Monday, October 15, 2007

The Ostrich Papers: "What if Clinton had..." (Part III)


Our topic is how we might embark on this coming campaign year, and save America. Indeed, save western civilization. Is our aim merely to squeak a narrow win in 2008 -- trusting the neocons not to pull another sneaky trick, like on 2000 or 2004? Is that really a safe bet?

Or shall Democrats and moderates be the smart ones, this time? By taking the fight deep into their territory. Tearing apart Karl Rove’s Big Tent Coalition and stealing their most important and (somewhat) admirable members --

-- those obstinate but mostly decent “Dole-Goldwater Republicans” -- like that sweet but obstinate uncle of yours -- who stay glued to Fox News, in order to avoid lifting their heads out of the sand. In order NOT to face what their beloved conservatism has become -- hijacked, mutated, and steered toward treason by a bona fide criminal gang.

These folk must be the target! Because, each “ostrich” who wakens will get angry -- just like most members of the U.S. military officer corps. And one angry “decent conservative” is sure to waken others.

Yes, it may mean having to negotiate with these ostriches. Offer some compromises that would suit Robert Dole... though never Rush Limbaugh. Still, a small price for sending fanatics and thieves into the wilderness, instead of leaving them in charge of a major political party! It could end “culture war” once and for all, and save the next presidency.

So let’s go back to laying down a long list of thought experiments for you to insist that your ostrich try on for size.
.
* WOULD YOU HAVE PROTESTED, IF THE DEMOCRATS...

...systematically dismantled dozens of independent scientific panels, including all of those charged with advising Congress? Then stocked the remaining panels with second-rate shills who are despised, all across the scientific community? http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/10/dr_president.php

...allowed major special interests to write the administration’s energy and other policies?

... spent 13 years blocking energy research that might have helped America wean its addiction to foreign oil?

...first denied the existence of a looming threat to our climate, then pressured government and independent scientists to censor their reports, then claimed “the jury is still out and we need more research”...

...while slashing research budgets ...

...and then, finally, after years of delay, when the proof-of-danger was too blatant to ignore any longer, suppose they blithely did a complete and dizzying 180 reversal, suddenly calling human-generated climate change “a dire international crisis”?

What if they did all that and then, abruptly, claimed “We NEVER denied that humans are causing global warming!”

Wouldn’t that affect a whole movement’s credibility? Shouldn’t it? (That is, if the guys who did all that happened to be democrats.)

.
* WOULD IT REDUCE DEMOCRATS’ CREDIBILITY IF THEY...

...praised and supported and encouraged Saddam Hussein for decades? Then fought to eject him from Kuwait, only to prop him back up and protect him, yet again? Then, after leaving him to brutalize Iraqis for 12 more years, finally decided to go after him -- in the stupidest way possible?

...praised and supported and encouraged Osama bin Laden? Armed and helped him gain power in Afghanistan. Then, finally decided to go after him, declaring “We’ll never rest till he is brought to justice!” (Only... somehow never succeeded?)

Whatever the solution to Iraq and the Middle East may be, one thing is certain. Any bozos who did things like that don’t deserve to prescribe anything! Democrat or Republican, they would have no credibility. No right to preach or “decide.” None at all.

.
* WHAT IF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT HAD...

...encouraged us to be far more afraid of vague “terrorists” than we were ever afraid of a monstrous communist empire, bristling with tens of thousands of hair-trigger nuclear weapons?

... vastly increased government secrecy, to levels never seen before, not even when we were in a life/death struggle against the Soviet KGB? (Would you have wondered if the president was doing it in order to hide misdeeds? (You bet you would have! That is, if it were a democrat.)

...engaged in illegal wiretapping schemes, spying on American citizens and interfering with their rights?

... appointed roughly a hundred US attorneys who were openly partisan Democrats, then fired a few of them for not going after Republicans harshly enough? (Would you wonder about the remaining ones, who weren’t fired? Worrying what kind of a country you are living in, when a majority of US attorneys are acceptable to such a partisan regime?)

Would you have put up with such abuse, if it were done by Bill Clinton? (Who, in fact, appointed dozens of Republicans as US Attorneys and was widely known for promoting professionals within the Civil Service, instead of party hacks.)

No you would not have! So, why have you parroted Fox News excuses for George Bush, when he actually did all of these things?

.
* WHAT IF BILL CLINTON HAD...

