Only a Liberal…

I respect consistency… to a point. It is easy to criticize Cindy Sheehan, and she should be criticized. She blames everyone else for the russian roulette her son played by signing up for the military voluntarily. While I have serious issues with the way our military handles the rules of engagement, and I have sympathy for the loss she has suffered, Sheehan’s anti-war protests have been over-the-top.

With that being said, she followed President Obama to Martha’s Vineyard to continue protesting war in the Middle East (Breitbart.com). While Moveon.org and the DailyKos and MSNBC have suddenly become not-so-anti-war in the wake of Obama’s election, Cindy Sheehan remains consistent, protesting Republican and Democrat alike.

I respect that. I respect it like I respect the religious nutbars who go to military funerals holding signs that say “God killed your son because of homosexuals.” I respect the consistency, not the behavior. The behavior is disgusting, horrific nonsense that should not be allowed to take place near a funeral, but it is consistent. Some Americans are breaking the rules of their religion, and they believe God is punishing American military for it. Within their universe, that makes sense. I can’t stand liberal Catholics who support abortion. Not because of any stance I have on abortion, but because they pick and choose which parts of their religion to follow. If you wanna sign up for their club, you follow all the rules, not some. Again, the funeral protesters are revolting to me… I am not complimenting their disrespectful, disgusting behavior. I would be hard-pressed not to be arrested if I ever crossed paths with them, but there is something to be said for their consistency.

So, I applaud Cindy Sheehan for having the backbone to continue her quest, as misguided as it is, despite the White House being occupied by a member of a different political party. She has probably lost many a liberal friend over it.

I think the wording of a poll question is critical to really understanding the “I want the President to fail” debate. Do you want the President to fail in general, or do you want policies you disagree with to fail? Most partisan invertebrates answer this question with blind emotion, and I reserve a special place in hell for these morons. President Clinton passed welfare reform. Although I strongly dislike him in general, I did not want him to fail at doing that simply because he’s a poopy head.
Regardless, this hypocritical outrage at Rush Limbaugh for wanting Obama to fail is ridiculous. In August of 2006, a Patterico poll found that 51% of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed. The majority of these 51% simply hate George W. Bush, and failure increased the chances of a Democrat in 2008. They are entitled to do so, but don’t shower us with all this outrage that you liberals didn’t have in 2006. Its amazing to see the idiotic, ignorant comments on sites like Huffington Post:

Al Eisele: The Republican Party, America’s second oldest political party and a force in American politics and government since the time of Abraham Lincoln, died on March 1. It was 155 years old.

James Moore: The more people that hear Limbaugh articulate his disdain for the success of America the better will be the country’s chances of rejecting his hateful ideology and getting back on the path to prosperity.

Jill Brooke: Who were the undisputed champs of CPAC? Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh — two unmarried people without any children.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Limbaugh said on numerous occasions that America wanted to fail, yet Moore claims Limbaugh has “disdain for the success of America.” Flat-out, shameless liar. Mr. Eisele WISHES from the depths of his soul that the Republican party died as a result of Rush’s speech, but wishful thinking will get him nowhere. Jill Brooke flat out changed the subject, showing that her opinion is as worthless as an Obama campaign promise. Check out that link and see more comments in a substance vacuum from scholars like Alec Baldwin and Michael Moore.
Rush has said on numerous occasions that he is specifically referring to the liberal/socialist policies that Obama is putting into place and planning for the future. That is what he wants to fail: not America. Getting mad at Limbaugh without addressing the substance of his argument is intellectually cowardly. “Us vs. Them” bullshit is getting worse everyday; I am so sick of it.

If you want either President to fail at everything, you are an idiot. Please stop voting and reproducing; you are too dumb to live. If you want them to fail at doing specific things that you ideologically disagree with, you are normal.  Get the facts before you form so-called “strong” opinions.

