American Intelligence?

wbwhite wbwhite at MADBBS.COM
Wed Jul 2 20:24:27 MDT 2003

"Stephen A. Frye" wrote:

> >
> >     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.

    Well, yes you did say that.  Words mean things,  and your selection of words
within a given context is susceptible to analysis and interpretation.  Where
exactly have I embellished?

> >     "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.

    It was certainly seriously discussed.  If you follow what Anne Coulter is
saying in her book, TREASON, it becomes clear that before WW II and thereafter,
there were many paid spies and Soviet sympathizers in policy making positions in
the Democratic administrations of the US Government.  Some of them, like Alger
Hiss were exposed, but certainly not with the force and clarity merited by their
perfidy.  Their influence in the US government vitiated much of what the US could
have and probably should have done to counter the Soviet Communists.  The
timeliness of this book is that we are now once again engaged in a serious
geopolitical struggle, the war on terrorists, would be terrorists, and terrorist
sympathizers.  I am glad we have an administration who understands this world
situation and is taking substantive and effective steps to deal with it.

> >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.

    I am not trying to restrict your use of language, except to give you feedback
on the meanings conveyed by applying this particular choice to Bush.  Besides,
above you agreed the phrase was not a proper characterization.

> >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.

    So you agree the timing was right.  Here is undisputed credit given to
President Bush's actions.

> >      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.

    Here is a good application of the old saying:  When you lie down with the
dogs, you get up with the fleas.

> >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?

    Sure several were, but not for silly reasons, like he's trying to finish what
his daddy started or he trying to get oil for himself and his buddies.

> >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.

    No, but like many liberal arguments these particular opinions of his seemed to
be based on misinformation, insufficient information, and a general conviction
that all politicians are up to no good.  The upshot is that his opinions of this
issue were basically those of the sloganeers who trotted out to oppose the war and
were given great media play to advertise their cant.

> 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.

    I've known him for a long time, and have a an in-depth exposure to him as a
person.  He has areas in which he is well-versed.  Others, less so.   In politics,
it seems the Liberal party line receives  so much exposure that the Liberal
viewpoint is frequently the "received" opinion, and therefore the one most readily
and easily adopted.  It is not a demonstration of shallowness to point this out
when it occurs.

> >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.

    I realize this is a flip remark.  But do you really think that the gas in our
pumps is derived from military conquest?


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list