Revise and Conquer
Hilarious article off the AP today, titled: "Bush Escalates Bitter Iraq War Debate" -- well, okay, but I find it kind of funny that defending a policy that over half the Democratic Senate voted to authorize is seen as "escalation" on Bush's part, when the only reason that the President is saying what he is at present (i.e. reminding the Democrats that they voted to give the President the power to go to War against Iraq) is because the DNC and MSM have been steadily ratcheting up the decibels on the "Bush Lied" meme to the point where it's drowning out anything that even remotely resembles logic or rationality.
The only reason the debate over the Iraq War is "bitter" is because the mainstream press has blown its wad rah-rah'ing the likes of anti-semitewar mom Cindy Sheehan, cheerleading the bogus indictment of Tom DeLay and pulling out all their guns in a vain snipe-hunt for Karl Rove, all while resolutely erasing and/or revising pre-2003 statements that might agree with the current administration's pre-war stance on Saddam Hussein's WMD programs.
Even Bill Clinton spent the weekend attempting to revise his flaccid little legacy, complaining that his impeachment "was an egregious abuse of the Constitution and law and history of our country" while steadfastly ignoring the ugly fact that the reason historians will simply skip right around any of his potential accomplishments is because they were overshadowed by the tawdry embarrassment he caused the American people.
Anti-War lefties may foam at the mouth regarding the Bush presidency, but it's because they hate what he stands for: naked capitalism, national pride and a strong foreign interest, all qualities that Conservatives believe are the cornerstones of a strong America. Anti-Clinton Righties, on the other hand, foam at the mouth over Clinton because he was cheap and sleazy (well, that and because his administration was spilling nuclear secrets to anyone who would listen). Apparently, Clinton believed his mandate as Chief Executive of the Nation was to fiddle with his zipper, playing "hide the salami" in the Oval Office while he should have been paying attention to North Korea thumbing its nose at the “Agreed Framework”, his own Justice Department's heavyhanded bungling of the Elian Gonzalez affair and Waco, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, the first WTC bombing in 1993 and the bombings of our embassies in Africa -- turning the office of the presidency away from anything resembling leadership and moving it smack center into tabloid fodder as a result. If anything, Bush has struggled since day one to restore public faith and trust in an office that Clinton valued less than his morning erection.
But hey, why face facts when you can simply engage in the new Democratic strategy -- revise and conquer! White Phosphorous? Chemical Weapon! Senate Intelligence Report? I been hoodwinked! Nasogastric tube feeding? Torture! Can Joe Wilson be trusted? Karl Rove must resign! Forged CBS documents? Fake but accurate! Progress in bringing democracy to Iraq? It's another Vietnam! U.N. scandal? George Galloway is a hero! And so it goes . . .
But, of course, left-leaning media bias has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this -- it's all the fault of Fox News (or maybe Wal-Mart). Bwaaa-ha-ha-ha!
OFF TOPIC:
I just ran across this article by Brian Van de Mark in the Gay & Lesbian Times (GLT) titled, "Gay Republicans – an oxymoron?" Usually, when articles that deal with the topic of Gay Republicans appear in a Gay/Lesbian publication, it's a total hit job disguised as a dialogue. This time, however, it's not a total hit job, and I'm a little surprised at the apparent searching attitude about the whole piece. It's as if Lefty gays have suddenly woken up to the fact that not everyone wants to be just like them, and that it's the height of hypocrisy to demand that the 95% heterosexual majority tolerate their differences if they can't even tolerate philosophical differences within their own ranks.
It's not the brightest article you'll ever read, and there are still traces of this strange, foot-stomping "Well, stop sipping your martinis at our trendy gay bars if you're not going to be the right kind of Right-wing gay!" -- as if the meth-addled, STD-ridden go-go boy at the club is A-Okay because at least he's out. But it's bright enough for now, and it's a start.
Money quote: “If I had to choose between joining a crowd or making a difference, I would choose to make a difference."
Comments
Another excellent piece, Homocon.
Posted by: Scott | November 15, 2005 10:31 AM
White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, it's an incendiary weapon. As such it's prohibited under Protocol III, Article 2 of the Geneva Convention for use against military targets in civilian areas.
Just thought you'd like to know.
