Thursday, December 04, 2003
A college roommate of mine has turned into a Republican, and keeps sending broadcast emails of right-wing propoganda to his friends and family. I've developed a habit of hitting reply-all to his emails and offering a counter-point to his emails with no reponse so far. What does this mean?Does it mean that he was set straight and is somewhat embarassed about sending the original email? Or does it mean he disagrees with my response but doesn't want to debate the issue any further? Not sure. Here's the latest. It reads from the bottom, with my response at the top:
-------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Forbes.com story
"Let's begin by acknowledging that all is not perfect in Iraq. Crime rates are high, almost as high as New York City's." - Caspar Weinberger
Let's begin by acknowledging that Caspar Weinberger's first lie in this article was the very first stat that he cited. Over the 28 day period from October 26-November 23rd, there were 38 people murdered in NYC, and 80 US Military killed in Iraq. Of course, this doesn't include the hundreds, if not thousands of Iraq civilians that were also killed over that same time period.
Don't believe me? Check the stats:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cscity.pdf
http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm
If you have to lie to make a point, your point wasn't made. Sorry Caspar.
This was a sorry attempt to change the topic AWAY from why we're in Iraq in the first place. The Bush administration's case for going to war with Iraq was based on fabricated links between Sadam Hussein and Al-Quaida, along with a State of the Union speech given by Bush where he told the whole country that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction including chemical weapons which could be armed and launched in as little as 45 minutes. We now know that this is complete bullshit, and it's cost our country well over $100,000,000,000 to support these lies. Why does this administration have the audacity to insult countries who saw through the lies and decided not to put their own citizens at risk to support Haliburton's war?
With an election coming up, I can see why Caspar is trying to put a positive spin on the billions of dollars spent and hundreds of Americans killed this year without capturing Sadam Hussein or Osama bin Laden (remember him?).
If Forbes is a part of the "liberal Big Media" why didn't they do some fact checking on Caspar's piece before publishing it? Who do you think owns Forbes?
Here's a hint to people buying into this crap: Do you think your average out of work (or underemployed or uninsured) American gives a rip about the living conditions of your average Iraqi? Get real. It's a losing issue for Republicans.
Take care, and support our troops.
-Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt A. [mailto:-----@-----------.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:06 PM
To: ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------;
Subject: FW: Forbes.com story
Please pass this on…
-----Original Message-----
From: ----------
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:26 PM
To: ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------; ----------;
Subject: FW: Forbes.com story
-----Original Message-----
From: T. & D. Y.[SMTP: ----------@ ----------.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:28 AM
To: ----------; ----------; ----------;
Subject: Fw: Forbes.com story
>
> ---------- -----------
> -------------
> --- --- ----
>
>
>
> If all the information below doesn't convince you that "big media" is
trying
> to hide the successes of the Bush administration in Iraq, nothing will.
>
> Why don't we hear any of this from any of the networks? Are they all that
> incompetent that they can't see it, or is it that they choose to ignore
it?
> All they want you to hear is the bad stuff.
>
> Remember, "big media" is really just part of "big entertainment" and the
> liberal Democratic party. And there is an election coming up.....
>
>
>
>
> Current Events
> You Read It Here First
> Caspar Weinberger, 12.08.03, 12:00 AM ET
>
> One of the problems of our postwar results in Iraq is that most of the
principal U.S. press outlets have been reporting, to the exclusion of almost
anything else, the negative events since our military stunningly toppled
Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. It's time to redress the balance and present
our readers with some facts that demonstrate how well America's goals in
Iraq are being achieved.
>
> Let's begin by acknowledging that all is not perfect in Iraq. Crime rates
are high, almost as high as New York City's. Our forces have had to deal
with the depredation and senseless destruction loosed on the country by some
100,000 of Iraq's criminals, whom Saddam released from jail shortly before
our troops went in.
>
> What we are seeing now is the uniform disdain and ill-founded criticisms
of those who opposed the war from the beginning; those who, because of next
year's presidential election, oppose everything the Administration or
President Bush does or says; and those countries, such as France and
Germany, that are angered by any suggestion of American success anywhere and
which fear their huge and improvident prewar loans to Iraq may not be
repaid. Many of these countries are also motivated by equally tawdry reasons
of trade.
>
> But despite all the negative reportage there is a great deal of good
news--especially for those who hope to see a free and democratically led
Iraq living in peace with itself and its neighbors.
>
> Education
>
> Nearly all of Iraq's schools are open, and data from 10 of the primary and
secondary schools showed an encouraging increase in enrollment. All 22
universities and 43 technical institutes are also open. In October
universities received 1,500 computers, and South Korea is helping establish
Internet centers.
>
> Teachers now earn 12 to 25 times their former salaries. The Economist
reported that before the war a Baghdad primary school teacher was paid the
equivalent of $6 a month; her husband, a factory overseer, earned $13 a
month. Today their combined monthly income is close to $450; for the first
time they are able to buy many standard consumer goods.
