Joyous News For the Month of Adar
The Washington Post reports:
The much-trumpeted effort by the Bush White House to make deep inroads on the Democrats’ historic claims on Jewish voters — and, even more important politically, the campaign contributions of Jewish donors — has not materialized in any convincing fashion, according to poll data, fundraisers and campaign finance reports.
Well, this fight ain’t over yet. The Dems seem to be more beholden to their activist (i.e. “Progressive”, i.e. anti-Israel) wing than ever before (Screamin’ Howie for Chairman, for example). Then there’s the prospect of McCain versus Hillary. And if none of this changes things, demographics will – the Jews having (more) children, and having more Jewish children, are the right-leaning ones.
“‘Progressive,’ i.e., anti-Israel”
Come on, J, you can do better than that. How about “Progressive, i.e., baby-killing”? or “Progressive, i.e., Osama-loving”?
Fallacious generalizations take time and creativity. I expect better from you.
Yeah, Howard Dean is a regular Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I expect that’s on the current round of Jewish Republican talking points?
Go to a “progressive” anti-war rally. Wait for the “end the occupation of Iraq AND Israel” signs to appear. Anti-Israel rhetoric is the flavor of the year in the Left that I used to call home.
“Fallacious generalizations”? If only. True, it is a generalization (therefore, there are exceptions). But it was in no way fallacious. I know it hurts, but reality is reality.
““Progressive, i.e., Osama-lovingâ€? Hmmmm. OK, no, but not nearly as Osama-hating as we have a right to expect.
“Yeah, Howard Dean is a regular Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ”
I think Sam might win on points if that was spelled right (I can’t tell). But being saner than the Iranian President shouldn’t be enough of a qualification to chair one of America’s two major parties. AAAAAAAAAARRRRGH! (OK, I feel better now.)
All kidding aside, J, you shouldn’t have taken up the Osama reference. If you want to get into generalizations, it was the right wing that buttressed bin Laden in the past, it was the right wing that missed him completely (or let him go?) at Tora Bora, and it was the right wing that had the brilliant idea of diverting all our military resources away from bin Laden and the Taliban towards an irrelevant dictator.
You can run, but you can’t hide from the more accurate, or at least less fallacious, generalization: The rght wing is bff with Osama bin Laden.
EV-
You might have left out a few details. The Reagan Administration did indeed buttress OBL. But the context? In order to oppose the Russians in Afghanistan. Your failure to mention the context is like saying that Wallenberg was a forger and liar, and leaving someone else to point out that he did it to save Jews. I think Reagan’s policy was sound not only at the time but even in retrospect. You may disagree, but this is hardly “buttressing”.
Whether or not Osama could have been gotten at Tora Bora is speculation, not fact, as you have it. And the reason Bush scaled back the number of US soldiers in that attack was not softness on Osama but a desire to reduce US casualties. You may think he made the wrong call, but no sympathy for that murderer was involved. As for diversion, we have enough troops to do both. The problem is that the mountain border region either has to be invaded (US casualties) or carpet bombed (high civilian deaths).
And have we forgotten Clinton, who actually did have real chances (not speculative) to kill Osama, but was just too busy elsewhere (let’s not speculate exactly where) to get around to it?
Now another question: Were you not aware of the things I just wrote? Were you aware but hoping to pull a fast one? I’d like to know.
J,
No time to squabble now b/c I gotta go, but yes, I was aware of your context, which includes some facts, some fallacies, some evasions and some distortions. I omitted them b/c I was giving you an example of a more accurate generalization than “progressives love Osama.” Anyway, you’re gonna want examples but I gotta go, so quickly: “we have enough troops to do both.” Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa!!!!!! Very good, my man. You should do stand up.
Can’t wait.
Okay J, I know you’ve been up all night, hitting “refresh” every thirty seconds on your Dell. So sorry it took this long. Now, what was this all about? Oh yeah, that “the right wing loves Osama” is more accurate generalization than “progressives love Osama.” A thrilling dialogue!! But instead of debating that point in your response, you had to resort (and I sympathize with you, man — I imagine it ain’t easy being right wing) to contextual explanations as to why the right wing loves Osama so much. But that wasn’t the issue. The issue is which generalization fits better.
