Jejudo, South Korea
Well, now that we have that settled.
But before I was so taken by your opinions concerning expatriates, the question I was going to address is this:
"If someone disagrees with Bush, they are liberals disabusing their freedoms or just being snide. The inference is that *real* Americans would never do such a thing.
But the very same writer turns around and accuses another President of treason. And then, "I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration."
~ Non-sequitur. You are mixing two issue together. Clinton did sell various technologies to our enemies, but the writer didn't "bash" him with idiotic and pure emotional dribble derived from unfounded half-cocked opinions appearing as concrete facts, such as many liberals who oppose the war have "bashed" the president.
First, I am not sure what this means. I can certainly say that taken at face value, this is false. I am positive that Clinton did not personally sell technology to Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or Al Queda. There was some question as to relaxing technological requirments with trade to China. Is that what this refers to?
If so, isn't that a non-sequitur? If Clinton did relax technological requirments, then it doesn't follow that 'he sold weapons to our enemies'.
Or, if you accept that, how do you deal with Dubya's deals with the Taliban, the Reagan administration's support of Hussein in the eighties, and the Iran-contra debacle.
There is, after all, a connection, isn't there.
Second, these phrases are not statements of facts, they are intended to do something (like show the moral self-righteousness of the author). Facts in and of themselves do nothing, facts can be useful but only if they are relevant to what you want to do. And relevance/significance is exactly what we're talking about.
While it's true that the left plays poltics, the point is that so does the right. The point is that saying things like, we use facts, we use objectivity are playing politics.
As Sudhir and Hush both point out it is no secret that Dubya has something personal in all of this, "After all, he did try to kill my dad." That's a fact. How relevant is it? A few months ago, it's the only thing I could think of that explained this sudden shift to Iraq, "Why Iraq, why now?"
I don't believe that anymore, but it makes no sense to criticize others for not listening to the facts when what you mean by that has to be significant facts and that is political. I've already pointed out the personal factor (even the appearance of conflict of interest is enough to recuse a judge, is it not?). But a sophisticated argument can be made that Bush is playing geo-politics in precisely the way that France, Germany, and Russia are playing (They have an agenda as Michael said), and, yes, it does involve oil (the facts are there if one looks at certain recent business contracts with Iraq and Russia for example.).
But you dismiss these facts as propaganda. Fair enough, I also agree that these things are probably not the overriding reason, but if Dubya hasn't even considered them, then I would say he's not being a good president. Facts aren't the issue here, politics are, geo-political advantage is.
Interestingly enough, your own rhetorical style mimics the Bush administration. You don't try to persuade others, you dismiss anybody who disagrees with you as not being logical or factual, as being emotional or deluded. But what you miss is that this situation is not scientific, it is political, the point is to get as many people on your side as possible so that you can do what you want to do, not test for the speed of gravity. As a result, you are attempting a political play by relying on the 'trust' of words like facts and logic.
Is it working? As far as I can tell, the only people who agree with your heavyhandedness are people who already agree with you. You didn't need to talk to them. Is it working for the Bush administration?
No. Why do I think so? Because, well, it's not working. Working here is defined by getting other people to do what you want them to do, not by being right about the facts.
If you can't see the difference, then it is because your mind prevents you from seeing.
Or you know exactly what you're doing and laughing all the way through. I admit this is a possibility. But one would think you could do it a little better than this.
Nevertheless, on one point, I heartily agree with you and the author:
And the media quips qouted are also facts.
I remember those, they were disgusting and an embarrassment.