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, July 04, 2006

American Thinker thinks there is a sudden strange hush

J.R. Dunn of the American Thinker writes that there is a sudden hush in the barrage from the left. Dunn writes:

Is it my imagination, or is there a sudden hush in the shrieking media barrage today? Was it only yesterday that the NYT and WaPo were roaring and thundering, month after month, at President Bush and the GOP—- to surprisingly little effect? Have we run out of phony scandals yet? Where is the Bush = Hitler crowd?

To be sure, the Kossacks are still fussing in a corner of the web. And any moment now the heavy artillery of the Left may resume lobbing shell after exploding shell at the White House, the neocons, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, not to mention Big Oil, Big Business and Big Fatty Food. It’s all they know.

I have to admit that while focusing on my barrage on the left I had not noticed the strange silence. Now that I stop and think, I cannot come up with anything recent that is anything like the mindless assaults we have been seeing. After kicking around a few spuculations regarding Hillary and Murtha, Dunn wonders if the Dems just suddenly got it that they are in trouble:
Maybe the Democrats just got it—- that they have now defined themselves to lose the 2006 elections. The Democrat Party stands for open treason in a time of war. Their house journal—- the New York Times—- has made it official, by publishing secrets that will surely end up killing US agents, soldiers and allies in the field. The next big terrorist attack will point the finger of blame at our domestic Fifth Column—- the media establishment. Where will the next terrorist hammer fall? Israel – London – New York City? Wherever it does, the guilty party is now beyond reasonable doubt in the eyes of millions of Americans.
I do think that Newspapers of the coastal parenthesis (NYT and LAT) are so associated with the Democrats that their recent aid to terrorists was certainly a self-inflicted wound with deep ramifications. Hugh Hewitt asked Larry Kudlow about how this has affected the NYT. He responded:
Killed 'em. Killed 'em. You cannot believe the intensity of anti-New York Times feeling. Killed 'em. You know, we sent a guy, Cody Willard, who's a contributor to our program, and we do this little cam thing. He goes out and interviews people on the street, and I had him ask the question about the Times. People are furious. We did a poll, investor class poll on it, and people were just...80/20 against the New York Times.
HAVE YOU SHORTED THE NYT STOCK TODAY? (ok, that's mine)

I think that the Times (both of them) feeling that the nation needs to know about secret anti-terrorist tools and yet not feeling that the nation needs to know about key governmental officials leaking these secrets has had a very detrimental effect on the liberal movement in general. I think the handful of Dems cheering that the Supreme Court sided with the Gitmo prisoners against Bush is just another act to solidify in people's minds which side the Dems are on. The immediate reaction and promise of Congressional correction to this runaway ruling (by Graham and Kyl) was like throwing cold water on Pelosi and Kennedy.

I think Dunn is on to something. Perhaps the Dems are beginning to see how they have as usual overplayed their hand. Perhaps they simply don't dare say anything around Independence Day that would yet again call their patiotism into question. Perhaps tomorrow or in a few days the foot in mouth disease resumes with a fury. In the meantime, we are enjoying the silence.

19 Comments:

  • At 7:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Dude, please, before you embarrass yourself any further, go here, read the whole thing, then come back and delete this piece of crap:

    http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com

    In case you haven't been paying attention, you are utterly and embarrassingly off-base and in outer space re the New York Times. Snap out of it and sober up.

     
  • At 8:41 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Sorry, I don't accept a link by itself as a point of argument. Please do some thinking for yourself and tell me what points you disagree with. If you want to add quotes from the link to support your argument, fine. Otherwise I will assume you only know how to copy and paste.

     
  • At 12:09 AM, Blogger FKAB said…

    It's not fair to assume that the Times are siding with the insurgency purely because they are critical of Bush's handling of the war. I am against any publication which would jeopardise the coalition's war efforts, but as far as I can see, reporting on any illegal or poorly devised actions undertaken by the Government does not constitute allegations of treason.

    I think the handful of Dems cheering that the Supreme Court sided with the Gitmo prisoners against Bush is just another act to solidify in people's minds which side the Dems are on.

    This statement reflects the Bush-subservient mindset that goes "support me or you're unpatriotic scum."

    I have my qualms with the Democrats, as with any political party, but I don't think it's fair to cast those opposed to the handling of the war as terrorists. You're an intelligent person AICS, so I don't understand how you could see things so black-and-white.

    PS. Anonymous, shut the hell up. Formulate your own opinions, and then have a stab at criticising someone else's.

     
  • At 2:22 AM, Blogger FKAB said…

  • At 5:01 AM, Blogger Malott said…

    fkab,

    "support me or you're unpatriotic scum..."

    You can disagree with President Bush's policy and still support the detaining of terrorists. When the Dems and others on the Left cheer the judicial victory of our enemy over our President, they do themselves political harm. The average American is not concerned with the "rights" of murderers.

     
  • At 6:14 AM, Blogger FKAB said…

    I have no problem with the detainment of alleged terrorists. I do, however, have a problem with keeping suspects locked up for years on end. I do have a problem with skewed military tribunals, where the burden of proof is not quite as strict as regular civilian courts. I do have a problem with Bush's disregard for the ethics of war (if such things exist). Does this make me a terrorist?

