Klarinet Archive - Posting 000000.txt from 2004/07

From: Jeremy A Schiffer <schiffer@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] Hello Infidel!
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 00:32:50 -0400

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Warren Rosenberg wrote:

> Let's get to the heart of the matter, Jeremy, your tortured prose
> notwithstanding.

(Starts off by attacking my rhetoric. *sigh*) If you have trouble reading
articulate statements written by intelligent people, the problem as I see
it is not mine.

> By the way, the space that the liberal media gives to
> "conservative" views as you claim can be found in what section of the
> newspaper, please tell me.

I'd start by pointing to the NYTimes, since it's frequently referred to as
the king of the liberal media empire (reality aside). In addition to
having 2 Op/Ed contributors who are SOLIDLY conservative (Brooks and
Safire), most of their political reporting over the last few years has
leaned heavily to the right. Note that Clinton's biography was panned and
Al Gore was repeatedly savaged during the campaign while Karl Rove and
Grover Norquist frequently receive glowing profiles by Judith Miller and
her colleagues. Even the staff editorials have been nothing left of
moderate since the beginning of the Clinton administration; they *hated*
him at the Times.

Contrast that with any of the S Moon or R Murdoch publications, which
have no regular political contributors who don't identify as conservative.

In 1995, a 30 day study of signed op/eds in the LA Times and OC Registers
looked at the political leanings being espoused in the articles. The
opinion section of the Times was 44 percent liberal, 31 percent
conservative, and 25 percent neutral (from 104 articles). Meanwhile, the
Register's was 2 percent liberal, 71 percent conservative, and 27 percent
neutral (from 109 articles).

I think that's enough facts for now.

> Certainly it's not in the influential and
> opinion-making headlines, by-lines, etc. So do inform me.

As I pointed out above, it is. Judith Miller is the most infuential
political reporter in the country, and she parroted the administration's
claims on Iraq without a hint of skepticism (or any attempts to
independently verify what she was being told) in her writings. She was
backed up by the Howell Raines newsroom and Safire and Brooks on the op/ed
pages.

> Now to the heart of the matter.
> Bush is stupid, wrong and a liar. Condy Rice is a fraud and an Aunt Tom
> along with her Uncle Tom no-nothing friend, Colin Powell. Examples of
> Republicans just co-opting 2 thoughtless blacks who should know better than
> to be taken in by the evil empire! Our military is just a bunch of fools
> who know nothing and who just want to kill.

So, you're paranoid and racist. Don't project that onto me, thanks.

> 1. We have eliminated the Taliban from large portions of Afghanistan. We
> could have waited for the United Nations, but they were busy taking taking
> bribes in the oil for food program or whatever they do.

From small portions of Afghanistan. It *was* large parts, but then the
Bush administration pulled the troops and materiel from Afghanistan and
sent them to Iraq before Af. had been properly secured. Now, the Taliban
and the warlords control most of the country outside of Kabul. Why do you
think Karzai is always traveling to the US begging for more support?

> 2. We've eliminated that kindly old gentleman who was trying to do his best
> for world peace, Mr. Sadaam Hussein and his two sons.

Something that was deemed by the Clinton administration to be a desirable
goal but a bad idea, due to the instability and violence that would
follow. Hmm... kinda prescient, huh?

I'm certainly not shedding any tears for the f*cker and his plight, but
more than half of Americans now agree with my position, that the war
wasn't worth the costs financially and in terms of human lives.

> 3. We've prevented any 9-11 attacks since Bush was elected or shall I say,
> "stole the election."

This cannot be said, at all. We know it takes 3-5 years minimum to plan,
finance, and execute a major attack like 9/11, and have not seen any
evidence that the Bush administration has stopped any that had reached
anything beyond rudimentary planning or information gathering.

On the other hand, during the Clinton tenure, they STOPPED a mostly
planned attack on the bridges and tunnels of NYC plus the Millenium
attempts. They also arrested and convicted the people responsible the
first time the WTC was bombed.

> But obviously these
> minor tasks will not get any acknowledgement from partisans (The Bush
> Haters - YOU!) on the other side.

One, don't assume I'm a partisan. You don't know shit about me. Two, I'll
acknowledge accomplishments when I see something beyond empty rhetoric and
dissembling from this administration. Three, I don't hate Bush; I just
have a major problem with him being the president. From everything I've
heard, he's quite the amiable guy. I wouldn't hesitate to sit down and
have a beer with the guy, but that doesn't mean I want him to run the
world, and to do so from an increasingly secretive agenda.

> And you had eight years to generate an effort
> to fight terrorism. What are the Democrat accomplishments to fight Islamic
> fundamentalism? Well Punk! What are they?

Punk? What is your problem? Why do you treat me with such contempt?
I've never even met you, and yet you insist on calling me
increasingly vituperative names.

> 4. Libya has changed its tune. Did sending American troops have any
> influence? Of course not. This was all planned a long time ago. George
> just got lucky in his timing, right?

In a word, yes. Here's an article written by the former envoy to the
Middle East which states that the offer was made by Libya as far back as
1999. http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm. If anyone
in the world would know the truth of this matter, it would be him.

> As of this date, June 30, 2004, only a few days before the July 4th holiday
> weekend (What a great weekend for a huge terrorist attack!), it seems that
> people in this country could pull together, if only to defeat an avowed
> enemy. God only knows what might happen in the next week. But it's more
> important to worry about Bush's "lies". Ben Ladin is laughing his a-s off!

Yes, Bin Laden has been trying to force a major cleavage between the West
and the Arab Muslim world for a decade. He's been telling everyone who
gets Al-Jazeera that the US would react to terrorism by invading and
occupying an oil-rich Muslim country and that it would be their duty to
resist. Sounds like... exactly what happened, actually.

> I don't mind if Kerry wins as long as he does as much or more of what Bush
> is accomplishing. Take charge. Be proactive. "Power abhors a vacuum" is
> not a new concept!

Which is why it's ironic that Bush has created TWO major power vacuums -
Afghanistan and Iraq.

> But so far, I only see the democrats saying they would do nothing until
> others, France, etc. jump on board. That's an excuse for doing nothing.
> Lovely. How many more 9-ll's do you want to see before you see a problem?

No one has said that, exactly. The Democrats have said they will bring in
other countries to form a coalition so that they can act with legitimacy
in the eyes of the rest of the world (you know, like Bush Sr. did in the
first Gulf War). Do you not remember 9/12, when even Iranians and
Jordanians held vigils for the victims of the attacks? When world opinion
was united against terrorism? Do you not see how much Bush has squandered
since that day, and why any future unilateral moves will only cause more
problems than they can possibly solve?

> Islamic fundamentalists want to kill you. Today! They don't care you hate
> Bush, don't you get it? You are an infidel. You love freedom, chat lines,
> the internet, 25 kinds of toothpaste, etc.

Which is why I want them DEAD! But the current administration isn't doing
jack as far as actually getting terrorists. Other countries refuse to
arrest Al-Quaida terrorists and turn them over to American authorities
because of the tortures and deaths at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib!

John Ashcroft calls press conferences to announce the arrest of a clueless
hispanic whackjob, but refuses to allow the FBI to look at gun background
check records to see if known terrorists are buying weapons! [and let's
not forget a few weeks ago when called another new conference and said
major strikes were being planned soon, while Tom Ridge was like "what the
hell is he talking about, we're not raising the threat level?"]

Many of the actions taken by this adminstration in the "War on Terror"
have made us less safe, not more safe. Why do I feel like Galileo, being
excommunicated for pointing out facts that are inconvenient to the
prevailing orthodoxy?

-jeremy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org