AM
_______________
Homocon sez:
First off, as I've stated before in a previous and rather lengthy post about the Geneva Conventions, for the Geneva Conventions to apply, both warring parties have to be signatories, or if both parties are not signatories, then both must abide by the Conventions in order for them to hold. Al Queda is not a signatory to the Conventions, nor does it make any effort to abide by them.
Second, strenuous efforts were made by the U.S. military to clear all civilians from Fallujah before the commencement of hostilities, thereby negating the "concentration of civilians" clause in section 2 of Article 2 (despite the fact that the Conventions don't apply). It is estimated that 90% (if not more) of the civilian population of Fallujah evacuated ahead of the fighting. There was even criticism at the time that by allowing such a mass exodus from the city, the military was letting terrorists escape along with the civilians, but the military made specific pains to clear the field of civilians in order to avoid engaging in warfare within a concentration of civilians. There were also great efforts made by the U.S. military to push Al Queda into the NE corner of Fallujah in order to clearly separate the military objective from any remaining civilian population that may have refused to evacuate in accordance with Article 2, Section 3, thereby "minimizing incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects" (even though, of course, the U.S. military didn't have to because, well, the Geneva Conventions don't apply to this war).
Third, (and it seems that you need reminding of this fact, especially as our military is voluntarily abiding by the Geneva Conventions while our enemy doesn't), white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon is not prohibited across the board -- it is only prohibited in use against civilian populations, or against military objectives situated within concentrations of civilians. The attack on Fallujah was not an attack against a civilian population (evacuated, remember?), nor was the military objective located within a concentration of civilians (civilians evacuated, and military objective isolated in NE corner to isolate the terrorists from any stragglers who may have decided to stick around, and to minimize damage to the city as a whole).
So while your statement regarding white phosphorous: "it's an incendiary weapon" is true, it's a truth with a gaping hole big enough to drive a tanker-truck right through. White Phosphorous and munitions containing white phosphorous were not employed against a civilian population or in "a concentration of civilians" as great care was taken to evacuate the concentration of civilians from the city of Fallujah prior to the commencement of hostilities -- and white phosphorous was certainly not used "in a massive and indiscriminate way against civilians" as the Italian media would like you to believe (you know; the same Italian media that rushed to accuse the U.S. Military of firing in retaliation on one of their own as her car was barreling towards a military checkpoint, ignoring orders to stop and the Italian government had not informed the U.S. military that a rescue operation was in place . . . yeah, that Italian media). And when using white phosphorous as an illuminate and smoke tracer, or even to flush out enemy fighters, all efforts were made to isolate the military target from any remaining civilians in order to avoid and minimize civilian casualties and/or damage to civilian objects -- which means that the U.S. Military strictly and painstakingly abided by Protocol 3, Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions . . . even when it wasn't required to do so.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Posted by: The Ape Man | November 15, 2005 3:27 PM
Hey kids... It's time for "Ask Homocon!":
Dear Homocon,
When I was a teenager, my science teacher ignited magnesium and phosphorus powder during a chemistry demonstration in violation of the Geneva Convention. I know it's been a couple of decades since this illegal and potentially deadly incident was perpetrated against innocent children, but I want to send a complaint the U.N. Should I name the science teacher, the school principal, or the Reagan Administration as the violator?
Signed,
Your ol' pal Scott
_____________________
Homocon sez:
What I find most irritating about having to suffer drive-by commentary that cherry-picks from the Geneva Conventions is that the anti-war mongers often suffer from serious ADD when it comes to reading more than two lines strung together. Any in-depth examination of the Geneva Conventions will reveal that the U.S. Military is #1) abiding by the Conventions in a situation where they are not required to, and #2) they're bending over backwards to do so at great risk and cost to themselves.
Posted by: Scott | November 16, 2005 9:26 AM
I won't comment too much but to say, I thought your title, "Revise and Conquer", is brilliant! That pretty much sums it up. I am wearying of the revisionism because it makes faulty the entire discussion about Iraq. Which means that those of us who are honest enough to not rewrite history are left the immeasurable task of sorting through the lies.... or, even harder, trying to get liberals to explain history, since they're the ones with the short memories.
Also, I thought your "Off topic" topic was great. Good post. ;)
Posted by: Amy Proctor | November 20, 2005 12:30 PM