The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Boortz asks if the left will decry human rights violations by insurgents

Niel Boortz asks a good question. Sadly the missing soldiers have been found and it appears they were killed in a barbaric way and tortured before being killed. Boortz asks if the left will decry these obvious human rights violations.

Will they? Will they march in the streets against the terrorist insurgents who have done this? Will the media treat this as they treated Abu Graibh? Will it become an international outrage? Or will they yawn? Will they simply report it with those "I feel your pain looks" and then run to the nearest Democrat with a microphone to get a soundbite about the need to "cut and run"?

Now is the time for the left to step up to the plate and try to be consistent or show their true colors that they are anti-American bigots who are secretly hoping more of this happens. Ok left, the ball is in your court.


  • At 12:59 PM, Anonymous paw said…


    This line of argument and it's variants are a real puzzle to me. I really don't understand how you think it is illustrative, persuasive, or informative.

    The people behind this act are not beholden to me in any fashion. They are not empowered as a result of any action by me. They were not elected, appointed, recruited, or trained to act in my name or to defend and/or promote my interests. My money does not directly fund them. There are no institutional mechanisms by which my wishes can be registered with them, and there are no legal or moral covenants binding them to respect my wishes. They do not in any way act on my behalf. If any organization exists behind the people responsible for this, it is immune to my influence, except for the kind of influence that is already being applied, brute force.

    Your argument, if it is to be taken seriously, is dependent upon an equivalency between the insurgents and our troops and leadership. Do you mean to elevate our enemy to that level? Or do you want our forces reduced to theirs? You would have me protest what exactly? And what result would you hope that would bring about? I'm trying to see your point but I don't see anything of substance here.

    Moving on, I remind you that far from being anti-American, liberals tend to congregate in the places where the competetive forces are keenest, where the rewards for accomplishment are the greatest, and where the capitalistic/American zeitgeist are championed, in the cities of the coasts where the global agendas are set and where the fortunes flow.

    Finally, it is the height of irresponsibity and offensiveness for you to say that we are 'secretly hoping more of this happens'. Outragous, false statements like that are harmful to the union and can only be thought of as a 'scorched earth' tactic.

  • At 1:58 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Paw, perhaps I am too general when I use the term “the left”. To digress for a moment, conservatives seem to embrace labels as much as liberals despise them. I have my theories why, but that is for another time. I use labels and generalities for the sake of time which is all too short lately, not usually for gratuitous branding of others (I admit it happens a lot from our camp and perhaps once in awhile from me if I get overly passionate about something)

    I am addressing the crowd that does take time out to march and make big statements every time an accusation is leveled against our troops (true or false). I am addressing the media who can never bring themselves to say anything substantively good about our troops or anything substantively bad about the enemy we fight. What is wrong with a politician or member of the media jumping up, pumping their fist and shouting “YEAH!” when a scumbag like Zarqawi bites the dust. Instead of a lusty rally cry by the people as a whole, we get the left spinning about the significance of it. Deny it if you will, but the actions and words of “the left” do empower these radical elements we fight as well as chip away at the morale of our troops.

    Your argument, if it is to be taken seriously, is dependent upon an equivalency between the insurgents and our troops and leadership. Do you mean to elevate our enemy to that level?

    Whether or not you see it this equivalency is already made by the media and critics of the war. How often have we seen the statements equating them to “freedom fighters”. And the fool-hardy statements like “what would you do if some hostile force invaded your land. While you personally may not engage in such nonsense, it is the norm from most left of me. Also all the hoop-lah of Abu Graibh and so-called torture sets a strong tone of equivalence. If we all were in agreement that these elements were terrorist animals, you might have a point. The other side frames their arguments and it is no longer possible to simply hope that others will see the foolishness of it and not get sucked in by it. So I take my argument to their turf here.

    You would have me protest what exactly?
    If you have not protested against situations like Abu-Graibh, Gitmo, alleged secret camps, etc. then I don’t expect you to protest this. If you have, then get out there and be consistent. I somehow doubt you have taken to the streets, though.

    what result would you hope that would bring about?
    Our boys have been painted in an evil light, which is ridiculous. A protest that would raise the awareness of the honor of our men and the true nature of human rights violations from these animals would be the goal.