...taken every bill passed by the Newt Gingrich Congress and signed it, while scribbling in the margins that “this bill means only what I say it means”?

Would that have raised your hackles, denouncing him as “undermining the Constitution and grabbing power?”

(Okay, then. But Clinton didn’t do that. Bush has. Any denunciations?)


.
WHAT IF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION...

...delivered 8 years of relative peace, fiscal responsibility (with more surpluses and buying-down of debt than the rest of US history, combined), and delivered good management (according to JD Powers and other neutral auditing agencies), while reducing federal paperwork and non defense manpower?

..kept US forces at high readiness and high morale by closely heeding the advice of professional officers, while getting taxpayers their money’s worth by fiercely enforcing lawful oversight and competitive contracting rules? And, when a time came to apply military force, did so in strict accordance with the Powell Doctrine, accompanying overwhelming surgical force with skillful diplomacy, achieving all goals quickly, with low civilian casualties and zero loss of American lives?

...oversaw the greatest surge of wealth -- among ALL social classes -- in history, including the formation of more new small businesses than ever? With vastly better performance of the stock market and every other economic indicator?

...despite fervid, paranoid and totally unproved accusations, kept reducing government secrecy? (Hardly the behavior of people with a lot to hide.)

...put 100,000 extra police officers directly onto America’s streets while setting in place procedures to ensure their professionalism? Then oversaw the steepest drop in crime in American history? Along with decreases in abortion and divorce?

...left office (for the first time in US history) with not a single administration official going to jail for malfeasance in the performance of his or her office? In fact -- despite fevered accusations - without a single administration official being convicted or even indicted for malfeasance in the performance of his or her office? This despite several billion dollars spent by the opposition, in search of some kind of “smoking gun”?

What if US world popularity skyrocketed to unprecedented levels, during that time, with all but China, Russia, France and a few Muslim states agreeing tacitly to a US-led “unipolar” world?

Judging entirely according to these “conservative” standards, would you have put up with such goings on, if they were perpetrated by Bill Clinton...?

Oops... trick question. In fact, all of these things DID happen under Clinton. Yet you were fuming for all of those 8 years. On the other hand, every single one of these things has been diametrically reversed by the Bushites, while you and Fox make excuses.

How can that be? Is it possible that you mean something different by “patriotism” and “conservatism” than we thought you meant? It is starting to look that way.

Continue to Part IV

27 comments:

runaway serfer said...

I really think you should give Salon a try. You have placed articles there before, plus take a look at #7 of today's article, How Hillary could tannk, which makes the same anti-Royalist point you make about her. I mean, they are pretty in tune with what you are saying.

panzerjensen said...

>>WOULD YOU HAVE LAUGHED ALOUD -- OR CRIED -- IF BILL CLINTON...

...declared that he was the one and only "decider," in what had previously been a vast and sophisticated democracy?<<

Cried, "We just can't trust the American people to make these types of decisions …Government has to make these choices for people…"

– Hillary Clinton, 1993, regarding health care reform.

>>...declared repeatedly that a president can refuse to answer to any kind of accountability or oversight by Congress?<<

You mean like 200 plus times, in just one sitting? During President Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones case, he refused to accept any kind of accountability to Congress 267 times. His answers:

I don't remember – 71
I don't know – 62
I'm not sure – 17
I have no idea – 10
I don't believe so – 9
I don't recall – 8
I don't think so – 8
I don't have any specific recollection – 6
I have no recollection – 4
Not to my knowledge – 4
I just don't remember – 4
I don't believe – 4
I have no specific recollection – 3
I might have – 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory – 2
I don't have any memory of that – 2
I just can't say – 2
I have no direct knowledge of that – 2
I don't have any idea – 2
Not that I recall – 2
I don't believe I did – 2
I can't remember – 2
I can't say – 2
I do not remember doing so – 2
Not that I remember – 2
I'm not aware – 1
I honestly don't know – 1
I don't believe that I did – 1
I'm fairly sure – 1
I have no other recollection – 1
I'm not positive – 1
I certainly don't think so – 1
I don't really remember – 1
I would have no way of remembering that – 1
That's what I believe happened – 1
To my knowledge, no – 1
To the best of my knowledge – 1
To the best of my memory – 1
I honestly don't recall – 1
I honestly don't remember – 1
That's all I know – 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that – 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that – 1
As far as I know – 1
I don't believe I ever did that – 1
That's all I know about that – 1
I'm just not sure – 1
Nothing that I remember – 1
I simply don't know – 1
I would have no idea – 1
I don't know anything about that – 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that – 1
I just don't know – 1
I really don't know – 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all – 1

>>...declared “Mission Accomplished” when an endless, Vietnam-style quagmire had only just begun?<<

Vietnam style quagmire? Excuse me? I'm sure the Vietnamese, 180 US troops killed per day on average, would be truly offended by that statement, with the Iraqi guerillas having trouble maintaining a 2-3 US troop killed per war day mean value.

