Custom Search

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Not All Liberals Are Idiots

Much to Pelosi and Baghdad Reid's despair, not all liberal Democrats are willing to close their eyes and buy all the lies that are being fed to them, day in and day out.

One example of this is MyDD, mind you I completely disagree with MyDD about the overall issue of Iraq and our presence there because I know, from history, what would happen should we fail in Iraq and leave them before they are able to stand on their own.

With this said though, the expected vote on the emergency war funding all but a formality now because members from both sides of the aisle are already saying it is a done deal and Democrats and the liberal media are trying very hard to portray this as a move "in line" with their goals this whole time, but some are not buying that.

From MyDD titled "The Capitulation Bill: "Obviously it's a good move"

The crazy thing about the fight is that Democratic insiders are convinced that capitulation is the right strategy. They actually believe that this will put pressure on the Republicans in the fall, and that standing up to Bush is a bad idea.


And while the news media is abuzz with talk of Democratic capitulation, I'm watching idiots like Louise Slaughter on C-Span saying that this is not a concession to Bush, and that Congress is fighting to end the war. And she really believes it. She really thinks that Democrats are fighting Bush with this bill. It's amazing. It's like la-la land.

Go read his whole piece, it is not that I agree with him on the bottom line issue, but I do agree and have said quite often that the Democrats in power, lie to their supporters and spin things so when they bend over and surrender, it is really a good thing.

Now, even though MyDD and I disagree about the need to stay and finish what we started in Iraq, one can see that the writer of this piece on MyDD actually has a brain and uses it, which is the one thing that the Democratic politicians are truly scared of.

I only wonder why, and I may be wrong because I did not read MyDD before the elections, but I wonder why people such as this "thinking liberal" didn't ask the pertinent question BEFORE the November elections, the question being "HOW"?

No one bothered to ask the Democrats before the election, "how do you propose to force Bush to withdraw the troops if you do not get a veto proof majority?"

The question wasn't asked and therefore no answer was ever given and now the far left liberals are upset because the Democrats seem powerless, despite their majority, to keep the promises made in the November elections.

Another glaring question occurs to me though.

If MyDD is, as I have just stated, a true "thinking liberal" then where is the other questions that need to be asked here.

I constantly see the argument from the liberal politicians and blogs tossing out inane and easily debunked questions like "how many more of our soldiers do we have to lose before we understand Iraq is lost"?

(Hat Tip to Gateway Pundit for the graph)

Where therefore is the logical question of, how can we be at war and still only have lost HALF the troops that Clinton did during his presidency during PEACETIME?

Could it possibly be...OH NO... that perhaps this war on terror and our actions in Iraq, are not really be going as badly as the media portrays it?

Do the math yourself, here is the PDF file.

Murdoc online has already covered the questions thrown out from Democratic Underground about these numbers, very clearly.

Here are some of the interesting comments (with commentary):

but...I didn't think we lost any soldiers in a war under Clinton
what am I missing...

Somalia? Go watch "Black Hawk Down".

WW2 vets dying of oLd age.

Only WW2 vets still on active duty were counted, though.

Well now count the deaths for other con presidents...found this link through google. Appears to be another right wing looney site.

And they link to little ol' Murdoc. Does getting called "right wing looney site" on DU get me in the club? When does my Vast Right Wing Conspiracy membership card arrive? As stated, other presidents were, in fact, counted.

Again, the military does not agree with these numbers, and note that somebody at murdoc decided to only count certain years of each prez's terms.
Ronald Reagan (1981-1988) ....17,191
G.H.W. Bush (1989-1992) .... 6,223
Bill Clinton (1993-2000) .... 7,500 with a single death attributed to 'hostile'
W. Bush (2001-2004) .... 3,917 Note that this number is only the first 4 years and only 3 years of military combat

Now, I've never been called a mathematical genius, but which years did I leave out? I mean, the poster listed every year from 1981 through 2004 (which is clearly what the report covers). Boy, did "somebody at murdoc" cherry pick this data. Oh, and the report comes from the military.