Yes, we all know the reasons Reagan helped and, yes, buttressed Osama — but that’s totally irrelevant to the discussion of which generalization fits better. And asking me whether I was aware of your contextual evasions when the debate was over which generalization fits better is itself an evasion.
E.g., re. Tora Bora, you’re evading the issue. Bush clearly has no compunctions about sending troops into harm’s way. The fact is, when intelligence said Osama was there, he pulled back. Yes, it’s possible the reason wasn’t that he loved Osama but that he was convinced Osama was hiding in Basra. But for a generalization of the right wing lovin’ some Osama, it helps the case.
Back to “As for diversion, we have enough troops to do both.” — That’s a fallacy, as we barely have enough troops to police Iraq without instituting a draft. You know this, and if you’re going to argue otherwise, we’re at a an impasse over what constitutes reality.
Re. Clinton, nice evasion, but he was too caught up in your multimillion dollar partisan witch hunt. Not that I approve of his compulsive lying, but a blow job is a blow job.
J, the generalization holds: Right wing loves Osama. It’s more accurate as a generalization than “Progressives love Osama,” with the obvious caveat that all generalizations are faulty. So please try not to generalize about progressives as “anti-Israel” or “less hateful of Osama,” thanks so much.
I have to say I’m disapointed. Is that all?
As you must be aware, since I made it clear in comment 5, this is not about which wing loves or hates Osama more. I think the Left doesn’t hate him enough. The right does, and none of your comments has changed that.
“But instead of debating that point in your response, you had to resort (and I sympathize with you, man — I imagine it ain’t easy being right wing) to contextual explanations as to why the right wing loves Osama so much. ”
Had to resort?? Wow, that’s pretty sleazy. If someone claims that FDR was a lover of Stalin because FDR armed Stalin, and a second person points out that FDR’s motive was to defeat Hitler, would you say the second person “resorted to contextual explanations”? I would say the first person is either too ignorant of reality to comment on such matters, or too dishonest to do so, and the second person should be commended for setting things straight.
“Yes, we all know the reasons Reagan helped and, yes, buttressed Osama — but that’s totally irrelevant to the discussion of which generalization fits better.”
Totally irrelevant? It shows love or tolerance for Osama if someone arms him in order to defeat a more dangerous enemy?
“And asking me whether I was aware of your contextual evasions when the debate was over which generalization fits better is itself an evasion.”
No, it was an additional question I added to the end of my post. How was it an evasion. By the way, with your new post, I have my answer.
“E.g., re. Tora Bora, you’re evading the issue. Bush clearly has no compunctions about sending troops into harm’s way. ”
Clearly? To you, maybe.
“Yes, it’s possible the reason wasn’t that he loved Osama but that he was convinced Osama was hiding in Basra.”
“It’s possible”?? So which do you think more likely? Sleazy. How about this: “yes, it’s possible that the reason you haven’t been imprisoned for rape isn’t that you bribed the police and jury but that you never committed such a crime in the first place.” See the problem?
“Back to “As for diversion, we have enough troops to do both.†— That’s a fallacy, as we barely have enough troops to police Iraq without instituting a draft. You know this, and if you’re going to argue otherwise, we’re at a an impasse over what constitutes reality.”
No, some of us have an idea of troop availability from bases in the USA, Korea and Germany, for example. We have relatively few troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Re. Clinton, nice evasion, but he was too caught up in your multimillion dollar partisan witch hunt.”
What bull. Not all of Clinton’s opportunities to get Osama came during the impeachment proceedings. Even if they had, there still wouldn’t be any excuse.
You accuse me of fallacies, evasions and distortions. But the fact remains that you passed off the notion of Reagan helping Osama as evidence of right-wing favorableness toward Osama. You knew better, and did it anyway.