Only a liberal would be for a “global poverty act” where we send lots of our hard-earned American money to foreign government (not people, their governments) with the hope that the brutal dictators running and causing the country’s poverty will actually get it to the people whom the money is meant for.

I’m sure that’s not the “hope” Obama was planning on giving the American people. Only a liberal would be ok with the scenario above while simultaneously being against our military going into Iraq to free them from a dictator that mistreats them and let the world know that misbehavior like that and on 9/11 will not be tolerated. To a liberal, it is wrong for us to actually be in charge of how the money is spent. The logic of these two positions is flawed.
I am no fan of President Bush when looking at the sum of his presidency, but there are plenty of other sources criticizing him. Here are three undeniable accomplishments of George W. Bush; he rid the world of Saddam Hussein, he decimated al Qaeda, and he convinced Muammar Gaddafi to surrender his WMD program without firing a shot. These great things occurred despite his Texan accent.

The recent Russian invasion of Georgia made big news recently, prompting questions of Russia wanting to get back in the superpower game. What a preposterous suggestion when you learn that’s not in the cards. If the fact that Russia invaded Georgia with tanks doesn’t convince you, read on.

I’ve also heard people refer to China’s “billion man army.”

The key phrase here is “military projection.” There are lots of countries that can defend themselves, but attacking other countries is whole different story.

Ability to project across oceans

Russian navy ships: 701
Chinese navy ships: 232
American navy ships: 1,866

Air force

Russian aircraft: 7,331
Chinese aircraft: 2,700
American aircraft: 18,169

Ability to shift funds to military

Russian GDP: 1.3 trillion
Chinese GDP: 3.3 trillion
American GDP: 13.8 trillion

Check out this graphical illustration of our dominance in missile defense systems.
Liberals, when you say we’re losing the war in Iraq, you sound painfully ignorant. No one, not even China or Russia, especially not some unorganized renegades in the middle east, is in the same league as the United States. Its not even close. Losing the war, are you insane? We can crush any country in the world without losing a single life. We just choose not to because you spineless wimps whine and moan any time some conservative makes the tough decision to risk lives, so we fight wars with our hands tied behind our back.

China and Russia can certainly decimate their neighbors. They can project militarily in a very powerful way nearby. Their ability to project globally is dwarfed by ours. We have twice the ships they have combined, almost twice the aircraft combined, and to match our GDP, they would have to combine theirs with Japan and Iran to match us. Good luck getting Japan on board. Russia and China could theoretically kill lots of people by firing every missile they have at us, but they wouldn’t dare because it would be suicide.

Russia invades with tanks? Dont make me laugh. We have video games that use more strategy than rolling missile magnets.

I have been absolutely enamored with the blind hatred of President George W Bush… it really is quite amazing, especially since it comes from people who are so quick to condemn judgment of anyone. My attitude is he is a politician who panders, jukes, and says things he doesnt mean to be powerful and liked by as many people as possible. I asked myself, “Is this guy really the anomaly the liberal left claims he is? Why do they hate this man so much?” And I found the website whywehatebush.com. Ok, great I’ll get my answers…

The first statement on their homepage at the very top says “Bush stands against everything that America stands for.” Really? Everything? You’d think by luck he might stand for SOMETHING that America stands for. I think one of the things you can say about Bush is he is VERY pro-American, and some people might have some good arguments why that might be bad if overdone. Then my eyes dart over to some numbers… ok, they have some actual stats that show President Bush really is evil…

FACT: BUSH OIL
1999 - $19 BARREL
2006 - $70 BARREL

Now, hold on a minute… if I recall, he didnt take office until early 2001… what do oil prices in 1999 have to do with him? I looked up the numbers, in 2000 the price was $28, 2001 it was $23… we’ll call it $25. Evidently, $19 sounded better to them. So does a $55 increase in a barrel of oil prove he’s evil? I suppose if he’s responsible for it and there are no other factors that contribute. I’d stipulate the President of the United States doesn’t have the slightest effect on oil prices other than with policies he approves, like if he allowed drilling in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico, prices would go down. So if Bush is credited with astronomical gas prices, is he also credited with all the electronics price decreases during his office? One might argue he has no effect on that stuff. I AGREE.
Below that there is a list of 11 things that explain why they hate Bush. #1 is vague, but #2 says,
“Bush and his cabal of henchmen lied to the American people about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and they continue to obfuscate the truth while their companies cash in, Iraqis suffer and American soldiers die.”

