<bold>The Sound and the Fury:</bold> The Left’s inane refrain.

author | 12-20-03 | Robert Wolf

[aynfan]

The Sound and the Fury: The Left’s inane refrain.

By Robert Wolf

The constant drone you hear from the Left is a complaint that their attempts at debate are considered unpatriotic. After all they tell us this is a free country, and their voices should be heard.

While it is true this is a free country, it is also a civil one. There are rules to debate. Ad hominem attacks at the top of one’s lungs are not debate. George Bush should not be tried for war crimes or torn limb from limb. Debate is a civilized process where one side makes a point and the other side rebuts. To be sure, there is the occasional snide remark and it may even win points, but an unstaunched torrent of hyperbolic venom wins no points at all.

The problem is not only in the delivery, but in the arguments themselves. The rant makes sense only if you accept the fallacious premises upon which the arguments are founded. For example, they tell us Bush said we had to move quickly in Iraq because a threat was imminent, when he actually said (in the State of Union Address) that we must strike before the threat becomes imminent.

They say that Bush lied about the WMDs, or tweaked the intelligence, when the existence of WMDs was universally accepted. WMDs were not only deployed against the Kurds, but our intelligence concurred with that from France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, Italy, and others. President Clinton said Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Medium range missiles on order from North Korea were not delivered only because it was too risky to ship them after Bush turned a spotlight on Iraq.

Leftists scoff at the idea that there was an Al Qaeda connection, in the face of a document indicating that Mohammed Atta was trained in Iraq. They point to ‘success’ in Bosnia and tell us twelve years of impotent UN resolutions were not proof that the UN might not have acted eventually.

If they can manage a debate without the vituperation and the deceptive premises, I will gladly listen.

[smith288]

Leftists scoff at the idea that there was an Al Qaeda connection, in the face of a document indicating that Mohammed Atta was trained in Iraq.

No offense, but I believe our intelligence aganecies refuted this claim by knowing his whereabouts and they werent in Iraq.

[PISANO]

aganecies refuted this claim by knowing his whereabouts and they werent in Iraq

I haven't heard this....please enlighten with source.

[T'wit]

If they can manage a debate without the vituperation and the deceptive premises, I will gladly listen.

Why rot your brain? Their view is evil.

[smith288]

I think I read about his travels here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042433/posts

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/

[wdkeller]

A DemocRat's idea of debate is who can conceive fabrications loudest and fastest. Therefore, it is useless to argue with them:

"If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest" (Proverbs 29:9)

[smith288]

I'm just very cautious of that memo. Its really convenient for us if its true but call me a cynic on such events that fall in our lap like a possible meeting of THE most known hijacker from 9-11 having a meeting with a dead terrorist in Saddam's Iraq...

[JasonC]

Here is what I notice - (1) there isn't a single actual name of any of the US or FBI officials supposedly being cited. The only named source is an Iraqi exile, not a US or FBI official. (2) The argument that he couldn't be there is based on the assumption he stayed in Spain during the whole time between arriving and leaving it, instead of it being one leg on a longer journey. He clearly was not laying low exclusively in the US, since he left the country and returned again that summer. This just shows they don't even have an accounting for the period they claim is accounted for. (3) The argument is further based on pure assumption about when the visit is supposed to have taken place. There is no date or time period in the memo. The memo itself has a date that summer, but is referring to events in the past tense, which could have happened any time before - a year, two years, whatever. There not even an attempt to rule this out.

The memo might be a forgery produced for political purposes by Iraqi interim government operatives. Or it might be real, and the rest might just be blown smoke. None of it is firm enough either way to say, one way or the other. Pretending the memo has been discredited by the US government, however, is not justified by what is presented in those articles.

[smith288]

Pretending the memo has been discredited by the US government, however, is not justified by what is presented in those articles.

You are correct, however, pretending it is proof positive of a 9-11/Iraq link isnt justified either. It deserves comment, but it isnt something I would hang my hat on or place all my bets in.

[Bullish]

If they can manage a debate without the vituperation and the deceptive premises, I will gladly listen.

They obviously can't.

[JoeSchem]

Here's my response to such liberals:

The Constitution may protect you from jail but it doesn't protect you from others accurately describing your remarks for what they are.

[CyberAnt]

Excuse me .. Freedom of speech IS NOT A RIGHT TO BE HEARD. You have a RIGHT TO SPEAK .. not a right to be heard.