Stephen A. Frye
s.frye at VERIZON.NET
Wed Jul 2 14:05:33 MDT 2003
> I am relieved but only a bit. You implied that Bush attacked Iraq out of
>some quirky need arising from his psyche, and you used the trope that he was
>"itching for a fight." Well, itches are physical and personal. To suggest
>that Bush marshals the might, energy, power, and sacrifice of this nation to
>satisfy some disordered personal urge, well, this is the kind of grist that
>liberals tend to use to attack their enemies. Others may use it, too, but
>liberals do it regularly and predictably.
Wow. Did I say all of that? I'm going to have to go back and read it
again. For just a brief moment I thought I read some embellishment.
> "Itching" is hardly a proper characterization for being aroused to defend
>either a family or a nation.
Agreed. However, I do not fully buy into the defense theory. We attacked
Iraq. We were not defending ourselves. We were attacking based on our own
professed supposition that Saddam was going to attack us - some time. The
pre-emptive attack was justified with the question "well, should we just
wait until he attacks us?" Pre-emptive self defense was nice spin. A
valiant attempt to shame someone into agreeing with the war - to believe
otherwise would be to condone him attacking us. I have often wondered why
we didn't use that same reasoning against the Soviet Union.
>Itching is best applied to Saturday night yahoos
>who go out looking to hurt somebody to gratify some disordered impulse.
You apply it your way, I'll apply it mine.
>Responding in a measured, statesmanlike way to a tyrant who has flouted his
>treaty obligations and hardly be called "itching for a fight."
Timing is everything. He flouted his obligations for years.
> I didn't call you a Liberal. But I did point out that some of your
>'Bush" rhetoric was taking on the "flavor" and perhaps the intention of that
>typically used by Liberals who have been using a variety of techniques to
>degrade President Bush.
Rubbish. I am speaking my own opinions on my own behalf. Your use here is
exactly the logic you deplored above - Texan -> fight -> Bush is a
Texan. You voice concern that I was following that logic train, and then
you apply the same thing here.
>On a related note, my brother, who considers himself
>conservative, was against the Iraq war.
Aren't conservatives allowed to be against the Iraq war?
>The reasons he gave were typical of
>those used by the Liberals who opposed the war. I pointed out to him that his
>anti-war argument was indistinguishable from that of the Liberals, including
>the Green Party.
So what? He has the same argument. That speaks to his own thinking. Are
all of his opinions similar to the general liberal philosophy, or just
those regarding the war.
Contrary to what I often sense as the belief here, Liberalism and
Conservatism are not as simple as black and white categorization. I
believe they are generalizations of a set of philosophies. We are all
human and we all have our own opinions and beliefs. It is far too
elementary to claim that because a person believes such and such about such
and such, then this person must be a liberal. So what if his argument is
indistinguishable. He himself, as a person, is distinguishable. Look to
the person, understand the belief. Simply applying a label to the opinion
is dismissive invalidation. It lacks depth. Hmmm - that, too, seems to be
indistinguishable from that of the liberals.
>One of these silly arguments was that Bush is an oilman, who
>is after another nation's oil. What to do with this sort of nonsense?
Sell it at the gas pumps.
More information about the Rushtalk