    The Supreme Court justices concluded that the military tribunals were illegal, and I agree. Where is the treason?

    You and I might not like the people in Gitmo. Personally, I find the idea of a religious war to be the worst kind there is. But if we simply infer guilt upon them purely because they might have involvement in terroristic activities, then we in the western world aren't exactly fighting for liberty and civility. Bush cannot wage a war predicated on the assumption that we're protecting our freedoms, and then dilute our freedoms in the process. It defeats the purpose.

    The average American, as you say, does not care about the rights of prisoners. Tell me, who is fighting for freedom?

    Both sides of the war are looking pretty tyrannical to me.

     
  • At 8:16 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    fkab,

    Thanks for the happy birthday America wishes and for seeing that anonymous can't think for himself. I have a feeling anon. has trouble reading, too. I know what "he" thinks I wrote and I did not, and that is why I wrote what I wrote. When he goes to debate me point by point, he will find a certain point is not even there.


    You state it is not fair to assume the Times is siding with the insurgency because they are critical of the war. That depends why they are critical, and how they criticize but in this post I am talking of their publication of secrets we use to fight the terrorists.

    This statement reflects the Bush-subservient mindset that goes "support me or you're unpatriotic scum."

    No, this statement reflects my mindset that the Dems have been playing politics rather than getting behind this war. They voted to authorize it and some of their committee members had access to the same level of info that the Pres had. That was the time to say something if they had qualms. It also reflects a mindset that does not understand what damage the pullout in Vietnam did to this nation. To stay until the end is just as important as all the other objectives; if only to wipe away the notion that America no longer has the resolve to fight a protracted war. An early pull out will telegraph to the world that we don't and that will cost lives.

    You're an intelligent person AICS, so I don't understand how you could see things so black-and-white.

    I found this statement to be very funny. You seem to equate seeing things in black and white with lack of intelligence. I think the exact opposite. The more one is able to wade through the shades of gray and come to accurate black and white conclusions the more intelligent that person is.

     
  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    fkab,

    I had let it go in another post, but I guess with your response to Malott I must discuss long term detainment of prisoners captured in war. If we capture prisoners that are engaged in activities designed to kill our soldiers why would we release them before the war is over. Would not at least some of them go back and fight us again? It is harsh in war that our soldiers must point a gun at somebody and shoot. It is harsh we must drop bombs on some. It is also harsh that we must detain prisoners until the end of the war. War is harsh, but sometimes it all is necessary.

    As for the military tribunals, I will be as brief as I can. As you have seen every single case involving a terrorist that has made it to the US courts has been turned into a circus. Multiply this by several hundred and add the best lawyers the ACLU and other such ilk can supply and it will be chaos.

    Just imagine what a lawyer can do in our criminal courts with our average street thug and apply it to war.

    Example: A man is captured on the field fighting against us. He finally gets his day in a U.S. court. Two soldiers were involved in his capture. Now they are eyewitnesses and must be flown to where the trial is. If they are still in the service by that time, the military commanders must make a decision whether to allow them to go or not. If they do not, the case is dropped. If they are allowed to go, then they go and give their testimony. The first thing a lawyer is going to do is to want to throw out their testimony on the ground that they are bias. Bias? "Yes, your honor. These soldiers were shooting at people that look like my client. They will see everybody that looks like my client in that country as the enemy and therefore are bias". If this does not work, then the lawyer will put the soldiers on trial by trying to undermine them. They will dig up all the dirt they can on them from home or on the battlefield.

    That only scratches the surface of what we would see in these trials. Is this what you want?

     
  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    FKAB,

    ...reporting on any illegal or poorly devised actions undertaken by the Government does not constitute allegations of treason.

    Your point is well-taken on the leak of the NSA phone surveillance issue, where there was a question of the program's legality (though I'm on the side that says it was legal).

    However, on the question of the finance-tracking program, ALL SIDES, including Murtha and the NY Times itself, have agreed there was absolutely nothing illegal about it.

    Nor was it poorly devised. In fact, it was effective. The NY Times also agrees about that.

    So for the Times (NY and LA) to publish details of a legal, effective, secret program that was catching terrorists, raises serious questions about both their loyalty (to America and its safety) and their intellect. How stupid could they be to make it easier for terrorists to blow up more New York landmarks--including possibly the New York Times building?

    Treason is a reasonable word to throw into the debate, given what the Times has done.

     
  • At 7:46 PM, Blogger THE RIGHT WING AGENDA said…

    Kenneth Lay dies of heart disease at 64


    Let that be a lesson to all Bigshots that make their money screwing the common Man. All that Ill gotten cash didn't buy this GOP scumbag any more time.

    Tonight KENNYBOY sleeps in HELL. Tomorrow he makes a place for Bush and Cheney.

    oh yeah...THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING!!!

     
  • At 2:59 AM, Blogger FKAB said…

    No, this statement reflects my mindset that the Dems have been playing politics rather than getting behind this war.

