Fighting the Talking Points

I cruise by the right wing blog Townhall from time to time to see what is on the right's mind. It usually some form of whining about mean or clueless liberals or how the right is not tough enough. Today Lorie Byrd wrote a column about the Rosie vs Hasllebeck silliness on The View a couple of days ago. Anyway I could care less about Rosie or Elisabeth said but Lorie Byrd made her points with all the these Republican talking points. Here is a sample of the column.

"Myths are born when an untrue statement is repeated frequently enough, and loudly enough, that many come to believe the statement must be true because they have heard it said over and over again, usually with no refutation. For too long conservatives have allowed statements like Bush “stole the election” and “lied us into war” to be repeated with little if any opposition."

Perhaps because these statements are true and it is hard to deny the truth of them. Maybe if you keep repeating they are not true, you can make yourself believe that. You can even make yourself believe W is a great president or that Saddam really had WMDs or that there a was connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

Here is the rest of her column.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LorieByrd/2007/05/25/republicans_should_follow_elisabeth_hasselbecks_example

I am not a big letter writer but I wrote Ms. Byrd a letter just to see how or even if she would repsond. Here is the letter.

First of all I do not like Rosie O'Donnell or Elisabeth Hasslebeck. So I do not really care who said what to whom. I simply do not like the way framed the issues in your column. I disagree with you lumping 9-11 conspiracy theories in with Bush stole the election, Bush lied us into war, and Ron Paul invited 9-11 to happen.

Let's start with the debacle of 2000. Before the election you have Katherine Harris purging voters and then you see her handy work again in the hanging chad fiasco. Then there is the simple Al Gore won the popular vote. You had the faux the demonstrations that were really people that worked for Bush or the RNC who’s only purpose seemed to be to stir up trouble and muddy the waters in trying to decide who the next president would be. Last but last but not least you get the bogus decision by the Supreme Court in Gore v Bush. Maybe he not did steal the election but just received the benefit of the forces that are working for him, kind of like what Ken Blackwell did for him in 2004. Besides stealing the election would require planning and if there is one thing these guys have shown is that they are very bad at planning things.

Next is the idea that Bush lied us into war. This seems to hinge around the world lie, as in knowingly mislead people. This of course is difficult to prove because nobody will ever know for sure. However it does seem pretty clear that the administration was very selective in the information that they used as proof that Iraq had weapons. Plus they relied on men like Chilabi and his bogus information even though most people said he was a liar and a con artist. Once again this goes back to planning. The Bush Administration took their shaky intelligence and went a step further by creating one of the worst war plans in history. So if you want to get into a semantic discussion about the word lie that's fine, but it is clear the Bush was not completely truthful in presenting his case for war. He also had the benefit of the media and a compliant congress (yes both Republicans and Democrats), who were dozing off and for the most part failed to ask the right questions.

Then there is calling Ron Paul a 9-11 conspiracy guy. This is simply not true. I can see in the oversimplified conservative thinking where everything is black and white and there is no room for shades of gray. However in reality based world things are not always so clear. What Ron Paul was saying is that Western interference in the Middle East over the past 50 years has been a factor in men like Bin Laden wanting to attack us. The US bombing Iraq for the 10 years after the first Gulf War, having troops in Saudi Arabia, and abandoning them in Afghanistan after the Russians left. Now one may ask where Ron Paul got such a kooky, perhaps it because it is because what bin Laden said. This does not justify or make what happened on 9-11 right, but it does explain why it happened. That was not a just a random act of violence or because of the right wing talking point of they hate us for our freedom which may be partially true but is not the complete answer. What Ron Paul said in that debate is not some crazed conspiracy theory, but simply acknowledged that our actions in the Middle East have consequences and if we ignore this in our foreign policy we are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again. So no Ron Paul is not a nut, he just dared not buy into the oversimplified Republican talking points.

As far as the Bush caused 9-11 or let it happen or the whole host of conspiracies. I do not buy into the idea that Bush was directly involved. Once again the whole it goes back to the planning thing. However the war president did screw up by not paying attention to terrorism until it was too late. Plus there are several questions that have never been answered about that day. Like why were the planes not scrambled when they noticed something was wrong. Plus what the heck was Bush doing just sitting there reading My Pet Goat when he knew the country had been attacked. Even there are questions about what happened on 9-11 most of the conspiracies are either too far fetched or just out and out wrong. The real crime of 9-11 was that Bush has used it to hammer anybody that disagrees with him and of course he used it as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Anyway I will see what happens.

