Straw Men Zero, President 26!
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 11-04-04
And so we are off! The first Presidential news conference. Straw men zero President 26!
“And I -- I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It's just not a part of my thinking.. . . I've got . . . a great faith that people do want to be free and live in democracy.”
So what? Is the President going to spend the next four years debating Howard Dean or the flimflam man J. F. F. Kerry? This is the real harm the radical’s control of the Democrat Party has done to our nation.
I would like to mock and ridicule Mr. Bush for arguing against the straw man who does not “believe that certain societies” can be free. But then one remembers Dean and Kerry. But the election is over!
I am not questioning the war. It was 12 years late. I argued with the President’s father to overthrow Mr. Hussein. My criticism is that the January elections come eight months after the last government of Iraq, the Governing Council, was destabilized by our own government, or at least some factions within State and the CIA. Instead of January elections following two (2) years of stable parliamentary government, they come amidst confusion caused by incompetent administration.
My criticism is that instead of organizing a government of exiles in 2002 in Jordan, or Britain, or on an abandoned Army base in Okalahoma, the whole year was lost. Instead of setting up ministries to oversee the new Iraq in 2002 ---- nothing was done. Mr. Bremmer was not even appointed until March 2003 when our tanks were already rolling.
And why? Was the Republican administration trying to save the cost of Mr. Bremmer’s salary? Was it Republican economy? But no one asks these questions. The Executive is not called on to explain why, having finally set up a government in 2003, without any planning or preparation, no programs, no procedures, no records or accounts, no ministries or departments, no computer systems or even generators, nothing, everything from scratch; why then, a year later did this Republican Administration destabilize its own Iraqi Governing Council, and all of this, I say again, without explanation.
But we live in a democracy right? We have elections? No! Why no examination? Because this country, one of the oldest democracies on the planet, a nation of 300 million souls, is dependant on the likes of Howard Dean to set the terms of our public discussion. Oh, and that other fellow, Kerry who flip flopped several times to get ahead of Dean, to “run” for president, but no attempt to examine the truth. And puffy eyed Jim Lehrer, the crazed forger Dan Rather, the wizened Don Imus god help us, are the “independent” journalists, representatives of the Fifth Estate, who fight for the truth and the people’s right to know? Get off it.
And so having defeated the straw men, the President can affirm his “faith” in freedom. Note that Mr. Bush reverts to “faith” because there is no debating “faith.” No system of logical thought can be brought to examine the steps of his reasoning; no explanation can be made beyond the simple profession of “faith.” And where there is no discussion, therefore no democracy. For democracy, unlike monarchy or dictatorship, is dependent on reason, and discussion; human understanding.
But excuse me Mr. President, why did you destabilize the Governing Council? Why didn’t you have an Iraqi government ready to begin administration of the country in 2003? Where was the fleet of container ships to bring in the supplies needed to start Iraq on its new life? Why did you turn away the deserters from the old regime’s army? Why didn’t we have a new army training on bases in Kuwait or on bases in Okalahoma in preparation for 2003? Why wasn’t Mr. Robert Baer parachuted into the North of Iraq to organize the new Iraqi army? Why didn’t you have a constitution for the new Iraq? Why are the January elections taking place not at the end of two years of stability and orderly transition, but after two years of confusion?
Why am I the only one asking these questions?
We have just had an election in which these obvious failings have gone unexamined, and you call this democracy? Why unexamined? Because the Democrats like Howard Dean wanted to debate if we should even have gone to war! Where are those weapons of mass destruction? This is what the radicals who control the Democrat Party thought was the central issue. (We have already explained, before the war, why bio weapons would not have been the reason for war.) So the political debate is ruined, is reduced to tripe, because of the radicals, because of Dean, and the flip flopper. The national discussion brought to the lowest level by the radicals in the Democrat Party.