One of these days, you liberals are going to figure out: George W. Bush won the war!

>>...brought us to the point where only two Army brigades are currently trained, equipped and prepared to fight off a national land force? And those two are in Korea? (Hint: that's fewer ready brigades than Belgium or Mexico have.)<<

Wrong. There are only two armored brigades in the Belgium Army that compare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Belgium_Army.png) with those of the 2nd Infantry Division. 2 is less than 2? Kind of like the math for the whole "quagmire" thing, I suppose. You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that because of equipment, the US units are many times more powerful in striking capability. And where do you think these combat units should be stationed anyway? Opposing Mexico?

>>In fact, Clinton's Balkans War was brief, fierce, effective and perfect, quickly achieving all major goals at low expense, while preserving readiness and costing zero -- exactly zero -- American lives. While US popularity soared, even among Muslims and troop moral hit new records. Beat that.<<

Glad to hear you believe war can be "effective and perfect." And you've finally realized that violence does indeed solve problems. Spoken like a true flower child of the 60s. Now, who's the one who's had their head stuck in the sand all these years? Beat that.

Tyler August said...

And the above, Dr Brin, is exactly what I was afraid would happen if you turned these accusations onto any conservative, ostrich or otherwise.
"Hipocrite? Me? No! You!"

Panzerjensen,
At least he SHOWED UP. Bush has blocked Congress' attempts to subpoena members of his administration. How do you excuse that?

You can't deny that the US Army IS down to two effective brigades, however. You're picking nits about Belgium. What would you have said if Clinton had so effectively castrated the USA's ability to project force, honestly?

We admit that we were wrong. Our president didn't send thousands of Americans to their deaths correcting his Daddy's mistake. That's how we beat your ad hominem attack.

David Brin said...

What utter denial.

YOU guys hound a sitting president with a BILLION dollars worth of harrassments, all of which wound up reaping WHAT as the fruit of 6 years of screeching and howling?

1 Paula Jone hearing and 1 stained dress scandal.

NEITHER OF WHICH WOUND UP BEING ABOUT ANYTHING AT ALL.

Your screech about slick willy dodging bullets is pathetic. Those very same bullets (including the very question that he "perjured about" in the other scandal) were all ruled ILLEGAL QUESTIONS by a court of law.

Moreover, they had nothing whatsoever to do with his performance of the duties that we hired him to do. That's nothing whatsoever. At all.

After close toe TWO billion dollars spent seeking smoking guns, and diverting FBI agents from counter terror before 9/11 (treason!) -- how many Clintonites did you guys finally send to jail for official acts?

HOW MANY?????

You know the answer. None, zip, nada, zero. ANd yet, as Yoda would say "immune to evidence, you are."

As for the ad hominem slur about flower children, I challenge you to a duel. I can out shoot you, out fence you and out anything you. Wuss. And Bill Clinton was TEN TIMES the war president that your frat boy coward is.

You DARE to compare death rates? You guys screeched because Clinton only had THIRTY BRIGADES at full warfighting readiness. Bush now has two. Hypocrites.

Clinton and Clarke changed Europe forever, our popularity soared, moral skyrocketed, readiness increased and we did it all with ZERO US lives lost. Hypocrite.

Clinton and Clarke PLANNED the Afghanistan campaign. Bush only had time to yelp "Go!" The Powell Doctrine worked! Then W stabbed Colin Powell in the back and sent out men and women into a quagmire that diametrically reversed the Powell doctrine.

We are divided, weakened, hated, bankrupt and completley without allies in a world that hates our guts. Congratulations.

panzerjensen said...

>Bill Clinton was TEN TIMES the war president that your frat boy coward is.

Yeah, that clusterfuck in Somalia really proves that. And ah, the political legacy of the Clintons. Good leaders bring people together. This is all a microcosm of what's terribly wrong with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Because all the Clintons do is DIVIDE PEOPLE.