Al Gore in 08

The more time passes and the more times Al Gore says he is not running, the more I believe he is not running. I think there are several reasons to think that he is not running. Number one on that list is that he simply does not want to run. Also the Democrats are much happier with their choices for president. The main reason Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich are seriously thinking about running is that the Republicans are not pleased with their choices. Thompson is running double digit in the polls by only giving a few interviews and some speeches. Al Gore on the other hand seems to be facing an uphill battle against Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. I think several months ago that Gore was being coy about answering the questions about are you running in 08. He was saying no but giving himself an out by saying things like as of now I am not running. Now he is more definitive about saying he is not running for president. Aside from the fact there is a strong field of Democrats Al Gore likes just attacking the climate change issue. Also after running several times maybe Gore does not want to go through all the headaches and hassles that comes with running. He knows firsthand about the endless fundraising, handshaking, and giving the same speech over and over again that is required to run. That has to be very draining and you really have to have to be strong willed to go through that. All of these factors seem to point to the idea that Gore is not running.

This brings me to the question why do some of us want Gore to run anyway. The answer to that question seems pretty simple, and that is it only seems just and fair that Gore gets another chance. Candidate Gore is was not overly impressive but then again neither was George Bush. Then the whole Florida debacle happened and Bush was able to weasel his way into the White House with the help of James Baker, Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court. Six years of George W. Bush as president has been an utter disaster, and it has only increased the idea that his “winning” in 2000 was a grievous error and simply wrong in so many ways. About the only good thing that has come out this administration is that his train wreck of a presidency has the set Republican Party back at least ten years and has destroyed the coalition that was created under the Reagan Revolution. Other than that I don’t there is anything you can point to out of this gang has done as being a major accomplishment. So given the disaster Bush has been maybe it is that sense fairness that some of think that Al Gore deserves another chance. However, that was then and this is now, and I can’t blame Gore if he does not want to go through that again. It just makes you wonder what President Gore would have been like.

Jerry Falwell

I have been thinking about the best way to express myself about the way I feel about the death of Jerry Falwell. It seems to me the right is too quick gloss over the bad parts of the man and all the left wants to do is focus on them. While I am probably more apt to lean to the negative when somebody like Christopher Hitchens comes out with a double barreled shotgun blast of what awful person Falwell is it makes me feel a little sorry for the man. However I think the good reverend is one of the main reasons the country is where it is now. Very divided and polarized and while some of that is the Iraq but I lot of it is the Religious Right making everything us versus them. Everything becomes how Christians are such martyrs to their faith and how they being chased out of the public square by the evils of secular culture. Gays, abortion, The ACLU, and any other symbol of secular life because the target of the Religious Right. Falwell was at the front of this movement in the 80s when he helped Ronald Reagan become president. Falwell and his ilk have turned religion into abortion and homosexuals even some people within the evangelical movement have come out and said being a Christian even being a conservative Christian is more than a couple of hot button issues. Even though Jerry is gone there are still people like Dobson and Robertson to keep hitting those hot buttons, and his Liberty University will continue to churn out college graduates who major in narrow minded thinking. Maybe Bill Maher said it best on Real Time Friday night, "Death isn't always sad."

Ron Paul on the Sunday Shows

Of the Sundays shows I watched this week I noticed Ron Paul came up in a sense because CNN had an interview with him and Fox News Sunday talked about the debate but the exchange with Rudy Giuliani was not even brought up.

On Fox News Sunday they talked about the debate they hosted on the All Star Panel segment. Most of the talk was about the exchange between Mitt Romney and John McCain. Ron Paul did not even come up. I think Ron Paul puts Fox News in awkward position, especially for Bill Kristol and Brett Hume. Kristol likes to paint the Democrats as weak on national defense and Ron Paul taking a less hawkish view means that not Republicans are in lockstep with the Bush foreign policy. It was little odd seeing the talking heads trying to justify that Paul was winning the poll after the debate, or in the post debate interviews Sean Hannity was very nice to most of the candidates except for Ron Paul who he tried to bully but Ron held his ground and did not give in to the bully boy routine. So when it came to Sunday the Paul/Giuliani exchange it just did not come up. I guess Juan Williams could have brought it up but he did not. I think like the poll it Ron Paul and anti-Iraq war Republican does not fit the Fox News narrative.

