to want to read them.

Or was that a rhetorical question?

None of which ANY democratic "leader" is out there proposing. An ambassador, a think tank brain and Kerry..And Kerry's "solution" sounds just like what we are doing now with a timetable stipulation, not dazzlingly original. <YAWN>

 

[michaeledward]

None of which ANY democratic "leader" is out there proposing. An ambassador, a think tank brain and Kerry..And Kerry's "solution" sounds just like what we are doing now with a timetable stipulation, not dazzlingly original. <YAWN>

An completely irrelevant discussion.

The Commander in Chief has not been soliciting input from Democratic leaders. He has been calling the democractic party -QUOTE - the party of Cut and Run - END QUOTE.

He is not looking for a solution that unites the nation. Instead, he has been intent on dividing the nation.

But, even if he was looking for alternatives to the - 'Stay and Be Targets' - We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here - 'adapt' It is completely irrelevant. He is going to be the President until January 20, 2009.

What the democrats - leadership, rank and file, or even knuckleheads like me, - think is completely and totally irrelevant.

He has told us that he is going to leave this for the next president.

Seems to me that Robert Fulghum would be appropriate ....

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.
These are the things I learned:

• Play fair.
• Don't hit people.
• Put things back where you found them.
• Clean up your own mess.
• Don't take things that aren't yours.
• Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.

 

[Touch Of Death]

This is ridiculous! Of course the Dems will have to muddle through the mess we have been gottent into. Most of them were willing to believe That President Bush was sincere and that the evidence the he provided was true. As the lies unfold we must live with their unintended concequences. Assuming no one has a plan means you are listening to way to much conservative talk radio and are being told as much. Its OK to find out the positions for yourself. You got a computer!
Sean

 

[michaeledward]

This is ridiculous! Of course the Dems will have to muddle through the mess we have been gottent into. Most of them were willing to believe That President Bush was sincere and that the evidence the he provided was true. As the lies unfold we must live with their unintended concequences. Assuming no one has a plan means you are listening to way to much conservative talk radio and are being told as much. Its OK to find out the positions for yourself. You got a computer!
Sean

Great thoughts, Sean.

I might amend a line or two in your post ... .

As the lies have unfolded, we must live with some of their consequences, intended and unintended. We must live with President Bush as the Commander in Chief until January 2009.

But, many of those whose Constitutional obligation it is to question and check the Executive Authority have a day of reckoning approaching quickly. I hope for a wave of turn over in the House, and one third of the Senate. I am not confident of that.

Each voter should be asking, what was my local representatives place in this? Did he support the lies? Does he offer any other options (irrelevant though they may be)?

If we believe the current leadership is not offering a viable option, then vote to install new leadership ---- throw the bums out ---- each and every one.

 

[Don Roley]

which is why the democrats with a perfect moment to rise to the occasion and retake the house, will probably still screw it up.

It is not just American politics. I was reading an interesting opinion piece in the International Herald Tribune by some guy (left it at work- will give names and such later) who pointed out that Milosivic was a bastard, but he was nothing compared to Hussein. But all the liberals in Europe who demanded that the US take action in Kosovo fell silent about Iraq. Both cases are situations where the situation seemed worse prior to action and Kosovo has degenerated into a sheer hell hole under UN control. Neither posed a threat (by conventional means- Kosovo was prior to what we learned what a nation as poor and out of touch as Afghanistan could do with 19 fanatics.) to other nations. But one was good because it was started by someone of a certain political bent and the other bad for the same reason.

 

[Phoenix44]

So I guess John Kerry isn't enough of a Democrat to propose an Iraq withdrawal plan. And Peter Galbraith, an Ambassador who served under Clinton; who has visited Iraq many times, and studied and written about Iraq; and son of a renowned liberal economist and ambassador under Kennedy, isn't really a "leader." And Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism expert and national security advisor to four US presidents, is nothing more than a "a think tank brain."

There's always John Murtha, Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania, and 37 year veteran of the US Marines. He proposed a a plan for immediate withdrawal and diplomatic solution. But then, he was called a coward by a freshman Republican Congresswoman...

How about the immediate withdrawal proposed by Max Cleland? Vietnam triple amputee? No, he's a FORMER Democratic Senator.

Russ Feingold? He should be disqualified because was against the war in the first place.

You know, you're right. The only reasonable approach is to stay the course.

 

[michaeledward]

Hey, don't forget my man, Dennis Kucinich ... he's been calling for a 90 day withdrawl since the New Hampshire Primaries in the '04 election.

Today, he demanded to see any plans Mr. President has for an October Surprise in Iran.

 

[Phoenix44]

You know, you're right. Kucinich is a Democrat, and he's proposed an Iraq withdrawal plan. (I hear he's currently working on his IRAN withdrawal plan, too.) But is he enough of a Democratic LEADER to count?

 

[michaeledward]

But is he enough of a Democratic LEADER to count?

Now, now ... you remember the story of the little engine that could, don't you ....

I think I can
I think I can
I think I can



If that's not leadership, I'm not sure I could recognize it, were it before me.