PS: I choose lightsabers, not as crude or clumsy as a blaster.

Tony Fisk said...

Greetings Panzerjensen.

Use of force is the last resort of the incompetent. However, it can be effective, and nobody ever denied it. (least of all Brin)

However, it is now widely accepted (by wide, I mean by virtually everyone who has held a senior rank in the armed services of Western civilisation: flower children all, doubtless) that it was uniquely and spectacularly ineffective when it was instigated by Bush and Rumsfeld.

Oh yes, Bush won the war. But he lost the peace.

And is still there, 'a dinosaur in a tarpit' (to quote Schwarzkopf)

PS the 'clusterfuck' was one of Bush Srs last acts (Dec 92- May 93)

PPS Can I use featherswords?

David Brin said...

You say they divide people because that's the slander assertion. It is called the Big Lie, invented by Lenin and by Goebbels.

The fact; the far right chose to PUSH division. Bill Clinton appointed republicans to his administration right and left. He decreased secrecy (compared to skyrocketing secrecy under Bush) which is hardly the behavior of people with stuff to hide. ANd he did a LOT better job of fostering enterprise capitalism, by any measure.

FIND for me these divisive things they did. You will pick and poke at little things. But dig it, there was no Red state Blue state CIVIL WAR back then. And the Clinton Dole election of 96 was as genteel and sweet as could be, compared to what followed. Because Dole was a man and an American.

Somalia? Notice how an ostrich's mind works. The Balkan campaign was major and important, executed perfect, achieved all objectives and increased our leadership of the world. SO he turnes to a little fuckup at a far corner of Africa.

Somalia? OMG, where is your SCALE! Les Aspin fucked up supporting a few hundred do-gooder troops with adequate armor. That's called a mistake and one that kiled TWELVE guys. ANd he resigned. ANd it had no effect on our budget, morale, readiness, popularity or alliances.

Raising Somalia is like screeching over and over HE LIED about the ONE time you ever caught BC lying, about some nookie in the hallway. Meanwhile, YOUR guys BUGGER CONGRESSIONAL PAGES!

And meanwhile, your guys lie as naturally as they breathe. WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD and every other word that escapes their mouths.

NOT ONE Clintonite indicted for malfeasance in office. You guys put us thru 2$BILLION and 12 years of living hell for NONE! You guys diverted FBI agents from anti-terror before 9/11 for THAT? (Treason!)

Zero... while goppers fall like flies in scandal after scandal. And this should not affect your credibility? Well tough. It does.

panzerjensen said...

>PS the 'clusterfuck' was one of Bush Srs last acts (Dec 92- May 93)

Just leave it to Clinton to cut and run at the first sign of a tough fight though. Like Mark Bowden, author of Blackhawk Down said, "Churchill once said: We will fight them on the beaches, we shall fight on the streets. We will never surrender. But at Somalia we said, we shall fight them on the beaches, we'll fight them on the streets, but if we take a few casualties, we'll up and leave."

Tony Fisk said...

Serbia, with a well integrated air defence system, (which bagged at least one F117 more than anyone else) wasn't a tough fight?

And was it a divisive Clinton who said 'You are either with us or against us'?

panzerjensen said...

>SO he turnes to a little fuckup at a far corner of Africa.

I'm sure the families of the kids who watched their naked corpses get dragged through the streets of Mogadishu are real impressed with that David. If this is what you mean by trying to impress conservative people with their own arguments, I'm not either.

What if that had been YOUR son David?

David Brin said...

What monstrous hypocrisy. Your guys are spending our military like beer spilled at a frat party. Most of the Officer Corps is screaming bloody murder at the direct treason of stripping a great nation defenseless. And YOUR response is to heckle me over the words "little fuckup"?

When that is exactly what it was, on the geopolitical scale? And that's what Presidents have to do, is sometimes make small fuckups that get a dozen guys killed? What? You want Clinton to achieve wonders with ZERO American casualties? You do?

Oops. That's exactly what he did, In the Balkans. And note, I have challenged you directly. In your face, to compare the Balkans and Afghanistan campaign, planned by Clinton Clarke, according to the Powell doctrine, to this quagmire that violates every single criterion of the Powell doctine, as if from a list.

Oh, dig it. When those 12 soldiers died becuase of his mistake, LES ASPIN RESIGNED. And we GOT OUT of an insane asylum where we weren't wanted.