>
> Public Health
>
> All 240 hospitals and 1,200 primary health clinics are open. Spending for
public health is more than 26 times what it was during Saddam's regime, and
doctors' salaries are 8 times what they were. More than 22 million vaccine
doses have been given to children, and more than two-thirds of drinking
water supplies have been restored.
>
> Security
>
> By Oct. 24 we had trained some 85,500 Iraqis: 55,000 police; 6,400 border
guards; an 18,700-man Facilities Protection Corps; 700 new Iraqi Army
graduates, with the goal of 27 battalions trained in a year; a 4,700-man
Civil Defense Corps; and an additional 10,000 Iraqis in training for these
forces. In addition, 32 countries have more than 24,000 troops on the ground
in Iraq, including the Polish-led forces that are in command of the
south-central part of the country.
>
> Our training and recruiting personnel have had to deal with the fact that,
in order to survive, most Iraqis had to have had some association with or
given some support to Saddam and his Baathist Party regime. It is therefore
slow work ensuring that those we are training are suitable for the work in
the new Iraq.
>
> Public Services
>
> Years of neglect wreaked major damage on Iraqi water, power and sewerage
systems. All are being repaired and improved. Oil production, even from
oilfields urgently in need of modernization following decades of calculated
neglect, averaged 1.9 million barrels a day in October and is moving closer
to the prewar level of 3 million.
>
> Power generation reached 4,518 megawatts of electricity in early October,
compared with 300 megawatts, prewar. Three-fourths of the prewar level of
telephone service has been restored.
>
> The courts are in session, and some 50,000 claims against the old
government have been filed with the bar association.
>
> A new currency has been issued and the independent central bank opened two
months after the war ended. It took three years for post-WWII occupied
Germany to do this.
>
> The Future
>
> On July 13 Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator Paul Bremer
appointed the all-Iraqi Governing Council. On Nov. 15 the CPA and the
Council committed to a political timetable for Iraq. As the White House
announced, the plan "meets a key mutual objective of the Coalition and the
Iraqi people: the restoration of sovereignty to a body chosen by the
citizens of Iraq and based in a legal framework. It also commits Iraq to a
process for drafting a permanent, democratic constitution that protects the
rights of all citizens."
>
> On Nov. 6 President Bush signed the Iraq and Afghanistan supplemental
appropriations bill into law. This will bring $87 billion to our global war
on terror. It will help support our servicemen and -women with weapons,
equipment and salaries; build stable democratic societies in these two
countries, as well as train and equip those citizens who are fighting to
defend and secure their rights; upgrade schools and hospitals; and repair
infrastructure and improve services, such as water, electricity and
sanitation.
>
> It wasn't until last month that papers began reporting on the progress
that's been made in Iraq. We must keep in mind that it has been only seven
months since our military brought down Saddam and that it will take time for
the Iraqis to build the foundation for a free, self-governing country.
>
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
If you haven't checked out The Top Ten Conservative Idiots - Democratic Underground you're missing out. I haven't seen a Republican response to this, which only reinforces my belief that this is the real deal and indefensible by the right. LOL. It's good to be right, and by right I mean corrent, not Limbaugh.
I was listening to Hugh Hewitt tonight on The Patriot AM 1280 in Minneapolis when Hugh was attempting to break down the Howard Dean interview on Chris Matthews. I turned in late, but apparently Hugh was attempting to make some point about Howard Dean not being a veteran and trying to use this against the doctor/Governor. Hugh seemed to be trying to make a point that Dean is not qualified to discuss international affairs because he isn't a veteran.
Somehow a caller managed to make it past the screeners and pointed out that our current president, George W. Bush, managed to avoide the Vietnam War due to some influence by his father, and apparently decided not to show up for a good portion of his Texas Air National Guard duty.
At this point, the bumper music started and Hugh Hewitt went to commercial as he told his caller he'd follow up with him after the break. So I stayed with Hugh through the commerical to find out how he'd address this clearly hypocritical behavior by his liar in chief. What did Hugh return to? Unbelivably, he simply dropped the caller and moved on to another subject.
What a convervative coward! This is becoming a typical response from the right. If you are not on the right side of an argument, simply shut out the opposing views.
Somehow a caller managed to make it past the screeners and pointed out that our current president, George W. Bush, managed to avoide the Vietnam War due to some influence by his father, and apparently decided not to show up for a good portion of his Texas Air National Guard duty.
At this point, the bumper music started and Hugh Hewitt went to commercial as he told his caller he'd follow up with him after the break. So I stayed with Hugh through the commerical to find out how he'd address this clearly hypocritical behavior by his liar in chief. What did Hugh return to? Unbelivably, he simply dropped the caller and moved on to another subject.
What a convervative coward! This is becoming a typical response from the right. If you are not on the right side of an argument, simply shut out the opposing views.