Aside from the He-Man-esque “henchmen” comment, this is just silly. I have heard this echoed for years as the quintissential crime committed by Bush, that he LIED about WMD. If he lied about it, EVERYONE ON EARTH lied about it. And I quote,

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
So it is clear and unarguable that hating Bush for the WMD issue is IRRATIONAL if it is only pointed at Bush. There is an ENDLESS list of quotes like this at freerepublic.com and elsewhere.

Now I realize that this website is not the best criticism to analyze, but it is representative of the layman. I will get to the slightly more intellectual comments soon… one more bullet from this site:

“The Bush Administration has manipulated the media to the point of undermining the Constitutional guarantees of a Free Press.”

Are you kidding me? Do people really believe the media SUPPORTS President Bush due to his control? It’s so patently absurd as to be laughable. And if there was a SHRED of truth to this statement, Bush would have been EASILY impeached and removed from office.

That brings up another point… Bush is the worst liar in history according to the liberal left. He does nothing but lie, lie, lie. Let’s look at this rationally… we all agree that there are a substantial number of Americans who hate George W Bush, and want him out of office, including a majority of congressmen. If they have all this evidence that he lied, why have they been unable to get rid of him?

This great country has a fever, and it aint from SUV-caused global warming. The justice system here is far from perfect, but it has been very successful at accurately identifying criminals, reducing the number of innocent people being punished for crimes they didn’t commit. It is absolutely vital that a nation have faith in the fairness of its justice system, so as not to walk on egg-shells fearing its government. This has been achieved by the concept of innocent-until-proven-guilty and due process.

The problem is when this logic is extended to areas outside of domestic justice. Crime is not a threat to our nation, it is an unavoidable nuisance in the big picture, so we have the luxury of applying due process and assuming innocence. You cannot extend this same logic to national security. The rule of law is very powerful here in the United States, so we are able to have the luxury of a slow-moving justice system. This luxury canNOT be extended to national security; that would be suicide. We believe all humans are created equal, but that does not mean all nations are created equal. Most other countries are appallingly corrupt, relative to the United States, and to operate under any other assumption is foolish and naive.

This thought process has been applied to the WMD argument of Saddam’s Iraq. Because of Bush Derangement Syndrome, the American left has inflicted a “GOTCHA” on the Bush administration, CONSTANTLY trumpeting that there were never any weapons of mass destruction.

Let’s not forget the numerous stories of UN inspectors showing up to Iraqi facilities that had recently done “housecleaning” in preparation; let’s not forget the 500 weapons munitions containing degraded mustard and sarin nerve gas. If there was an American trial to prove that WMDs are in Iraq, and the only evidence was the degraded mustard and sarin, a wily defense attorney could argue that the weapons munitions are degraded and therefore don’t classify as weapons of mass destruction. This is essentially what has happened in the national debate, and is borderline insane, but it flies as logic and a valid argument. The key here is for Americans to detach their “due process logic” from such issues and recognize the evidence. These same Americans will find cookie crumbs in their child’s bed, and won’t hold a trial to determine whether they stole from the cookie jar.

** Image from parody article on crookedpres.com.

Republicans are not necessarily the perfect answer, but you gotta be kidding me with this stuff. The only thing funnier than this is the campaign that made this video, John Edwards’s campaign, is so much worse than Hillary…

YouTube Video: The Politics of Parsing