Sticks 'n Stones

By GotDesign
In my most recent post -- Propriety -- I started with a brief discussion of why I am Republican. This is frequently an action that will draw a response of some sort, and this particular posting is no exception. Some unknown commenter -- "JB" -- decided to take me on regard my statements in this posting. Below I have posted his original comments and I will reply to each statement he makes. I would have responded directly to "JB," but he/she did not leave an e-mail address to which I could respond. So I have chosen to respond here.'s hard to read this without laughing.
quote: "We Republicans don't just throw money..."
Really? What do you call Iraq? How about throwing enough money (as
in over 200 billion dollars & counting) to bring our national debt
to previously unimagined proportions (after those morally repugnant
Democrats had balanced the budget for us), dropping the dollar into
the toilet, and bringing the economy to a near standstill. I guess
the Republicans don't just throw money, they also throw the lives of
young men and women as well.

There is a great difference between throwing and spending money. For instance, one hallmark of liberal social policy is the tendency to constantly increase spending on educational programs without any sort of metrics for tracking the success or failure of these policies. This is throwing money at an issue. In JB's example of Iraq, this is not an instance of throwing money and expecting results. Money is being spent to fund the U.S. military's efforts to effect regime change in Iraq (a U.S. policy since 1998 -- completed 2003), restore social order (in progress), empower the Iraqi people to defend themselves (in progress), and prepare the way for a democratic form of government in Iraq as defined and selected by the Iraqi people. This is not throwing money, it's money well spent. As for the lives of U.S. service men and women, they are never asked to give "the last full measure of devotion" without reason. And while JB may not like the reason for sending our best and brightest into harm's way, as Thomas Jefferson once said (a perennial favorite of liberals) "
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Just what exactly are you referring to when you are saying
"republicans take their civic responsibilities as seriously as their
civic liberties?" Or by civic responsibilities do you mean
protecting the interests of Big Business?

Liberals are frequently crying about freedoms and liberties. Our constitution guarantees U.S. citizens certain freedoms -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc. But you rarely hear them speak of the responsibilities of each citizen also bears as part and parcel of that citizenship. For instance, responsibilities may include (and are not necessarily limited to) military service, the assistance of civil authorities (police, emergency services, etc.) in maintaining social order, service in the governing bodies of our nation (local, state and federal), etc.

As for "Big Business," all business entities -- from sole proprietorships to multinational corporations -- abide by laws and regulations set by the people of the United States (and other countries when applicable) through the Congress. It is this body of laws that governs all commerce. Businesses have a right to ply their trade and make whatever profits they can within the law. A basic tenet of business is that as risk increases, so does reward. Businesses who take larger risks, frequently receive larger rewards (from the market) for doing so. But, as always, they have to be responsive to the markets (read "the people"). For example, oil companies used to have little concern for the environment until the greater public decide that a clean environment is important to them. Since that time of environmental awakening, oil companies have had to clean up their act, so to speak, as a matter of social or civic responsibility. So, as long as business act within the laws that govern commerce, I have no problem with them making as much profit as they can responsibly make.

And just what exactly is "trumped up" about the Plame-CIA leak? and
why do you refer to it as a "so-called" leak? It is a fact that
Plame's undercover identity was outed. Is it not? It is a fact that
outing an undercover agent's identity is a crime, not um...a civic
Partisanship has nothing to do with it.
Yes, Libby should be prosecuted. Great. Now what about Rove?

The whole matter of Valerie Plame is trumped up. There is no record that Ms. Plame has ever worked as a covert agent for the CIA or any other government organization. At the time of the newspaper article in question, Ms. Plame was flying a desk at the CIA. If you will refer to my earlier post -- Plame Game -- you will find that the mere statement that Ms. Plame is/was an employee of the CIA is not criminal. And partisanship has everything to do with it. It was Ms. Plame's husband -- a dyed in the wool Bush hater -- who made the assertion that the law broken in "outing" his wife. There was no outing. And Ambassador Wilson has been caught in any number of lies about his role in the matter and his participation in a mission to Niger regarding Yellow Cake allegations.

Libby should be prosecuted only if he was found to have lied to the grand jury. I don't think he will be found guilty of perjury at all. Rove has been cleared of any wrong-doing, so, what about Rove?

Oh, and speaking of lying...where are the Weapons of Mass
Destruction? Why has everyone forgotten about that?

There were no lies about WMD. At the end of the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, the U.S.-led coalition found large quantities of WMD in Iraq. As part of the cease fire agreement with Iraqi, they were supposed to destroy these materials in the presence of coalition/UN inspectors. Inspectors were never allowed to watch the destruction of Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Since that time, every major intelligence organization in the world claimed that Saddam Hussein maintained his stock of WMD -- the U.S., the British, the French, the Germans -- everyone. Since we had no evidence of their destruction, the natural assumption was that they remained in Saddam's arsenal. After the 2004 invasion, no WMD were found. Many reasons have been advanced for their absence. The most credible reason, in my opinion, is that they were transported out of the country -- possibly to either Syria or North Korea. At most, there was an unforgivable lapse in the intelligence regarding Iraqi WMD. But this does not mean that anyone lied. It means that we were misled. There is a big difference.

Make no mistake. Clinton did lie...and that was wrong. Unequivically wrong. However, I think it's interesting that you dismissed the Plame incident as a partisan attack...if the Clinton incident was not a partisan attack, I don't know what was. That doesn't make it any more right...but at least his actions did not put someone's life at risk.

Actually, the impeachment of President Clinton was not a partisan attack. Clinton lied to a grand jury and he was correctly prosecuted for it.

We acted against the UN in attacking Iraq. Shouldn't someone be

The U.S. acted in accordance with the U.N. Charter and international law. First, the united States was the major signatory power to the Persian Gulf War cease fire agreement. Iraq failed to uphold its responsibilities as a part of this cease fire agreement and was therefore liable for a resumption of hostilities without regard to any claims by the U.N. As for the United Nations, Article 51 of the UN Charter and the precedents of international law allow any UN member nation to act in preemptive self-defense of their national interests. The United States (and others) passed 17 resolutions through the UN Security Council and Iraq did not comply with any of them. The final Security Council resolutions allowed the U.S. to act in any way to enforce the outstanding resolutions. Therefore, we did not act "against the UN." We were acting in accordance with the U.N. Charter and international law.

Or is that more Republican civic responsibility?

Actually, our actions in Iraq could be considered an action of "civic responsibility" if you expanded the general definition to a global scale.

It will be interesting to see if JB will reply to this posting. The facts are already on record as I have stated both here and in other postings. If JB does reply, I'm sure it will be more unsubstantiated spin. But I will listen to any reasoned argument.


0 comments so far.

Something to say?