    Finally, it is the height of irresponsibity and offensiveness for you to say that we are 'secretly hoping more of this happens'
    Only those in the category described above do I claim harbour this secret hope. I doubt you fall into that. Sorry again for over-generalizing.

    Moving on, I remind you that far from being anti-American, liberals tend to congregate in the places where the competetive forces are keenest, where the rewards for accomplishment are the greatest, and where the capitalistic/American zeitgeist are championed, in the cities of the coasts where the global agendas are set and where the fortunes flow
    That if very well worded and pretty. You say “remind”. Is this a quote from somebody? I am afraid I did not follow it at all. I could not quite link liberals to the discussion. Perhaps you could provide an example of liberals congregating where the competitive forces are keenest? Where rewards for accomplishment are the greatest, etc. I do understand that liberals tend to flock to large cities especially those on the coasts. Perhaps it was simply something someone said once and it was felt to sound nice, but doesn’t really mean anything?

  • At 5:27 PM, Anonymous paw said…

    Thanks for the respectful tone. I wish it made more sense to me. At lunch I heard Limbaugh hitting pretty much the same points you're making, and the lack of logic worries me. Not in a hand-wringing way, but in a these-people-are-leaving-behind-the-western-tradition-of-rational-moral-thought way. People who you call terrorists performing acts of torture - kinda makes sense, doesn't it? US troops sometimes behaving badly - that's in my realm of influence and something I want to occur rarely, if at all. US policy going astray - that's in my realm of influence and I want to change it.

    You're right that I'm not in the streets because that doesn't seem to be an effective tactic. I do give money and support to corners that you don't agree with, though, and in general I do feel compelled to protest (vocally and with money and energy) when my government swerves to far from what I consider to be a reasoned, defensible path. I object to the recent redefinition of torture. I object to the lack of distinction between Terrorist and Terrorist Suspect and the thwarting of due process. And a bunch more stuff I'm sure you can guess. The point of which is, I'm in the streets metaphorically, so I consider myself part of the group you're criticizing.

    I had lunch last month with two seasoned Air Force officers currently stationed at the Academy. If your concern is the demoralization of the troops, there are a lot of things you can look at that are within your realm of influence. I heard A LOT about the moral of the services, and I wasn't prying at all. Its not good. However, not a single reference was made to a lack of support from the public or attributed to protesters.

    As to the point that confused you, as far as I know I'm quoting myself from here. Thanks for calling it pretty :/. It's relevant to this discussion in that you made an 'anti-American liberal' reference. I'm pissed that my team is consistently so silent when this slam, or its variants, are used. It just ain't true and there is no way the evidence supports any anti-American or ant-Capitalist agenda on the left. If you look at blue America and the places where liberals congregate, they are hotbeds of competition, drive, ambition, the pursuit and enjoyment of financial reward, and of the American way. Our great cities that set the agenda for the world run on blue people and on blue values. It's just not true that liberalism and market-oriented capitalism and other American characteristics are in opposition. Going back to screaming into the wind now....

  • At 6:51 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Sorry, I didn't catch Limbaugh today. I get about 1 hour a week from him when I can. I am not surprised that we are in agreement. Two people that have a fundamentally similar way of thinking will often say similar things without prompting or corraboration.

    As for the morale issue in the military; I would agree that a soldier's morale is probably not directly deflated by a protestor or war critic. While I have never been to war there are many things I think I can relate to without actually experiencing them (as the libs seem to be able to relate to torture even when they have not experienced it). I would venture a guess that the average soldier has his morale chipped away day by day from what he faces in war itself: frequent danger, death of friends, missing loved ones, the constant Spartan lifestyle, etc. This chronic leak in morales must be recharged from somewhere. Some have the ability within to stay boyant, while others look to friends, correspondance from loved ones, etc to help. I would claim that the support from the core of our country in a highly public manner also can have a positive effect to counter the negative leak. While I may concede that the protestors and critics may not have a negative effect on morale; those people engaging in this miss an opportunity to have a positive effect on morale which may often have made the difference. I will not concede that.