It is a rich irony that these same radicals think them selves intellectually our superiors. They who have ruined our public discourse, who prevent us from examining the issues, planning for the future, preparing for the dangers, they speak of having to do a better job, “educating” us. (Pelosi said this upon the defeat of Kerry: "It's not about soul-searching. It may be about how we can educate the American people more clearly on the difference between Democrats and Republicans. I think the table is set for us in the next election. I welcome the fray. I look forward to conveying to the public what the differences are between the Democrats and the Republicans here. And many people thought that this would be a one-two punch, and that is what it will be. But we have lost just about everything that we can lose." Impenetrable.)
So, because the Democrats offered up a man who said that Iraq was the “wrong war” Mr. Bush can plausibly escape having to answer the above questions. Because the public discourse has been so retarded by radicals, (who think themselves so much above the rest of us), Mr. Bush can not be accused of arguing with straw men, because there really were the likes of Dean and Kerry, with whom he did debate these basic and obvious points: Should we go to war? Should we be in Iraq? Would we have, if we had known then what we know now? Can no one else see the absurdity? Am I the sole survivor?
This nattily dressed gentleman in his oval office frittered away two (2!) years, not withstanding the fact that he was to stand for reelection; failing to organize the new Iraq; failing even to explain the reasons for the war in which over a 1,000 Americans have thus far been killed; but because the political opposition, and the press, are so incompetent, so lost in their own distorted and dysfunctional ideology, he wins reelection by 4% and calls it a “mandate.” Why was it so close? (“This election should have been over sometime in August, not 1 a.m. election night.” --- Ann Coulter, FrontPageMagazine 11-04-04)
And to here the radio talk show buffoons talk you would think that the nation had “turned right” irreversibly; that it is unthinkable that 135,000 people in Ohio could ever again think of voting for anyone with a “D” after his name.
Let me be clear. I support the President. I voted for him. Yet I have no illusions. I am neither inclined to favor nor criticize him and his Administration for personal reasons. I have no personal interest in this examination. (For example, in 1996, eight years ago, the IRS, (possibly under the direction of the Clinton regime), asked me to help in a criminal investigation. The IRS then leaked my name to the very criminals that they had asked me to help investigate. Why? (see ‘The IRS and the Illegals from the North’ at the Moynihan) There was a time when I thought this injustice would be righted. However, now after eight years even someone as slow on the uptake as me can see that nothing will be done against the IRS criminal investigators who betrayed me let alone the Clinton regime whom I suspect orchestrated the scheme. What is more, I know that Mr. Bush and the Republicans would be at least unsympathetic, and actually openly hostile to me, if they knew I had agreed to help the IRS in an investigation of my employer’s criminal misconduct. This Administration has a reputation for being hostile to whistleblowers even when they are upholding the law.) So I have no illusions.
Strategically, politically, morally, the Administration was right in going to war in Iraq but not only has its administration of the war been uneven, it has failed to lay out before the people the full explanation for the war. Rather than explaining in detail to the American people, of whom they are asking to sacrifice so much, about Mr. Hussein’s villainy, they have found it politically expedient to avoid confronting the likes of Dean and Kerry and Kennedy and the Fifth Estate and the liberal bastions at the universities, State, CIA, etc. etc..
So the young soldiers who risk their lives for us may know the true reasons for why they fight, but if they do it is because they have studied on their own, not because they have heard the full explanation from Mr. Bush or read it in the New York Times. And as an impartial observer I can not say if Mr. Bush has been “wrong” to skirt these issues as he has.
First of all, if his opponents argue at such basic questions as should we even be in Iraq then clearly they are deliberately misrepresenting the facts and what duty does one have to debate honestly with the dishonest? Then too, the press, Mr. Lehrer, Rather, the rest, are obviously so unfair that again a purely tactical reason can be legeitamatly given for avoiding a direct confrontation, which, because they control the media, they will misrepresent.
However, these considerations speak only to why Mr. Bush would handle the public debate in this subtle manner. They do not explain why the rest of the Administration has performed so poorly in public discussion. For example Iraqi documents were only leaked in October which show the extent of the old regime’s involvement in terror. Why “leaked?” Why in October? Nor do the tactical explanations, for why this Administration has been so coy with the truth, explain why the Administration has failed to meet with its supporters and friends. Not only has it failed to meet with Laurie Mylrorie but even U. S. Senator Lugar has repeatedly complained about being excluded by this Administration.