Note how neocon logic works, fellows. He won't answer about the $2billion dollar attack on an administration that later proved to be the most honest and open in US history. Or savage attacks on the most honest president we ever had. No, he picks on a single turn of phrase and uses polemical tricks to gnaw on it.

Watch as he howls "most honest??? He was a perjurer!" Screeching over one PERSONAL fib, while never addressing the overall pattern. BC lied to us once. About consensual adult nookie for which his wfe forgave him. W LIES EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY and hides behind skyrocketing secrecy.

Dig it, Panzer. It has taken America 18 years to see through this methodology. But we do now. A million lies is MORE than one lie.

Thirty ready brigades is MORE than two.

One grumpy general (the number who denounced Clinton) is LESS than forty (the number (so far) who have denounced Bush.

Five divorces is more than one.

Twenty-five Congressional pervert-corrupt scoundrels is more than three.

A popular America with tons of allies is better than a hated America with none.

A flush America, paying down debt and the center of world science is better than a spendthrift, bankrupt nation that has turned its back on science, reason, professionalism and common sense, led by people WHO PRAY DAILY FOR THE WORLD TO END.

panzerjensen said...

>>And YOUR response is to heckle me over the words "little fuckup"?
<<

Almost as lame as heckling someone over the expression flower child, isn't it? My goal is to point out those spots my not be faded images of Hendrix burning guitars, but quartz grains as well. (Dammit David, you made me look up the word "polemicist.") Of which, tally ho…

>>I have challenged you directly. In your face, to compare the Balkans and Afghanistan campaign.<<

Ok, the 1999 Balkan campaign, let's see, that was a little known NATO campaign that didn't effect the average Amercian at all, stuck its unwanted nose into another country's civil war, didn't end up altering the borders of the region being waged on(like hoped), and cost the US millions of dollars while in hindsight offering dubious or no returns. In effect, the very kind of conflict that a flower-child type from the 1960s should be railing against that we never, ever, should have gotten involved in.

Ok, Afghanistan. The US military entered to eliminate the staging and training grounds for the Taliban and fanatic Islamic terrorists, who are a threat to all of us.

There, better? I opposed the former, and support the later.

Is that a mote I see in your eyes?

>>He won't answer about the $2 billion dollar attack on an administration that later proved to be the most honest and open in US history.<<

Ok, I'll answer that:

I don't remember – 71
I don't know – 62
I'm not sure – 17
I have no idea – 10
I don't believe so – 9
I don't recall – 8
I don't think so – 8
I don't have any specific recollection – 6
I have no recollection – 4
Not to my knowledge – 4
I just don't remember – 4
I don't believe – 4
I have no specific recollection – 3
I might have – 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory – 2
I don't have any memory of that – 2
I just can't say – 2
I have no direct knowledge of that – 2
I don't have any idea – 2
Not that I recall – 2
I don't believe I did – 2
I can't remember – 2
I can't say – 2
I do not remember doing so – 2
Not that I remember – 2
I'm not aware – 1
I honestly don't know – 1
I don't believe that I did – 1
I'm fairly sure – 1
I have no other recollection – 1
I'm not positive – 1
I certainly don't think so – 1
I don't really remember – 1
I would have no way of remembering that – 1
That's what I believe happened – 1
To my knowledge, no – 1
To the best of my knowledge – 1
To the best of my memory – 1
I honestly don't recall – 1
I honestly don't remember – 1
That's all I know – 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that – 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that – 1
As far as I know – 1
I don't believe I ever did that – 1
That's all I know about that – 1
I'm just not sure – 1
Nothing that I remember – 1
I simply don't know – 1
I would have no idea – 1
I don't know anything about that – 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that – 1
I just don't know – 1
I really don't know – 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all – 1

Tony Fisk said...

Panzer, the actual challenge was not to compare the Balkans and Afghanistan, but:

... to compare the Balkans and Afghanistan campaign ... to this quagmire (ie Iraq)

David Brin said...

What crap. After the Balkans campaign, Europe had peace and law for the 1st time in 4,000 years. A goal worth more than this Iraq mess.

It wasn’t flower children who railed against an intervention that ended genocide, united a continent, raised our status in the Muslim world and made us wildly popular everywhere, at low cost and zero US lives lost. It was George W Bush, who demanded “a clear goal, exit strategy and no effects upon our readiness.”

