The Limbaugh Compromise
What follows is brilliant. And it'll never happen. Democrat in Congress don't have a single complete spine between them... Nope, I take it back. Joseph Lieberman DOES have a complete spine.
"I want to present a hypothetical here. I know this would not happen, but I'll offer a compromise, the Limbaugh Compromise to the Democrats in the Senate and in the House. The Limbaugh compromise:
"I will agree to pull our troops out of Iraq if you Democrats will agree to my conditions after the defeat, and here are my conditions to agree with you on a pullout.
"When Al-Qaeda celebrates after we pull out, after we admit defeat, every TV image of Al-Qaeda celebrating must be a split screen. On one side, Al-Qaeda celebrating; on the other side, I want pictures of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and Carl Levin smiling and congratulating themselves.
"When Al-Qaeda slaughters Iraqis after we pull out and we see the pictures of this on TV, every TV image must show a split screen. On one side of the screen, the bloody slaughter scenes; on the other side of the screen, pictures of smiling Harry Reid, smiling Chuck Schumer, smiling Carl Levin congratulating each other with big laughs.
"When Al-Qaeda takes over another village, ransacks another village, another town, another city, after we pull out, on one side of the screen, I want desperate villagers running for their lives. On the other side of the split screen, I want pictures of smiling Harry Reid, smiling Chuck Schumer, smiling Carl Levin, shaking hands and embracing and congratulating themselves.
"When the American flag burners in the Middle East start burning [our] flag and the president and vice president in effigy, I want one side of the split screen to show every image of that happening. I want the flag burners. I want the characters of Bush and Cheney being burned in effigy, and on the other side of the split screen, I want pictures of a smiling Harry Reid, a smiling Chuck Schumer, a smiling Carl Levin embracing, shaking hands, laughing and congratulating themselves.
"I think that's a reasonable compromise, and I've offered it here in all sincerity. If the Left will agree to this compromise, I will join them in calling for a pullout from Iraq."
"I want to present a hypothetical here. I know this would not happen, but I'll offer a compromise, the Limbaugh Compromise to the Democrats in the Senate and in the House. The Limbaugh compromise:
"I will agree to pull our troops out of Iraq if you Democrats will agree to my conditions after the defeat, and here are my conditions to agree with you on a pullout.
"When Al-Qaeda celebrates after we pull out, after we admit defeat, every TV image of Al-Qaeda celebrating must be a split screen. On one side, Al-Qaeda celebrating; on the other side, I want pictures of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and Carl Levin smiling and congratulating themselves.
"When Al-Qaeda slaughters Iraqis after we pull out and we see the pictures of this on TV, every TV image must show a split screen. On one side of the screen, the bloody slaughter scenes; on the other side of the screen, pictures of smiling Harry Reid, smiling Chuck Schumer, smiling Carl Levin congratulating each other with big laughs.
"When Al-Qaeda takes over another village, ransacks another village, another town, another city, after we pull out, on one side of the screen, I want desperate villagers running for their lives. On the other side of the split screen, I want pictures of smiling Harry Reid, smiling Chuck Schumer, smiling Carl Levin, shaking hands and embracing and congratulating themselves.
"When the American flag burners in the Middle East start burning [our] flag and the president and vice president in effigy, I want one side of the split screen to show every image of that happening. I want the flag burners. I want the characters of Bush and Cheney being burned in effigy, and on the other side of the split screen, I want pictures of a smiling Harry Reid, a smiling Chuck Schumer, a smiling Carl Levin embracing, shaking hands, laughing and congratulating themselves.
"I think that's a reasonable compromise, and I've offered it here in all sincerity. If the Left will agree to this compromise, I will join them in calling for a pullout from Iraq."
from the mind of... Eric | 7:53 PM
8 Comments:
So every time we do a story about a soldier dieing in combat from a roadside bomb, we get to see George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and Rush Limbaugh on the other half of the screen. Right?
When news comes on about the FOUR-HUNDRED-THOUSAND DEAD IRAQI'S there will be Condaleeza Rice's mug on the other half of the screen. Right?
When we publish the laws where our "fear of terror" caused us to trash our entire system of civil liberties, there'll be a picture of Alberto Gonzalez inset on those pages. Right?
There is nothing left I'm willing to compromise on. I will trade no more of my rights as a citizen to this tyranny of terror. These are just the things that should be done to remind us all who we have to thank for where we are today.
What rights have you traded? Have your personal civil liberties been curtailed? Are you-- PERSONALLY --less free today than you were on September 10th, 2001? What activities did you enjoy PRIOR to 9/11 that you can't enjoy now?
You're right to call it a tyranny of terror (not the Bush Admin.-- I'm sure that's what you meant). It is a tyranny of terror (the islamofascist propaganda machine aided by Main Stream Media) that has so melted the hearts, and curdled the testicles of Democrats almost across the board. Not a single complete spine among the entire lot (Lieberman excluded).
