The Democrats Big Lie

Fox News ^ | August 8, 2003 | Frank Gaffney, Jr.

[rickmichaels]

Adolf Hitler once observed that it was easier to convince people of a "big lie" repeated often enough than it was to deceive them with a lot of small ones.

In their frenzied bid to displace President Bush in 2004, leading Democrats have evidently taken to heart this tip from one of the world's most successful propagandists.

[Monty22]

Hell, I'm of the opinion we should've launched a massive nuclear strike on 9/11, that day. We knew basically who caused it, and we don't need any damn court or anything to justify our defense.. So in all likelyhood I'm more extreme in my hatred of the islamic world than nearly anyone.

[liberallarry]

Despite the fact that the Islamic world is littered with fundamentalists and America-haters, most of it is peopled with ordinary folks just trying to earn a living and raise a family - like people everywhere else.

We're a decent society so we kill as few of these people as possible. That's why atom bombs remain a last choice. That and the uncontrollable consequences of such an action.

[Gumption]

what does Bush mean when he says the threat is not immediate?

Probably the same thing you meant when you said the threat was not imminent.

[StriperSniper]

You think it was to attack Saddam in order to destroy Iraqs WMDs.

That was part of it. There were plenty of others, violation of the cease fire agreement, mass killings, etc.

I think it was to attack the entire Muslim world in order to force them to change their culture.

It was not an attack on 'the entire Muslim world', unless they all consider themselves bloodthirsty killers, that type, is who it was directed at. If it was at 'the entire Muslim world'(typical liberal[leftist] collectivist thinking) we would have gone in and tried to cause max damage to anything that moved as a warning. The fact that we targeted the regime and not just anyone, is more than enough proof for me who the real target was. God forbid a billion Muslims declare war on us like the Islamists have done, the carnage they would invite has never been seen before.

Anyway, if the Muslim culture includes(and is being hidden/denied) compulsive Jihad against the West, would it be such a bad thing to change that culture? If it is a culture that as a goal is to destroy other cultures, would that be such a great loss if we destroyed them before they destroyed us?

I give the majority of Muslims the benefit of a doubt, but am not blind to those who profess a desire to kill me(as the Islamists have done), that is the tolerant(liberal[classic]) thing to do, no?

(I know Saddam was not an Islamist, but had vowed the same kind of ambition)

[okie01]

"Is anyone asking questions about the roots of Moveon.org? Why would Gore associate himself so publicly with this org?"

MoveOn.org is a liberal activist organization. Its roots are in the Clinton impeachment, it having been founded by loyal Democrats to support The Great Prevaricator during his moment of need.

And, yes, the CPUSA website does have a rather prominent link to MoveOn.org...

[okie01]

"Was the threat from him "growing and gathering" at such a rate that we were left with no other options? So far, there is no evidence of that."

One question for you:

Where do you think the anthrax came from?

[liberallarry]

I have no idea. I read an interview with Richard Butler in which he said that Saddam almost certainly concentrated his efforts on biological weapons but there was no "proof" connecting him with anthrax in the West. I can post it if you like (and if I can find it). Has something else surfaced recently?

[liberallarry]

I meant that America haters (fundamentalist and others) were spread throughout most of the countries of the Muslim world, and that something in their culture - the same something that was causing them to fail over the centuries - was breeding these haters. We were going to try to alter that.

I think we believe that we can do this - and do it without massive slaughter. But I also believe that we will do whatever it takes, including massive slaughter - because the alternative, for us, is too terrible to consider.

[StriperSniper]

the entire Muslim world - a world mired in hatred, humiliation, frustration, and defeat and burning with a desire for revenge.

something in their culture - the same something that was causing them to fail over the centuries

If I'm going to speak in broad sweeping terms on this, what I see as the biggest flaw in that culture(mostly Arab culture), is the 'the truth is what I can make the other believe' method of negotiation and world view. That may work very well for a nomadic people of centuries ago where they may never again see or even hear of 'the other'. In todays world where there is global real-time awareness, that exposes them as dishonest. In today's world, that only works for those in power(the beauty of the smallest possible government). On the world stage, that means basically the Western countries, in the Muslim world, that is the despots and mullahs. It works internally since they hold direct power over their people, but fails internationally since they hold a weak hand.

We were going to try to alter that.

I think we believe that we can do this - and do it without massive slaughter. But I also believe that we will do whatever it takes, including massive slaughter - because the alternative, for us, is too terrible to consider.

I couldn't agree more. If you look at the totality of the case for the 'War on Terror', it has been all laid out by Pres. Bush and his administration. To make a case against the Pres. and his administration, the left takes what are relatively minor points of failure, or less than perfect success, or non-clairvoyance, and makes it all important. It takes a series of bullet points and assigns 100% importance to those not quite up to snuff, and 0% to those spot on.

[okie01]

"I read an interview with Richard Butler in which he said that Saddam almost certainly concentrated his efforts on biological weapons but there was no "proof" connecting him with anthrax in the West."

No, there is no "proof". None that has been published, at least.

But, in your view, what is the most likely source of the anthrax? What kind of odds would you cite regarding Iraq, as opposed to other possible sources?

[liberallarry]

But, in your view, what is the most likely source of the anthrax? What kind of odds would you cite regarding Iraq, as opposed to other possible sources?

This may seem like a cop-out, but I don't think about it because I don't know how to think about it. There are so many angry lunatics out there. Without evidence how do you distinguish one from the other?

[liberallarry]

I once tried to figure out who killed JFK. I'd read the work of an expert, go to hear him speak, and come away convinced he was right. Then I'd hear about someone else who had a different theory, repeat the procedure, and decide he was right.

I got exactly nowhere.

[okie01]

"Without evidence how do you distinguish one from the other?"

There is evidence. Quite a bit of it, actually. Admittedly circumstantial. Also admittedly not conclusive.

But all of the circumstantial evidence points toward the anthrax being related to the 9/11 terrorists. And there is absolutely no evidence supporting the notion that it was a "domestic terrorist" or "rogue scientist".

And, if the anthrax was related to 9/11, it almost certainly had to have originated in Iraq.

The Bush administration probably knows that the anthrax came from Saddam -- in the same way that a cop knows a criminal is guilty, but can't prove it in a court of law.

[185JHP]

Refined to the imagined purity of the leftists, what else matters? It's the basis of the leftist conceit that they're "more right when they're wrong, than we (right-thinkers) are right when we're right.