Ron Paul was interviewed on CNN and if nothing else Congressman Paul is feisty. He is not afraid to defend his foreign policy positions. Although it seems like his ideas on Republican foreign policy is a bit dated. He talked about Republicans getting us out of Korea and Vietnam. However the non-intervention Republican foreign policy seems about as current as poodle skirts. Maybe that is the overall point about the current Republican Party. When Reagan made the coalition with the Religious Right that means that Republican Party would no longer not be involved in people's personal lives. The current Bush administration has only made those connections stronger. Just looking at the discussion over Giuliani's pro-choice stance shows the power of the Religious Right. Speaking of W because of him and his administration the other shoe has fallen. The Republican Party under W is behind a far more aggressive foreign policy where the policy of not interfering with other countries is a thing of the past. Also the idea of not spending a lot of money is gone too. So Ron Paul may reflect the Libertarian views of the Republican Party it just does not seem to be the same party any more. I think Ron Paul would like to see more of that in his party but it just does not seem to be the case at least in the near future.

Pat Buchanan on Ron Paul

You could fill volumes of things I disagree with Pat Buchanan about, but when it comes to foreign policy I tend to agree with him. In general Pat thinks it is not our job to police the world. Not only will that policy not work but will be very expensive. The fiasco seems to support this theory, because we are stuck in somebody else's civil war that is costing a fortune.

But Who Was Right Rudy or Ron

Today Pat wrote about the dust up between Rudy Guiliani and Ron Paul over the cause of 9-11. The general talking point especially from the right is that Ron Paul says that we brought 9-11 on ourselves. That we did nothing wrong and the evil terrorists attacked because they hate freedom and want to destroy our way of life. I got to give Pat credit he slices through this talking point like a hot knife through butter.

"When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.
Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahideen whom we, in the Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.
What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us."

In other words Ron Paul said that our foreign policy was a factor 9-11 because Osama bin Laden said it was. This does not seem all the complicated. We don't like to think that America can screw things up, but even when out intentions are good it is possible that our country can get things wrong. This makes a lot more sense than the oversimplified talking point of they hate us for our freedom.

Tony Blair

Like just everybody else that has been involved in some way with support of the Iraq War, Tony Blair is latest victim of being tied to closely with W's inept war. Blair and W had a press conference today as part Blair's last visit to Washington as Prime Minister. There is a clip where Bush is saying how Blair is very well respected and a stand up guy. I could not help thinking too bad he had to be dragged down by you and your horrible foreign policy. Oddly enough I had just watched The Queen this past weekend, and you see a younger and more energetic Blair with visions of newer and better England. Now we see a Tony Blair leaving office and who is strongly disliked in his own country for being too close to Bush. It always seemed like Blair gave Bush intellectual cover when came to the War in Iraq. While both men tended appeal on a kind of emotional level, Blair could articulate his feelings with a kind of eloquence the Bush finds almost impossible to duplicate. We usually see the smiling smug frat boy Bush or the pissed off indignant Bush. Like most world leaders of the modern television age Blair has the power of articulation and does not sound like a second grader reading a book report when he gives a speech. Now like so many leaders in other countries and Republicans here in the states, the Iraq War claims another victim. Now we will see how the next Prime Minister will handle W and the Iraq fiasco.

Ron Paul

All of the chatter that has been created over the Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani exchange at the Republican debate further shows how out of touch the party is, especially on the topics of terrorism and Iraq. Basically Ron Paul was saying that one of the main reasons 9-11 happened is that our bad foreign policy decisions in the Middle East over the past 50 years has consequences and has made people angry. This sent Mr. 9-11 in to some kind of fit about how dare Ron Paul say that America could be the cause or reason for being attacked and told him he should take that back. Ron Paul not only did not take back but pointed to the fact is all you have to do is look at the quotes of Osama Bin Laden and they said that they did like what we did to Iraq for 10 years, having troops in Saudi Arabia, and numerous other other blunders the west has made over there. The media for the most part sided with Rudy on this saying that this was his shining moment and saying Ron Paul said that 9-11 was America's fault and that we brought this on ourselves. It is like all they heard was blah blah 9-11 our fault blah blah blah. All this nonsense plays into Republican talking point of they hate us for our freedom, and that because America always means well and our intentions are good and because of that we can do no wrong. To attack America or American ideals is to attack freedom and liberty itself. It's just amazing Ron Paul is far from liberal, but because he dared question our foreign policy he is some left wing tin foil hat wearing moonbat. The Republicans need to ease up on that testosterone and red meat diet, maybe try decaf.