The President could certainly have discussed, debated, attempted to persuade Mr. Lugar. This is what politics is all about. Not professions of faith. Reason. Persuasion. But recall that this is the president who said that what he liked about being President is that he did not have to explain himself. And it appears that this extends to everyone inside and outside of the Administration. But if Mr. Bush had engaged in vigorous and frank exchanges with Mr. Lugar and others would so many mistakes have been made? If Mr. Bremmer had been at work through out 2002 would confusion reign? The simple exercise of open discussion might have clarified the policy before it turned to confusion.
Mr. Bush after four years in office does not appear to me as a man practiced in the arts of argumentation, persuasion, and reasoning. When, for example, one hears him stumble over a question about new appointments to his cabinet, at the news conference, one wonders if he even talks to his wife? He answered the question by talking about how he was concerned that members of his cabinet were “burned out” and how he would be looking to see which ones were “burned out” and would be dumping them. I know Mrs. Bush could have found a more artful way to express her gratitude for everyone who has served in the cabinet and would be meeting with each one to express her gratitude personally, and discuss the future, etc. etc.
The fact that Mr. Bush stumbles over even such simple questions causes one to question how much of what has been done and not done during his time at the bully pulpit is the result of a subtle strategy, and how much is the result of plain inarticulateness, and how much is the result of mental confusion due to lack of experience talking and thinking about these questions?
Why all the secrecy? Why not publish the minutes of the cabinet meetings? Isn’t the idea of politics to have one’s ideas known? But then we must remember, what Mr. Bush likes about being President is that he does not have to explain himself to people, even his friends, even the fellow countrymen he is asking to die.
They deserve the truth. They deserve to know how Iraq sponsored terrorists around the world. They need to hear it from their President.
They deserve our support. They deserve a well run and organized administration of Iraq and the war. This is only possible if this Administration starts engaging in open and honest public discussions.
Let us start now with Iran and Syria. If we leave Iran to Israel we will have failed in our duty to our people and the world. We have asked much of so many, can we fail to ask honesty of ourselves?
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 11-04-04
And so we are off! The first Presidential news conference. Straw men zero President 26!
“And I -- I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It's just not a part of my thinking.. . . I've got . . . a great faith that people do want to be free and live in democracy.”
So what? Is the President going to spend the next four years debating Howard Dean or the flimflam man J. F. F. Kerry? This is the real harm the radical’s control of the Democrat Party has done to our nation.
I would like to mock and ridicule Mr. Bush for arguing against the straw man who does not “believe that certain societies” can be free. But then one remembers Dean and Kerry. But the election is over!
I am not questioning the war. It was 12 years late. I argued with the President’s father to overthrow Mr. Hussein. My criticism is that the January elections come eight months after the last government of Iraq, the Governing Council, was destabilized by our own government, or at least some factions within State and the CIA. Instead of January elections following two (2) years of stable parliamentary government, they come amidst confusion caused by incompetent administration.
My criticism is that instead of organizing a government of exiles in 2002 in Jordan, or Britain, or on an abandoned Army base in Okalahoma, the whole year was lost. Instead of setting up ministries to oversee the new Iraq in 2002 ---- nothing was done. Mr. Bremmer was not even appointed until March 2003 when our tanks were already rolling.
And why? Was the Republican administration trying to save the cost of Mr. Bremmer’s salary? Was it Republican economy? But no one asks these questions. The Executive is not called on to explain why, having finally set up a government in 2003, without any planning or preparation, no programs, no procedures, no records or accounts, no ministries or departments, no computer systems or even generators, nothing, everything from scratch; why then, a year later did this Republican Administration destabilize its own Iraqi Governing Council, and all of this, I say again, without explanation.
But we live in a democracy right? We have elections? No! Why no examination? Because this country, one of the oldest democracies on the planet, a nation of 300 million souls, is dependant on the likes of Howard Dean to set the terms of our public discussion. Oh, and that other fellow, Kerry who flip flopped several times to get ahead of Dean, to “run” for president, but no attempt to examine the truth. And puffy eyed Jim Lehrer, the crazed forger Dan Rather, the wizened Don Imus god help us, are the “independent” journalists, representatives of the Fifth Estate, who fight for the truth and the people’s right to know? Get off it.