    I'm not talking about the Democrats. Their hapless approach to even the simplest issue is matched only by their appalling leadership. Don't get me started on the Dems.

    I see we disagree on the Vietnam War comparison. Although I was not around to see it, I do believe that its similarities with the current Iraq war are staggering. Both wars, I feel, were improperly planned and should not have been undertaken in the first place.

    As for your point about military tribunals ... what if the Iraq war lasts for ten years or more? What if, at the end of this time, thousands of POW are set to be tried for their crimes. What if there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of each individual? Then the tribunals (theoretically) have no choice but to free them. Then you have thousands of POWs suing the American government for compensation.

    ...

    It can only get worse for America if it continues in the way that it has been going. I hate to look on the negative side, but Bush is not winning any wars. Democracy is not being spread, bombs are going off every single day, and the only hint of a WMD has been some empty shells.

    As for the black and white assessment... No. Small children and gorillas look at the world in black and white terms. There's a whole spectrum of grey in between, and it is too vast to ignore.

     
  • At 8:04 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    right wing agenda helper,

    I can't quite see the relevance of a corrupt head of a company that contributed so many $$$ to Bill Clinton to the topic at hand. Thanks for driving by anyway.

     
  • At 8:19 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    fkab,

    If it lasts 10 years, then they sit 10 years. As time got extreme, I would expect a potentially different approach, but we are nowhere near extreme yet.

    As for shades of gray, I think of John Kerry when I hear that statement. I believe that truth is black and white. Try not to get side-tracked by this analogy: Either there is a God or there is not. Black and white; no gray. If truth is black and white, then it takes intelligence and wisdom to sift among all the shades of gray to find the black and white truths.

    If things do not get better in the world due to these actions, it is because there is a greater force that does not want things to get better. There are countries like Iran, Syria, China and Russia that would rather throw Iraq's potential democracy under the bus because it suits their objectives better. Then our old pals at the UN seem to have little use for democracy or the support of it. It is only if the Iraqi people yearn for freedom and control of their own destiny instead of serving and being oppressed at the boot of a dictator that they will succeed in forming a democracy.

     
  • At 4:11 AM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    Anytime you prove a truth to the left, they get quiet. Then they huddle up and come up with a false argument to explain it away. They then chant that so-called "explanation", until they all begin to believe it. They are getting quiet on a few things right now, but look out.

     
  • At 7:45 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    LA, you are so right. They just wait until the people forget it was debunked or seriously called into question. Then they come out like that never happened.

     
  • At 10:47 PM, Blogger FKAB said…

    Awww that's a bit mean! hehee

     
  • At 3:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What's more revealing is the utter silence of fact-challenged blogs like these regarding the recent New York Daily News leak of an ongoing law enforcement investigation. You know, the leak about the plot to blow up tunnels in New York. Blogs like these call the New York Times treasonous for publishing an article about a subject Bush has been publicly talking about repeatedly since 2001 and then top it off with flagrant abuse of words like "truth" and "logic" as if they had any real respect for those words and what they represent.

    While you're comfortably living in ignorance under your rock, the FBI claims this New York Daily article has compromised their contacts with some foreign intelligence services. "The person who leaked the details is 'clearly someone who doesn't understand the fragility of international relations,'' FBI assistant director Mark Mershon said. `We've had a number of uncomfortable questions and some upsetment with these foreign intelligence services that had been working with us on a daily basis.'' But since this New York Daily article is supposed to reassure us that Bush is a success, these blogs and commentators remain silent and show no outrage at this recklessness while they whine about news reports that our Congress is failing in its oversight responsibilities and the White House might be breaking the law. It's the same as with the Valerie Plame case. She was an undercover CIA operative working on WMDs at a time that America was at war over WMDs. Blowing her cover and that of her operation still gets a shrug from these blogs, and outright hostility when you call them on their hypocrisy for it.

    Blogs like this and the Malkin/Poweline/Newsmax continuum reveal a disturbing trend in American anti-intellectualism where verifiable facts are routinely ignored, falsehoods go unchallenged and blind nationalism replaces real honest patriotism, whose guidelines are found in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

     
  • At 6:51 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Anonymous,

    First, I continue to ask anonymous visitors to mark their comments with some kind of alias identifier so I can tell you apart. Perhaps you are new.

    You continue to prove something I say again and again: I am most criticized for what I do not say instead of what I do say.

    As for the New York Daily leak, I only heard a reference on Hugh Hewitt last night and did not really see much about it. I will check it out, but if that was leaked it certainly was wrong. I am not sure if that is classified material that revealing would put lives at risk, but I will check it out.

    So let's see, this happened yesterday before a weekend and since I have not hopped on it this is "utter silence". Where is your blog denouncing it? Oh, I see you don't claim to have one.

    As for the charge of "fact challenged blog" please feel free to point out some statements here that I present as fact that you can prove are "fact challenged". Sorry, statements that conflict with your opinions or agenda do not count as "fact challenged".

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Nice idea with this site its better than most of the rubbish I come across.
    »

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home