Where we are today is free from another terrorist attack since 9/11. Pull out of Iraq and the U.S. will be responsible for 100's of thousands MORE Iraqi civilian deaths. But then you'll just disingenuously blame Bush instead of the weak-bladdered democrat cowards who can't stand to see America win at anything. "Oh, America is horrible! No wonder the world hates us! If the French hate us we must be evil indeed!!!"
Give me a break. You can do better than this pathetic rebuttal.
EL you keep portraying liberal/progressive/democratic positions on the war as people who are actively rooting for the country's overthrow by islamic extremists. I don't know what to say to this. I don't know how to combat an unfounded assumption. Somewhere in your reasoning you have equated the idea of discussing means of combating terrorism with acceding to terrorists. Is it really treason to ask how a war in Iraq that seems to only grow more and more deadly is lessening islamic extremism? Is is rooting for Bin Laden to suggest that we retain the moral high ground when we treat all captured combats with full geneva convention rights? Is it unamerican to fight against a president that puts forth a view of unfettered executive power during times of war?
You say that we haven't been attacked since September 11th, but you forgot the Anthrax attack. No one has yet been brought to justice for that. You also conveniently forget that the number of world terrorist attacks has gone up since September 11th.
In the US all the disrupted "terrorist" plots have been cracked by ordinary criminal law enforcement agencies. Mostly using laws that were already in place before September 11th. Is it encouraging the terrorists to question whether we need more laws and restrictions when what we have are already working?
The US is already responsible for the current mess in Iraq and the inevitable chaos when we leave. As long as we provide security then there is no incentive for Iraqi politicians to do their work making the hard political compromises that will move Iraq forward. As long as we are there we can't bring military pressure to bear against Musharraf in Pakistan.
Democracies are founded on discussion and respect for different opinions. It's communists, dictators, theocracies, fascists, and socialists that want only one public opinion with no dissent. When you question my patriotism because of my beliefs you make me question yours.
Ben,
A few things to remember:
1) Right now, with every slightest bit of negativity regarding Iraq or the WOT, each negative story is, in effect, held along side the administration. This has been the ongoing routine since the beginning. Even now, every death, whether American or Iraqi, is blamed on the administration, shamefully so, as if there is no enemy, just our troops marching through the streets firing at whatever moves. You need to get this through your head: Radical Islamic scumbags are the reason so many have died. Not us. Never was us. We first went to remove a despot, as was the desire (if we could ever have believed the rhetoric)of the previous administration, who was the cause of so many dying previous. His minions killed some before they were mopped up and then the scumbags came to wage war with us. They are killing their own and will continue to do so in greater numbers if we leave prematurely.
2) Dissent is one thing. Saying "Bush is wrong" is not dissent, it's politics, especially if it comes with no alternatives of any kind. The pullout alternative has been trashed not to stifle dissent, but because its a stupid idea. My favorite is to pullout but leave troops to fight AlQueda and train Iraqis. Jeez, it's what we're freakin' doing for criminy sakes!
3) It doesn't matter how recent attempts have been thwarted, only that they've been thwarted. But take away a tactic or remove a weapon from the rack and the scum will seek to exploit it. The bottom line is that there have been no attacks on this country since 9/11 and that's significant and worthy of kudos. In fact, the recent NIE report, which the left is already spinning like a top, points to our efforts overseas as a reason for our successful defense against attacks here.
4) As to the Limbaugh Compromise, I can only say this: of course they wouldn't go for it. Or they'll play along to "get the troops home", but then still blame Bush for any bloodshed that follows no matter where it occurs. (After all, everything's Bush's fault) The Dems don't have the guts to make good on their threats to defund the war because they know the people won't stand for it. There's no way they'd fess up to any blowback from things going their way with cut and run.
Those are fair questions, BenT. As are Art's answers.
But as to this:
"In the US all the disrupted "terrorist" plots have been cracked by ordinary criminal law enforcement agencies."
This is simply not so. And the reason I can say this is we have no idea what program or agencies ultimately cracked or disrupted these "other" terrorist designs upon this nation. We get our information from the media, and by it's very human nature the information they pass on to us is tainted; sometimes grieviously so, othertimes 'just enough' to still sound reasonable. But we have been told, by more than just the Administration, that the covert and mislabeled operations-- revealed by the New York Times, effectively shutting down these tools against terrorism --have been helpful in stopping further terrorist attacks. The fact that these potential attacks were prevented "Mostly using laws that were already in place before September 11th" still shows that the new laws were a help. It's impossible for you and I to accurately debate the percentages of such usage being beneficial because we will never get a clear breakdown by the authorities. Suffice it to say, "These potential attacks COULD have been thwarted using ONLY laws in place prior to 9/11, but we'll never be able to say with 100% certainty that every one of them, including the ones we don't know about, could have been prevented SOLELY with laws already on the books on September 10th, 2001."