And so having defeated the straw men, the President can affirm his “faith” in freedom. Note that Mr. Bush reverts to “faith” because there is no debating “faith.” No system of logical thought can be brought to examine the steps of his reasoning; no explanation can be made beyond the simple profession of “faith.” And where there is no discussion, therefore no democracy. For democracy, unlike monarchy or dictatorship, is dependent on reason, and discussion; human understanding.
But excuse me Mr. President, why did you destabilize the Governing Council? Why didn’t you have an Iraqi government ready to begin administration of the country in 2003? Where was the fleet of container ships to bring in the supplies needed to start Iraq on its new life? Why did you turn away the deserters from the old regime’s army? Why didn’t we have a new army training on bases in Kuwait or on bases in Okalahoma in preparation for 2003? Why wasn’t Mr. Robert Baer parachuted into the North of Iraq to organize the new Iraqi army? Why didn’t you have a constitution for the new Iraq? Why are the January elections taking place not at the end of two years of stability and orderly transition, but after two years of confusion?
Why am I the only one asking these questions?
We have just had an election in which these obvious failings have gone unexamined, and you call this democracy? Why unexamined? Because the Democrats like Howard Dean wanted to debate if we should even have gone to war! Where are those weapons of mass destruction? This is what the radicals who control the Democrat Party thought was the central issue. (We have already explained, before the war, why bio weapons would not have been the reason for war.) So the political debate is ruined, is reduced to tripe, because of the radicals, because of Dean, and the flip flopper. The national discussion brought to the lowest level by the radicals in the Democrat Party.
It is a rich irony that these same radicals think them selves intellectually our superiors. They who have ruined our public discourse, who prevent us from examining the issues, planning for the future, preparing for the dangers, they speak of having to do a better job, “educating” us. (Pelosi said this upon the defeat of Kerry: "It's not about soul-searching. It may be about how we can educate the American people more clearly on the difference between Democrats and Republicans. I think the table is set for us in the next election. I welcome the fray. I look forward to conveying to the public what the differences are between the Democrats and the Republicans here. And many people thought that this would be a one-two punch, and that is what it will be. But we have lost just about everything that we can lose." Impenetrable.)
So, because the Democrats offered up a man who said that Iraq was the “wrong war” Mr. Bush can plausibly escape having to answer the above questions. Because the public discourse has been so retarded by radicals, (who think themselves so much above the rest of us), Mr. Bush can not be accused of arguing with straw men, because there really were the likes of Dean and Kerry, with whom he did debate these basic and obvious points: Should we go to war? Should we be in Iraq? Would we have, if we had known then what we know now? Can no one else see the absurdity? Am I the sole survivor?
This nattily dressed gentleman in his oval office frittered away two (2!) years, not withstanding the fact that he was to stand for reelection; failing to organize the new Iraq; failing even to explain the reasons for the war in which over a 1,000 Americans have thus far been killed; but because the political opposition, and the press, are so incompetent, so lost in their own distorted and dysfunctional ideology, he wins reelection by 4% and calls it a “mandate.” Why was it so close? (“This election should have been over sometime in August, not 1 a.m. election night.” --- Ann Coulter, FrontPageMagazine 11-04-04)
And to here the radio talk show buffoons talk you would think that the nation had “turned right” irreversibly; that it is unthinkable that 135,000 people in Ohio could ever again think of voting for anyone with a “D” after his name.
Let me be clear. I support the President. I voted for him. Yet I have no illusions. I am neither inclined to favor nor criticize him and his Administration for personal reasons. I have no personal interest in this examination. (For example, in 1996, eight years ago, the IRS, (possibly under the direction of the Clinton regime), asked me to help in a criminal investigation. The IRS then leaked my name to the very criminals that they had asked me to help investigate. Why? (see ‘The IRS and the Illegals from the North’ at the Moynihan) There was a time when I thought this injustice would be righted. However, now after eight years even someone as slow on the uptake as me can see that nothing will be done against the IRS criminal investigators who betrayed me let alone the Clinton regime whom I suspect orchestrated the scheme. What is more, I know that Mr. Bush and the Republicans would be at least unsympathetic, and actually openly hostile to me, if they knew I had agreed to help the IRS in an investigation of my employer’s criminal misconduct. This Administration has a reputation for being hostile to whistleblowers even when they are upholding the law.) So I have no illusions.