    As for Blue areas of the country, your comments on the surface seem to be correct. There is one very fundamental oversight. Without the support lines coming from middle America, the Blue areas would be very much in trouble. While the numbers and diversity of blue areas do a lot to increase commerce and indeed help capitalism, these people would be quite dead without the food provided by flyover America. MIddle America could survive without the Blue areas, albeit they would be poorer; the same cannot be said for the blue.

    Yes, it is true the blue areas are the centers of most capitalist activity. However, it is where capitalism has the most critics and spawns the most people whose actions and ideas threaten the existence of capitalism. It is here where most dialogue against what makes America great occurs. The word anti-American is somewhat inflammatory and has several meanings. Each meaning though is represented by some to many in the liberal camp. There are those who hate all the country stands for and desire to see it completely changed from what it is. There are others who truly are cheering for the downfall of the country. The former is more plentiful than the latter I admit.

  • At 6:57 PM, Blogger Mark said…

    Well said, paw. Even the silly socialist hippies in San fran SELL their books for the most they can get when they hold a conference on how to get the most yield out of communal food plots.

    The discussion is how much should market forces be regulated by gov, as you say. I say very little, if any regulation. That's me, and makes a good discussion.

    Even though it's fun to watch and listen to, to check out blogs and websites dealing with the politics, it makes me tired to hear whiny statements like this of Boortz's. And AICS, you sound like that a bit here, a bit too strong and a bit too whiny.

    I'll stop whining, too.

  • At 7:00 PM, Blogger Mark said…

    **i posted before reading your last post, AICS, not that it means a hoot**

  • At 7:21 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Mark, welcome back. Not sure where you get whiny from. I guess to demand consistency from the left is considered being whiny.

    Frankly, I don't expect consistency from the left (in general). I point out their inconsistency to drive home the point; not to complain or be whiny.

  • At 9:11 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    This line of argument and it's variants are a real puzzle to me. I really don't understand how you think it is illustrative, persuasive, or informative.

    It is illustrative, persuasive, and informative because it's true. It demonstrates an enormous hypocrisy.

    If it is perfectly okay to decry the US government for a bunch of renegade soldiers stacking a bunch of naked Iraqis in a pyramid (which I also condemn), then why is it so hard for them to come out openly and condemn the terrorists for these acts and others? Why did we not hear from them, when Nick Berg's head was cut off?

    Can you not see the inconsistency in these things?

  • At 11:35 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    I agree with you paw. It's unfair for AICS to lump all "left" factions of American society into one homogenous group like that. I certainly don't wish any harm on anyone (no, not even Bush), least of all the soldiers. And, as paw so eloquently pointed out, the "left" are not in cahoots with insurgents. This claim is just absurd. The reason so much emphasis is placed on incidents such as Abu Ghraib is because Americans (and other nations complicit in the war) are indirectly accountable for the actions of our armed forces. We elect people who send off troops, and if the war isn't being fought honorably on our side, then this only reduces the American armed forces to the level of the insurgents. In short: you can't use the injustices of the enemy to justify any wrongdoing on the part of our soldiers. The media is expected to report on damage inflicted by the insurgency, but it is also expected to hold the Coalition forces to a more stringent standard.

    But yes, I was quite saddened to hear that those two soldiers were killed in such a way. Please don't assume that I want Americans to die just because I truly despise the 'leaders' who sent them there in the first place. Also, don't assume that paw or anyone else is unpatriotic because they don't submit to the war as kindly as many others.

  • At 1:14 AM, Blogger Mark said…

    I reckon I shouldn't have used the word whine, AICS. I've called people on name calling before because it goes nowhere. Just for the record, I think both sides of our present polical scene cry too much over things that are either inconsequential or things that are much better served with constructive discussion. It comes down to a system that favors two parties who vie for control and in doing so end up very similar to one another. BIG and intrusive.

    Murder is a horrifying thing, no matter where it occurs or who commits it. Personally, I can see where you are when you ask if the left will decry these actions. Just as I can understand the idea of asking U.S. Muslim leaders to vocally oppose terrorist acts. I also can see why liberals who oppose W and his boys would jump all over soldier indiscretions and seemingly ignore horrific acts by an insurgency. Each side has its agenda.