Furthermore. It is most certainly true that Democrats are trying very hard to APPEAR as though they are desperately trying to pull all our troops out of Iraq. If they really thought the American people handed them such a mandate at last years election, they'd already have moved to cut funding. They don't go that far because they know they DON'T have such a mandate.
I lose patience a lot of time with what I see coming from the Democratic party and often lump them all together under one universal label, like "Idiots". Would that this were really true! They are very cunning, but certainly not genuine idiots... which makes them all the more dangerous.
It is my firm conviction that Democrats are currently playing politics with the lives of not only American troops and civilians in the Middle East, but the lives of Iraqis as well... to say nothing of the lives of Americans here at home.
It would be a disaster for the U.S. to pull its troops from Iraq. Even the New York Times recognizes that fact, but they and democrats play their political games just the same.... with the willing aid and support of much of media.
You're right, Democracies ARE founded on discussion and respect for different opinions, but Democrats have shown they are no such animals. They instead are playing politics with the welfare not only of this nation, but the nation of Iraq as well. They all but unanimously approve Patraeus' appointment in Iraq, but seek at every opportunity to cut him off at the knees, calling the surge a failure before its full strength is even realized, and in the next breath call for troop withdrawals. This, in my opinion, is inconsistent with someone who really wants to win. Their support for Patraeus was for show in the beginning, and their call for troops to be withdrawn is for show now.
I am convinced they suffer, for the most part, from BDS-- Bush Derangement Syndrome. Their outright hatred of this President has warped their ability to reason clearly.
Marshall we went in and destabilized a country. Each individual in the end must take responsibility for their own actions, but when the blame for this cluster@#$% is partialed out to groups it is us the USA that has to accept we lit the fuse. Would Moqtada Al-Sadr have the platform that he has if there had been no Abu Graib? If we hadn't disbanded the army would an insurgency still have formed. It was our shock and awe campaign that destroyed so much of the country's infrastructure to begin with. From my perspective America has to take the lions share of the blame for the suffering there.
And as for cause for the invasion, I never thought we were going to remove a dictator. I remember debating with EL over sushi whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The fact that there is confusion about why we invaded Iraq only lends to the theory that the administration wasn't straight with the public.
As to your third point I don't want to live in a police state. I feel we were adequately protected from foreign and domestic terrorists before 9/11. I don't see why the government suddenly needs these new powers. On 9/11 it was 19 men who fell through the cracks. Yes they perpetrated a terrible tragedy. But in the end we are a country of millions. 3,000 dead is a lot but it isn't even a scratch on us. What Osama bin Laden was counting on and the operational goal of the 9/11 attack had to be to make us feel insecure. To inspire a feeling of terror. Our reactions since 9/11 show he succeeded not because there have been no other terrorist attacks, but because of the laws we have adopted changing the very underlying principals of our country.
These are my positions and I believe they are the general positions of leftists/progressives/ liberals/democrats. No American is rooting for America to fail. We do not need a new era of McCartyism.
EL now I'm gonna reply to your points.
I am not willing to give up my liberties and freedoms because they MIGHT enable a terrorist. My right to know the reason for my detention is worth 3,000 american lives. My right to have an attorney and have my case brought to a court is worth 6,000 lives. My right to assemble and speak my mind freely is worth the risk of future attacks. My right to know when and why my property is being searched is something I'm willing to sacrifice americans for.
I am not willing to sacrifice the live of civilians in another country to spare risk to the homeland. This is something that this country will have to live with forever. Because of our fear of another terrorist attack, we have destroyed our moral high ground.
As to democrats in congress: They have been bringing draw-down measures to the floor. What's new is that the Republican senate is threatening to filibuster everything. Therefore Democrats can't with their 51 positions in the senate pass anything, but budget appropriations bills. It takes 60 votes to force cloture. That means Dems need 9-10 republicans to side with them to end debate on most bills. I'm not criticizing republicans too strongly, because this is a justifiable tactic for a minority party. I am saying though that their actions are stymieing what the majority of Americans want. The polls are very clear that most Americans think it is time to start winding down our commitment to Iraq.
It will be a bloodbath there when we leave, no matter when we leave. The country has no professional class to speak of anymore. There are almost no utilities. And there is no central government. We cannot cause a government to form because any politician we support will be hated by the populace.
Either soon or definitely after the next election dems will have the votes needed to overide a republican filibuster. There are 21 republican senators running for reelection and only 12 democrats.
Cause and effect. One event causing another. Liberals always want to disconnect the two. When you start a war(as Congressional Democrats did), and then whine about the natural consequences of war (death, some loss of individual autonomy)as though they could be avoided, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that liberals want to have it both ways. They want to be safe from harm AND able to be free from posssible surveillance. They want to fight Al Qaeda AND have no presence in the region. They are the same people who want to have sex AND never worry about pregnancy. It's childish.
Post a Comment
<< Home