Sure you opposed it. Because of who led it. There was not a single other reason to do so. Otherwise, everybody, even half the SERBS are glad we came. Now poll the people of the Middle East about us.

As for Afghanistan, have you been paying attention at all? That was a powell doctrine war for one reason only, because Clinton and Clarke planned it, Bush didn’t have TIME to meddle! That’s why it worked!

“Is that a mote I see in your eyes?”

WTF? The only reason I am talking to you is because we all need to see the maniacal self delusions that can make a man pick and choose teeny polemical points in glee, like you just expressed, while frantically ignoring the much bigger facts, all saying that our country has been raped.

A quarter of a trillion dollars in contracts, given on a no-bid, no competition basis to Bush and Cheney family friends, and you call yourself a friend of capitalism? Hurling “flower child” doesn’t save you from the simple fact that you are part of the rape.

Your long list is simply loony. ALL of those words are the same lie. Just one. What? You get a biased special prosecutor to ask the same thing a zillion times, and you count a zillion prevaricating answers as.... a zillion?

Dig this. AND DO NOT COME BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION WITHOUT ANSWERING THIS.

Why did you SOBs put us through 12 years of culture war and $2 Billion of Clinton chasing, while (treasonously) taking FBI men off anti-terror duty before 9/11, in search of a smoking gun... only to find ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you could pin on a single Clinton Administration official, of any kind, at any level, no matter how small? Never before in all of history did an administration depart without a single stain of any official kind... only on one blue dress.

Does evidence of reality mean nothing to you? Nothing at all? Is it even remotely possible for facts as bald as that to make you stand up, like a man, and admit that maybe you were wrong? You guys control all branches of government, and spend our money like water in a witch hunt that tears the nation apart...

...and meanwhile your own guys are exposed as perverts and thieves at every turn. The generals and admirals all hate your guts...

But you will stick to your story, zeroing in on all the ways Bill Cinton told the SAME lie, in response to an illegal question you had no right at all to ask. What’s next? Count the number of pixels! in “I had no sex with that woman?”

Well, you’ve succeded at one thing. US officers are turning Democratic in droves. And the FBI and CIA will wake up, too. They will shrug off the bullies from Bob Jones U that you guys have set upon their throats. They’ll get the goods.

Michael said...

People like panzerjensen here are completely immune to facts, reason, or in fact anything whatsoever that might result in changing their minds.

We all know how unpopular Bush is at this point - the only supporters of him left are the terminally ignorant and the willfully so.

We need to stick the whole neocon movement to Bush so that they can't wiggle away, and we need to stick the Republican party to him so that they have to change.

But we're not going to stop the people who categorically refuse to listen from being as delusionally crazy as they want to be; we can point it out, and we can force the sane people who are allied with them to recognize that this alliance hurts everyone and helps nobody.

Those are the reasons to produce the "Ostrich papers" and the like - but arguing with those who are unconvincable is only worth doing if people watching might think they're right; but at this point the only way that is at all a credible threat is if you let them drag you down away from reason and facts.

panzerjensen said...

>>Why did you SOBs put us through 12 years of culture war … the only supporters of him left are the terminally ignorant and the willfully so. … But we're not going to stop the people who categorically refuse to listen from being as delusionally crazy as they …<<

Notice people, how the Neodemocraps feel the need to resort to name calling in the absence of any real arguments. A perfect example of the specimen. Study them carefully. Five paragraphs of self-indulgent pontificating, devoid of any intellectual content, backed up by the previous mentioned carnival barkings about rogue G-Men, our once wild popularity in the Muslim world (!?! sounds like a twisted episode of X-Files so far David…), shrill rants of geopolitical electoral rape (partially true, just wait for the next election), and shameless bellyaching and moaning about money being spent for special prosecutors for someone they themselves admit lied under oath to Congress. Right after complaining about presidents refusing to answer to the accountability of Congress.

Oh the glaring hypocrisy of the Neodem. Glaring.

Study them carefully kids, but don't get too close. Neodems don't have the teeth to bite you, but much like a fireless, deflated Smog, they emit lots of noise. The empty can rattles the most.

Hawker Hurricane said...

David...

Looks like a NeoCon supporter has found your blog. As you can see, this is NOT an ostrich, a good conservative who might listen to reason. THIS is the NeoCon base; the deadend 25% who will never, ever, admit that the man they hate did it better than the man they admire.

