Six Conservative Guys
Six Conservative Guys - Proudly Serving the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Since 2003
We'll gladly reply to or publish your response. E-mail Six Conservative Guys
Sunday, October 12, 2003
DEBATE STRING #4
MACK: “(from earlier)... Again, you are making an argument that doesn't relate to the Question before us. The question is: will the UN protect us better than we can protect ourselves. The answer is a resounding no. We have been over why that is the case - - the UN is controlled by dictatorships, has a long record of anti-Semitism, and is inept when it comes to actually doing something about real problems. The main purpose of this organization is to shake down western nations for money, which they use to line their pockets at the expense of the third world nations they are supposed to help.”
TODD: It's not just me but also your man Bush. Here is another quote from George Bush's latest speech to the UN
"As an original signer of the UN Charter, the United States of America is committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment by working to fulfill the UN's stated purposes, and give meaning to its ideals.
The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding Documents of America stand in the same tradition. Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent. Both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations -- which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. And both point the way to peace -- the peace that comes when all are free. We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage together. "
Wow, i really agree with bush on that. I don't think i ever said we should expect the UN bring security to our country. I believe what my point was is that the world is a safer place with a neighborhood watch and not just uncle sam looking out the window of the big house on the corner.
If this is the speech I am thinking of, it was nearly universally recognized as tough language for the United Nations. He went into their house and did not back down.
You need a Diplomatic translator so you can better understand what he was saying to the UN.
Diplospeak: "As an original signer of the UN Charter, the United States of America is committed to the United Nations.”
Plain English: “Hey, shit-heads. If it weren’t for the good old U.S. of A., this building would be one giant Barnes and Noble/Starbucks instead of a debating club where the apologists of third world dictators can pretend they are part of civilized society in between bouts of ethnic cleansing or shaking down international travelers for bribe money. You wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for us and if we weren’t paying so much of the bills, you would all be meeting in some crappy motel 6 somewhere in the Netherlands.
Diplospeak: “And we show that commitment by working to fulfill the UN's stated purposes, and give meaning to its ideals.”
Plan English: If we are going to participate in this giant C-F, it better be more useful than a bunch of dictatorships trying to criticize the Israelis for protecting themselves. When we all get together and say there will be serious consequences, you all can’t be getting cold feet. If this is going to be a meaningful organization, it has to mean what it says. The coalition’s invasion of Iraq came after breech after breech of UN resolutions. In Iraq, we stood up for the ideals while many of you looked for excuses to not act.
Diplospeak: The founding documents of the United Nations and the founding Documents of America stand in the same tradition. Both assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent.
Plain English: Governments should treat their people with respect, rather than, say, throw them in wood chippers or send their sons out to rape and torture innocent people without consequence. Iraq stood opposed to all that we stand for.
Diplospeak: Both recognize a moral law that stands above men and nations -- which must be defended and enforced by men and nations. And both point the way to peace -- the peace that comes when all are free. We secure that peace with our courage, and we must show that courage together. "
Plain English: To paraphrase the Declaration, “when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one nation to kick another one’s ass….” The moral course is not to sit around and debate forever while a tyrant rules and plots against his people and his neighbors. The moral course is to act. We did.
Seriously, I think you should re-read that passage and read between the lines. As for the idea that we need a “neighborhood watch” and not Uncle Sam, I think you need to understand how this neighborhood watch system works: a bunch of old women (the UN) look out their windows for crime. When they find it… they call an actual cop to fix the problem (the US). Only after we have fixed the problem, do they send their aged husbands outside to “keep order”. The problem is, this time, the old ladies saw a problem, called 911 18 different times (resolutions) but then were upset when the cop actually showed up to do something about it (“he really wasn’t such a bad kid…”).
TODD: Lets end the rebuttals here and talk about a new topic: lets say: the insidious traitor who outed a cia agent inside the bush administration or rush limbaughs drug addiction. i bet i know which one you'll pick.
MACK: I will take the Wilson story. I haven’t spent much time talking about it because there are many more important stories – as David Frum noted today, we should be paying a lot more attention to the actual traitors at Gitmo rather than this nonsense.
The “leak” story is a mountain out of a molehill. You are pretty quick to throw around the “t” word - - I hope you aren’t questioning the administration’s patriotism!
The real question is why did the CIA let some woman send her husband, a vocal foe of the administration and its policies, on a sensitive mission like this when he had no actual training for the particular mission or specialized knowledge in the subject at hand. By his own admission, he spent most of the time sipping tea with diplomats and met with relatively few people.
Was a crime committed here? I doubt it. If she was an undercover operative (which has never been confirmed by anyone other than the Wilson’s themselves, but I will assume it) then the person who leaked this information would have had to (a) know she was an undercover operative and (b) intentionally blow her cover.
Wilson’s original story was that he was sent by the Vice President’s office, which we now know is not true.
My best guess is that it went down something like this:
Novak: Why did the VP send this loon on this important mission?
Official: They didn’t. That story isn’t true.
Novak: Who did?
Official: To be honest, and don’t quote me on this, but his wife works at the CIA and apparently recommended him for the mission. The VP’s office had nothing to do with it.
You would prefer that this be a scandal, so you (like others) prefer to believe it was someone who was actively seeking to blow her cover. I think it is more likely a case where Wilson used the VP’s office to give himself more credibility than he actually had (face it, being sent by your wife isn’t quite the same as being chosen by the VP) and this led to questions that eventually led officials to disavow his story.
Comments: Post a Comment