    I don't like that we're in Iraq. I don't think we should have gone. But now that we've taken that burden of repairing that country both from Saddam and our own invasion we should do it as expeditiously and intelligently as possible. Both libs and cons should get over the b.s. one-upping and loud talking accusations and get it done so our country can move on.

    I guess that's what I meant the first time.

  • At 8:55 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    As I mentioned later, I admit a bit of lumping into the name "left". I also point out that among the general left there are elements that act exactly as I described. Also the liberal leaning MSM follows the template I described. Take the smallest example of how the MSM reported on the (later proven false) story of the flushing of the Quran. You could almost taste the outrage in those MSM stories. Compare that to the beheadings, the taking of innocent life by bombs and now the treatment of these soldiers.

    The fact is that from the direction of the left (in general) there is no joy or cheering when we achieve a victorious moment. There is no outrage when these insurgents commit horrific acts. Yet at the mere charge against US forces of illdoing (proven or not) you just can't hold those dogs back. They are practically jumping out of their seats to denounce our troops. It would also take a figurative stick of dynamite to get them off that position and apologize to the troops when they are cleared. They mumble a few words at best and are onto the next story.

    Nobody on the left ever calls them on this. So whether it is the left in general or specific groups on the left, there is culpability for all.

    The media is expected to report on damage inflicted by the insurgency, but it is also expected to hold the Coalition forces to a more stringent standard.

    It is time to get rid of that notion. Any civilized being knows that our troops are at a higher standard than those animals. When an event like this happens, the event should be addressed on its own merits. The media should not be sitting there calculating in their head "now they are at a lower standard than coalition forces, so we should just mumble a few words and move on. If it were the coalition we would be headlining it for weeks, but we need to .....". It is simple: report, denounce, have outrage on a level equal to the action regardless of who did it.

  • At 9:03 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…


    Each side has its agenda.
    While the word agenda can have a stigma to it, I don't have a problem with coming to the table with an agenda of how you would like things to be or how you would like to address things.

    It is when that agenda causes irrational actions and words that I have a problem. When that agenda prevents war critics from cheering when a guy like Zarqawi gets nailed; When that agenda prevents outrage at actions by the terrorist insurgents; when that agenda causes people to denounce our boys without due process; I then have a problem.

    The right has an agenda too. I am wracking my brain to come up with counter examples to the ones I gave above for the left and simply cannot think of any. There are some I know the fringe left would claim that are not true, but I cannot think of an abuse of an agenda at the expense of the good of the country.

  • At 7:10 PM, Blogger Mark said…


    It's our system, as annoying as it is. Obviously the fringe left would be hard pressed to agree that something productive happened in Iraq - it's their primary talking point in opposition to the president. It's reasonable to assume that they would spin and twist or omit in their own favor. Yes they can be called on it, but their agenda won't allow them to concede.

    I think the right's agenda is that invading and occupying Iraq in the first place was the right thing to do. I do think it is a debatable point and not necessarily the obvious correct thing to do. Some might say they were irrational for doing so. But the insistence, by W and the right, that the Iraq invasion was the proper thing to do has allowed the right to adopt a notion of the moral high ground. This in turn leads to outcries of anti-americanism when someone is against what our country is doing. Anti-americanism on a "moral" base, which makes no sense to me. Morality has no place in politics. Justice does. Rights do. But using morality as a basis for action automatically dismisses the other side as immoral, which is not the case.

  • At 8:05 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Mark, good points well written. It may be the anti-American angle is at times overly emphasized. From my standpoint there are some positions taken by some that make me wonder if their fer us or agin' us. I know there is a big flap about Bush saying that, but I am talking about specific people with specific positions.

    One non-Iraq example is why one would be against border enforcement. I cannot think of a logical reason one would want to risk a dangerous element getting over the border. I can only think one WANTS harm to come to the country in that case. I am simply saying my mind cannot wrap around any good reason except that.

    As for morality in politics I have mixed comments. I realize some can really be in your face on this and it can be quite a turn off.

    On the other hand I see a strong link between the law and politics (at least what politics should be). Given that morality has been tied to the hip with laws since Hammurabi's code and throughout history I see a strong and valid link between morality and politics.