HH
SM1(SW) USN (ret)

DavidTC said...

Speaking of people with their head in the sand, how about some sort of cite for:

"We just can't trust the American people to make these types of decisions …Government has to make these choices for people…"

Beyond 'Hillary Clinton, 1993'

And how about the entire quote, and a little bit more context. (You realize she doesn't actually say 'health care' in the quote, right? For all we know from your quote, she's talking about which side of the road to drive on.)

Michael said...

"Notice people, how the Neodemocraps feel the need to resort to name calling in the absence of any real arguments."

You can cut the irony with a knife.

David Brin said...

Hypocrisy is the name of the game, folks. Especially when one is in denial.

Panzer came on hurling ad hominem slurs... including "flower child" being among the sweetest. He staked a claim on superior manhood and guts... ...

...and then shrank away when I demanded an actual comparison of Clinton and Bush AS Commanders in Chief,

His recent rant was devoid of any answers.

Okay, Panzer I RETRACT the "SOB" part and repeat the same exact challenge:

Why did you fellows put us through 12 years of culture war and $2 Billion of Clinton chasing, while (treasonously) taking FBI men off anti-terror duty before 9/11, in search of a smoking gun... only to find ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you could pin on a single Clinton Administration official, of any kind, at any level, no matter how small?

Never before in all of history did an administration depart without a single stain of any official kind... only on one blue dress.


Explain that fact. Explain it. There is no other topic. That fact. Explain it.

And since youse guys wave the flag so much, explain how we dropped from 30 ready brigades to two.

Explain how it benefits us to be hated and have no allies.

Explain why the professionals of the military hate your man, worse than they have hated any president in living memory.

Jumper said...

Gettin' warm in here. Yeehah!

As an independent, and proud of it, I must gag a little bit about Clinton's "honesty" although I agree with Brin about the absolute waste and meaninglessness of the partisan furor regarding the stalker/agent Lewinski. Ptah, what nonsense it all was.

I have no love for Clintons.

But indeed the Clintons' failures are molehills comparatively.

I am curious what the exit strategy is from the world's opium production center. That one's a toughy.

Jumper said...

Wait a minute! Panzer IS a flower...

Hawker Hurricane said...

I would assume that Mr. Jensen is using the German word "Panzer" in reference to armor or tanks (Panzer means "armor", the German word for tank is Panzerkampfwagen, "Armored Fighting Vehicle", and shortened to just Panzer)

David Brin said...

Actually, this fellow is not a terribly bad guy. In fact, he's been a friendly fan for years and I hope he does not vanish in anger, just because of some harsh flames, buried in the comments section of a political blog-posting.

Indeed, on the face of it, you would have thought him a good candidate for "ostrich-hood"... for being smart and honest enough to gaze upon a long list of wretched crimes and treasons and have the balls to admit that his movement has been hijacked. By monsters.

Alas. What he illustrates, in fact, is the hysterical frenzy that many will enter, as they defend their state of denial. Some may find the inner courage to make the state change. From ostrich to fierce palladin in the restoration of a decent conservatism.

Other will simply get more shrill. Then rushing off to screech among others of the same kind, reinforcing Fox memes.

What might be nice is if some of YOU would go slumming in such sites. e.g. Pournelles Denial Manor? I can't help but wonder what's being said about me. What warped versions of my position are being repeated in such places.

panzerjensen said...

>>Actually, this fellow is not a terribly bad guy. In fact, he's been a friendly fan for years and I hope he does not vanish in anger<<

David, I feel the same way. I came across your books during a dark and lonely time in my life, many years ago. And I suspect, looking back on some of the things I've written, that time is still affecting me. None of us can escape our past. I also I need to thank you for something. Polemicist. You hit the nail right on the head. Dead on. From the Greek polemikos, and polemos, hostile and warlike. Just look at the handle I pick. (Yes, it does indeed mean Tanker Jensen.) Some changes are in order. And I regret some of my behavior here.

So, in a small way, I think you've made the world a better place today.

Tony Fisk said...

I'm glad to see tempers have cooled down.

If you haven't moved on, Panzer, as a polemicist disdainful of 'flower children', I hope you can find something to chuckle about in this image

Michael said...

Panzerjensen: I apologize for the way in which I insulted you.

I drew a conclusion from your behaviour that was far too strong to draw based on the extremely limited sample I had.