Mary Beth Cahill has gone retarded
So, since I want to write my senior thesis on this election, I signed up for John Kerry's email list a while ago. Today, I received an email from Mary Beth Cahill, opening with the following:
Yesterday, the Bush-Cheney campaign, losing any last sense of decency, placed a disgusting ad called "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party" as the main feature on its website. Bizarrely, and without explanation, the ad places Adolf Hitler among those faces.
The Bush-Cheney campaign must pull this ad off of its website. The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong.
Ok, so, why did Bush-Cheney use a Hitler face on the "Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party" ad? Clearly, they're calling Democrats Hitler, and every sensible person should be insulted. Uh, no. They are simply pointing out that many of the most vocal Kerry supporters have compared Bush to Hitler. So, um, Mary Beth, shut up because you have no right to complain on this issue.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Mary Beth Cahill has gone retarded
OpinionJournal - Featured Article
It's a few days old, but still important, so read it.
And it leads me to ask all of you out there: if we had succeeded in shooting down all four of those commercial jets, don't you think Bush would have been criticized for killing so many innocent civilians?
Under the circumstances, I think 9/11 was lose-lose for everyone involved aside from the terrorists.
For my first essay...
...let's turn to Michael Moore, and Fahrenheit 9/11.
No, I have not seen the movie. Yes, I do intend to, but I have no plans to spend 8 bucks on it, so I guess I'll have to wait for the rental (VHS, not DVD, since I don't want to spend money on his crap).
I'll start with a response to the post found on seditious libel made by my friend Beth.
Though every study shows that Gore rightfully won (which we all suspected anyway), Bush took the seat. Sorry, babe, the media-run recounts in Florida picked up votes for Bush, and on every count and recount run by the state of Florida after election night, Bush picked up votes. And with the networks calling the election for Gore early, voting rates in the Florida panhandle (heavily Republican) were significantly lower than in any election before or since. Why vote if your man already lost? You'll never convince me that Gore actually won, and you'll certainly never convince me that he would be better suited to fight the war on terror than W is. Remember after 9/11 how even the liberals in this country sighed relief that he lost?
It seems a stretch to suppose that the Bush family's close ties to the Saudis and history with Saddam had nothing to do with the priorities the president adopted in his war on terror. Not Osama, who may have been behind the attacks but whose family shared investments with George W.'s, but Saddam who had nothing to with the attacks but tried to kill Bush's dad.
Ok, this should be fun. 1)"Osama, who may have been behind the attacks" I hope you mean "may have" in a "he was, but we're dismissing him" kind of way, not a "maybe he was, maybe he wasn't" sort of way. 2, and more importantly) we need to set this straight right here and now: the war on terror is not about retribution for 9/11--it is about safeguarding America from future attacks, and preventing anyone in the world from having the means to carry one out. Saddam had the intent, no question. At some point, he had the means, and he was incapable of proving to anyone that he had destroyed them. We could eliminate him without any serious repercussions to the safety of the surrounding countries (think North Korea and Seoul), so we took him out. You might have heard Bill Clinton on Oprah this week say he would have made the same decision as W. Why? Because it was the right decision to make
As far as the Saudis are concerned, you might also remember that Osama was banished from the Kingdom. Why? Because his family disowned him. Why? Because his holy war was declared on the Saudi family just as strongly as on America, and the Bin Laden investments are much more closely tied to the Kingdom than to the Bushes. His family isn't defending his interests by any means, and his survival certainly does not help the Bushes. If anything, his network threatens the world oil supply, and more concretely the world oil market, which is the basis for all of these investments in the first place.
Also, the fact that Saddam tried to kill 41 should have been reason enough to take him out in the first place.
...if more people have been won with false or exaggerated fears, then they have been disenfranchised through deception. Let's set something else straight: George W. Bush does not pose nearly the threat to American democracy (cough, we have never had and should never have democracy in this country) that liberals would like to have you believe. They are playing on fear just as much as the Right, it's just pointed in a different direction. If you don't believe me, then go back and listen to a few of Dean's campaign speeches. Better yet, listen to anything Al Gore has said in the past 18 months. They want you more afraid of Bush than the terrorists so you'll vote for them.
Ok, enough attacking Beth. But listen up, here, people. This election is going to hinge on terrorism whether you like it or not, and it comes down to the simple choice of who you think will fight that war most effectively, and what strategy you want used. Sure, I'd like to see the domestic agencies (FBI, HS, INS, etc.) strengthened more than they have been in the past 2.5 years, but I think that takes time, and we're working on it. But we can't stop every terror attack that way: once they've reached our shores, we're already too late. We absolutely need to bring the war to their doorstep. We need to cut off the infrastructure that breeds terrorism, and we need to make prosecuting a terror war on America infeasible.
That means, we need to kill the people who would create terrorism. That means we need to put them so deep in hiding that they can't hit targets over here. (Has anyone noticed that all of Al Quaeda's attacks of late have been in Arab countries with only one exception?) That means when a man like Saddam threatens the US, and even leads us to believe he has the capability of carrying out his threats, we need to take him and his government off the playing field by whatever means necessary. It needs to be clear that if you're posturing against us, you're not going to get ahead.
John Kerry will never be the man to lead that fight. Maybe W isn't ideal, but he's a thousand steps ahead. What was Kerry's proposal for Iraq? Why did he vote in favor of the resolution to wage war with Iraq? By his own admission, "we needed to show the threat of force, but we never should have used it." There's a simple lesson in parenting: don't ever make a threat you're not willing to carry out. If you do it once and don't follow through, your child will learn quickly that your threats are hollow, and he will begin to act with impugnity. No matter how many times you carry through after that, he will always know that there's a possibility that you won't the next time, and he'll continue to test the waters. "We'll let you have Checkoslovakia but after that you have to stop." Sound familiar? Worked really well, right? I simply do not want a man who thinks in those terms to lead my armed forces.
And as long as you keep Michael Moore as your chief propagandist, I'm not that scared.
The daily posting thing obviously doesn't work with my summer schedule, and I've probably lost my entire readership by this point, BUT...
We're going to try a format change for the duration of the summer months. The new plan is to try for twice a week, guarantee at least once a week, posting a longer essay-form commentary. It will still deal with political stuff, and I will still add short posts whenever I have time, but will, as I said, be more like an essay, similar to my sermon, and whenever I've said "my turn," or "my thoughts" in the past.
So, if you still read this with any regularity, check back once or twice a week, and hopefully you'll find something new.