    There is a tendency today to separate morality from who somebody is. I would claim that my morality is as strong a part of me as my conservatism, the music I like, my ability to make decisions, my family life, and a host of other things that make me, me. The political arena today asks me to park my morality at the door. It especially asks politicians and by all means a judicial candidate to do so or they should leave the political arena. This is wrong. Don't ask people to either separate from their morality or leave politics. Instead identify where one is regarding morality and clearly identify who they are. The voters will decide if they like or dislike that.

    Mark I hope you continue coming back. Though we often disagree, you add a nice flavor to the dialogue here that I appreciate.

  • At 10:06 PM, Blogger Mark said…

    The great thing about sales is that you get to stay in hotels, grab a sixer of newcastle, watch muted Batman on t.v. and check out one's favorite web spots. I like the Lifeline because, don't take this the wrong way AICS, you remind me of my Pops. I'm not too many years removed from thinking very similarly as you do, having grown up in a conservative christian household.

    but back to the business at hand. :)

    Specific People - I don't argue with you there inasmuch as some political figures on both sides make me ill. Murtha's condemnation without evidence, for example. Ann Coulter's superiority complex, for another.

    Border Enforcement - Everyone approaches issues from their own view as point of reference. Yours is that we need to enforce to the fullest extent the laws we have regarding the border so that terrorists/criminals don't get in. Mine is that our current laws aren't very effective, so let's change 'em. You had a post on the borders a while back that I wish I'd had more time to spend on. I'm not convinced that the border as it is right now is a horribly dangerous threat to national security. If it were, though, then our present policy regarding the border would be in dire need of change. I refer back to Tim Cavanaugh's article - I know you weren't impressed, but I thought it an excellent idea to consider.

    Morality/Law/Politics - It's always sketchy speaking of morality and politics because you are correct - one's moral code is part of what defines him. I'm getting into philosophical stuff that I have no intellectual right to be talking about, but what is the definition of morality? Guy A's morality is based on a strict following of the Koran. Girl B's morality is based on a strict adherence to the bible, or what her priest/pastor/rabbi/spiritual guide/etc. says. Grandpa C goes with his gut when he makes decisions. All differing in what morality is, some not as much as others, but all believing their belief is absolute. That's heavy stuff, and no matter where I stand, I can't say any one or the other is right or wrong save by a few criteria, the main being if what they believe results in the physical harm of someone else, or the denial of their basic human rights and dignities, it cannot be right.
    These are things still rattling around in my head and what I'm saying may not be clear, but will these things ever be clear and concise? God only knows, if he's there, :), but until he makes himself known I have to go with my simple litmus test.

    If I had my druthers, I'd have politicians apply only that test when they make their decisions.

    But all this blabber doesn't matter because again, you are correct. The voters make their choice and he who gets the votes gets his way. Unfortunately for me and I would guess many other Americans, it's a very rare candidate I'll wholeheartedly vote for.

  • At 11:07 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Mark, I knew I could sense a strong foundation in you. I'm tempted to pry, but I won't ;)

    You make some good points. You are also right about things not being clear. I don't know about others, but some things become less clear as I get older. As I told blasphemer (now formerly) some things I simply accept by faith and don't claim to be able to prove. Sometimes there is plenty of evidence to accept by faith, but not enough to convince the skeptic.

    A final word on the morality vein: transparency is what I crave most in a politician and in the media. Just tell me who you are and where you are coming from without screaming it in my face. If you do that, no matter how we differ I am at least willing to give a listen. I am a frequent visitor to housewife's blog and there are worlds between us. Yet she is refreshingly transparent. I would like to think I am too.

  • At 11:55 PM, Blogger Mark said…

    I dig transparancy as well. You are pretty up front, though as you mentioned above, we disagree with each other on things. But I know where you are, and that's good.

    "I knew I could sense a strong foundation in you."

    Hehehehe...that's the exact thing my dad would say...:) Feel free to pry any way you want, in any direction. I enjoy chatting it up when I have the time.

    cheers. (i've finished up that sixer of newcastles, by the way....)


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home