The person who is quoting those numbers is just cherry picking the number of troops that died in combat, out of a force of 150,000, leaving out accidental deaths, homicides, illness, etc and comparing it to the total deaths in the military from all causes during the specific years mentioned.
It is a total lie to say less troops are being killed now than under peacetime under Bill Clinton.
If you include all fatality causes during the period of the Iraq war, the number of troops killed would double.

No. The number are for all deaths. RTFR. (Which means "read the report".) And I'm not aware of anyone who said fewer troops are being killed now than under Clinton. I have heard some folks say that fewer troops are being killed in Iraq than were killed under Clinton, which is true (ie, not a lie).

If you are going to count the training, accidental, and illness deaths under Clinton, you need to do the same for *.

You're right. And they were counted. RTFR.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that American military personnel are SAFER ALND LESS LIKELY TO DIE now, during a bloody conflict, than they were during peacetime?????

Again, not sure who said that they were "safer and less likely to die". I haven't heard anyone. Maybe the guys on the radio. I just look at the numbers and report 'em.

It sounds as if your author is comparing apples and oranges by fudging statistics to make a point.

If we add current non-theater mortality averages this person is using to bash Clinton era military to our current in-theater mortality, we'd probably be able to claim on average 3 to 4K more deaths a year during the 2003 to 2006 Iraq/Iran war period. That's quadruple or higher the number of deaths during the same period of time.

Uh, the report DOES include those numbers. And the "3 to 4K more deaths" just aren't there. Again, RTFR.

The DOD has not made public, that I can find, the years 2005 and 2006 when Iraq really started turning to shit.

Yes, the commenter is correct about not being able to find the numbers. (If someone can, let me know.) However, the commenter seems to be ignorant of the fact that combat deaths in 2005 were LOWER than they were in 2004. And that combat deaths in 2006 were LOWER than they were in 2005. So, despite the accurate assessment that some things "turned to shit", it's not going to be the military deaths numbers.

Bottomline is this: People would rather bury their head in the sand and ignore the factual numbers than to address them, because to address them they would actually have to stop ranting and repeating tired, debunked lines and start thinking for themselves.

Which brings me right back to MyDD. I have already showed you above that they do seem to be able to think instead of just accepting what they are told like good little boys and girls, and yet I do not see them addressing the facts such as these either.

If they cannot explain it away within their own bounds, then they ignore the numbers and keep repeating the tired old lines.

So, if people want to have a full, open and honest discussion about the whole of Iraq, then these numbers need to be addressed, or else they are doing exactly what they say they are not doing, walking in lockstep with their party without addressing all the facts and just complaining now and then when things do not go their way.

We showed you yesterday that enlistment goals for January, February, March and April have all met or exceeded all expectations, so please do not claim you are worried about our troops, because they know they will probably be heading to Iraq and they keep enlisting, because they DO understand that Freedom has a price and they are volunteering to pay that price without asking YOU for anything except to get out of their way and let them complete a mission they believe in, believe they are succeeding in, and are telling us everyday via email, blog entries, interviews and letters, they are seeing progress in.

QandO also has some questions for the liberals out there, questions I have asked (albeit separately) myself, here are a few of them:

And let's dispense with silly arguments about whether we should've gone into Iraq in the first place. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. We are there. So what do we do now?

First, I'm wondering what you think the result of an American withdrawal would be? And we really have to ask that about two spheres, the internal Iraqi results, and the effect on America's security.

Do you reject the "you broke it, you bought it" idea? If you do, that's fine. I'm not a priori opposed to punitive expeditions myself when it appears necessary, but punitive expeditions have never been a liberal "thing".

Do you think the Iraqis will find a way to cobble their state together? Do you think it will descend into a civil bloodbath? If so, then why don't we have any responsibility to try and prevent it? Compare and contrast with Kosovo and Darfur. What if Iraq turns into a Taliban-like cesspool, and becomes a base for terrorist operation against the US in the same way Afghanistan was?

Do you think that the Iraqis can build a stable, functioning democratic state? If not, why? Are they just not suited for Democracy as a people? If so, what are their deficiencies?

The other half of the question is what effect will it have on American security? Will it embolden terrorists? Will our withdrawal make it more or less likely that terrorists will begin marshaling forces for another 9/11 style attack? Why?