Strategically, politically, morally, the Administration was right in going to war in Iraq but not only has its administration of the war been uneven, it has failed to lay out before the people the full explanation for the war. Rather than explaining in detail to the American people, of whom they are asking to sacrifice so much, about Mr. Hussein’s villainy, they have found it politically expedient to avoid confronting the likes of Dean and Kerry and Kennedy and the Fifth Estate and the liberal bastions at the universities, State, CIA, etc. etc..
So the young soldiers who risk their lives for us may know the true reasons for why they fight, but if they do it is because they have studied on their own, not because they have heard the full explanation from Mr. Bush or read it in the New York Times. And as an impartial observer I can not say if Mr. Bush has been “wrong” to skirt these issues as he has.
First of all, if his opponents argue at such basic questions as should we even be in Iraq then clearly they are deliberately misrepresenting the facts and what duty does one have to debate honestly with the dishonest? Then too, the press, Mr. Lehrer, Rather, the rest, are obviously so unfair that again a purely tactical reason can be legeitamatly given for avoiding a direct confrontation, which, because they control the media, they will misrepresent.
However, these considerations speak only to why Mr. Bush would handle the public debate in this subtle manner. They do not explain why the rest of the Administration has performed so poorly in public discussion. For example Iraqi documents were only leaked in October which show the extent of the old regime’s involvement in terror. Why “leaked?” Why in October? Nor do the tactical explanations, for why this Administration has been so coy with the truth, explain why the Administration has failed to meet with its supporters and friends. Not only has it failed to meet with Laurie Mylrorie but even U. S. Senator Lugar has repeatedly complained about being excluded by this Administration.
The President could certainly have discussed, debated, attempted to persuade Mr. Lugar. This is what politics is all about. Not professions of faith. Reason. Persuasion. But recall that this is the president who said that what he liked about being President is that he did not have to explain himself. And it appears that this extends to everyone inside and outside of the Administration. But if Mr. Bush had engaged in vigorous and frank exchanges with Mr. Lugar and others would so many mistakes have been made? If Mr. Bremmer had been at work through out 2002 would confusion reign? The simple exercise of open discussion might have clarified the policy before it turned to confusion.
Mr. Bush after four years in office does not appear to me as a man practiced in the arts of argumentation, persuasion, and reasoning. When, for example, one hears him stumble over a question about new appointments to his cabinet, at the news conference, one wonders if he even talks to his wife? He answered the question by talking about how he was concerned that members of his cabinet were “burned out” and how he would be looking to see which ones were “burned out” and would be dumping them. I know Mrs. Bush could have found a more artful way to express her gratitude for everyone who has served in the cabinet and would be meeting with each one to express her gratitude personally, and discuss the future, etc. etc.
The fact that Mr. Bush stumbles over even such simple questions causes one to question how much of what has been done and not done during his time at the bully pulpit is the result of a subtle strategy, and how much is the result of plain inarticulateness, and how much is the result of mental confusion due to lack of experience talking and thinking about these questions?
Why all the secrecy? Why not publish the minutes of the cabinet meetings? Isn’t the idea of politics to have one’s ideas known? But then we must remember, what Mr. Bush likes about being President is that he does not have to explain himself to people, even his friends, even the fellow countrymen he is asking to die.
They deserve the truth. They deserve to know how Iraq sponsored terrorists around the world. They need to hear it from their President.
They deserve our support. They deserve a well run and organized administration of Iraq and the war. This is only possible if this Administration starts engaging in open and honest public discussions.
Let us start now with Iran and Syria. If we leave Iran to Israel we will have failed in our duty to our people and the world. We have asked much of so many, can we fail to ask honesty of ourselves?
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home