On the Global War on Terror more generally, will a withdrawal from Iraq help or hinder that effort? Or do we need to make an effort at all, other than some Special Ops stuff here and there, and intelligence, prevention, and law enforcement operations otherwise? What would be the US's military role after a withdrawal from Iraq? Does the US military actually have much a role beyond repelling an invasion?

Are we doomed to fail at achieving anything worthwhile in Iraq? Why? Is it something organic to Iraq, or simply a problem with the current president? Would another administration be able to achieve some reasonable level of peace and stability?

Oh, yeah, and one final question: What if you're wrong?

Good questions, all. Questions that seem to never get answered because instead of answering, most of the time, liberals simply ignore the questions and try to use distraction or distortion and quite a bit of doubletalking and in the end, we still never get clear answers to these straight up questions.

One clear example was Baghdad Reid's assertion that Iarq is lost... nothing has been lost except in Reid's moronic head, in his mind, if he believes it, then it must be a fact.

Therefore he bases all his rhetoric on "his" fact, one that isn't an actual fact, we are there, we are fighting, we have not surrendered, so how does HE define the word "lost"?

Yet all his talking points and his liberal friends talking points base their comments, questions and determination on the "lost" meme, yet no one defines the word "lost".

Thats only one example of how the liberals think they are answering the above questions and then pat themselves on the back for their answers, which are based on the premise of the undefined word "lost".

Their game is old, easily seen through and yet we never get any answers that deal with the true questions without their basing their answers on undocumented, unthinking, unprovable, comments such a Reid's.

So, come on, lets have a discussion, but try to base your arguements on facts, not wishes, not what you believe but what the data and numbers can prove or disprove.

Use links, data, graphs instead of opinion and lets finally have an open, honest debate.

[Update] I see a couple answers to QandO's questions, I am skipping the person he originally asks those questions of, because after reading Willis' answers, he bases quite a few of his answers on the "assumption" that Iraq cannot be fixed.

Which leads me to another man that actually DOES answer QandO's questions, not with assumptions, but with analysis and that is a contributor to The Moderate Voice, on his own blog, Michael P.F. van der Galiën.

An interesting conversation / exchange between Dale Franks at QandO and Oliver Willis. Dale asked “liberals like Oliver” what their plans are concerning Iraq, what the result of an American withdrawal will be, whether Iraq has the potential to become a democracy, etc. Oliver responds in a thoughtful and honest way. As Dave Schuler writes, “this is just exactly the sort of dialogue that we should have had five years ago and the sort that should have been engaged in by the U. S. Senate. When did the Senate stop being the world’s greatest deliberative body and start being an engine for re-electing the same old millionaires year after year?”

Let me weigh in a bit: I think that Iraq has one major problem - it’s based on tribalism. Any country that’s truly based on tribalism cannot be a democracy with respect and tolerance for other tribes and sects. Iraq has to be modernized. Iraq requires a strong government, headed by a strong leader. That leader has to, in the beginning, draw virtually all power to himself, but must be dedicated to bring democracy to his people in the long run at the same time: in other words, the strong central power has to be a means to achieve modernization. If we want to look at how to modernize Iraq, I am convinced that we should neither look at the West. Western nations didn’t become well accomplished, modern democracies, overnight. In Iraq, however, we have to speed up the natural process a bit. If we don’t, Iraq will still be a mess 100 years from now. This means that we have to look at other countries: Turkey. I strongly believe that, if we want to understand how to ’safe’ Iraq, we have to look at Turkey, we have to learn from how Atatürk brought his country into the 20th century. This requires drastical reforms, dedicated and strong leaders, a strong army, and a strong sense of nationalism.

Important: if ‘we’ decide to follow the Kemalist model, it means that ‘we’ have to realize and accept that Iraq will not be a true democracy for quite some time to come. In this approach, the goal isn’t a democratic Iraq ASAP, it’s a modern Iraq: it will be a democracy at a certain point in time, but not for quite some years to come. Decades possibly.

Finally, an honest, open answer, based on information we have and analysis of the lessons history has taught us, I often agree with this man and I also often disagree, but I ALWAYS have stated when refering to him, that he debates honestly and doesn't use assumptions without any basis of proof.

He once again does this and I find him to be one of the true honest bloggers in this regard.

Whether I agree with him or not on other issues, he is intellectually honest.