Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Liberal myths debunked-America isolated?

A major liberal myth since the Iraq invasion is the “isolation” the invasion has caused the United States. Day after day, the liberal press repeated the big lie that our “friends and allies” didn’t support the Iraq invasion.. Today, the red herring of deceit was confronted by the hammerhead of reality.

The lie was always obvious. All but four NATO nations supported the Iraq invasion. A majority of the UN Security Council nations supported the invasion. Two of the four NATO nations that opposed the campaign , France and Germany, then had governments inexorably implicated in the “Food for Oil Scandal”. In both France and Germany the liberal governments were trounced in their first elections following their break with the US over Iraq.

Here at TRS we have frequently exposed the disconnection between objective factual evidence of “isolation” by citing to the dramatically improved relationships the United States has enjoyed with several nations, significantly places like Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan (where the pro American Musharraf is engaged in some political brinksmanship with the even more pro American Bhutto) as well as former enemies like Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. Hell, we’ve kind of got handle on the nut bag in North Korea (knock on wood).

It wasn’t just TRS saying it today. French President Sarkozy told the world that France is renewing its vows with Uncle Sam. French President Sarkozy said today that he came to the United States with a simple message: "
To reconquer the heart of America in a lasting fashion." Doesn’t it sound nice to be courted again?

The only gray lining in this silver cloud is the limited audience it received. No coverage on the three network nightly news broadcasts. These are the same networks that do lavish close up coverage of every anti-American rally in the world.

Guess the good news doesn’t fit the template.


RF said...

You must be kidding. Or maybe you just never talk to people from abroad, read first-hand foreign media or be exposed to any non-party-approved coverage about world issues and opinions. The rest of the world more or less unanimously agrees with the 70% majority in this country that this presidency has been a complete fiasco. Of course, we still command a lot of respect around the world because of the great ideals we represent and because we are the most powerful country in the world. They respect us despite this disastrous presidency. They know W will soon be history. And to connect right-of-center victories in Europe to W and/or the Iraq War shows your complete lack of understanding of European politics. Plus, I thought the French didn't matter to you. They are part of the irrelevant Old Europe, right?

Anonymous said...

rf is right. How about going on the world tour for a few months Ted? You can wear your USA t-shirt and American flag hat. Walk up randomly to 100 people in each country and ask them what they think of the USA. If you make it back alive you can tell us what they think of us.

R. L. "Bobby the Sack" Saccamano said...

R. L. "Bobby the Sack" Saccamano said...
MARK KLEIN, I believe you must have missed this one from Ken Hoyle:

Hi Mark, Ken Hoyle, here. Just wondering when you were going to address Saccamano's assertion that you threw a phony threat claim out there just to draw attention to yourself. Said you were going to sic the Secret Service on us, too, as I recall. You can post in here all day but until you clear that one up I don't see a time as to when anyone is going to let up on you. Either admit you made a mistake or have the pair to admit you're a liar.

16 days and counting, Klein continues to dodge questions regarding his phony threat claim.

MARK KLEIN, M.D. said...

Ted--Let's not go overboard about North Korea. It didn't agree to dismantle its finished nuclear weapons or hand over its stock of enriched uranium. In exchange for dismantling its reactor we're allowing NK to continue its counterfeiting, gambling, arms export, and drug dealing rackets.

Wow! We have two puppets vying for power in Pakistan. Doubles our chances of losing the chances of losing the country to the militants!

Anonymous said...

Did you all hear the fear of the democrats? They are soooooo afraid that the cool kids at the cool table in the lunchroom might not like them.

Here's something you need to understand:

We LOVE Cowboys. Being called a cowboy is a compliment, not an insult.

We DO NOT CARE about whether those weaklings in Europe like us. Doing the RIGHT thing usually involves someone else disagreeing.

And, we DISAGREE with your premise that it matters if Europe likes us. It doesn't. They do nothing, they can't protect themselves, they need us desparately and if they don't like us, it's because they know without us, they are TOAST.

Lastly, we DISAGREE with you completely that Europe doesn't like America. The facts of the last elections in all of those countries would beg to differ with your handwringing emotional fear.


Anonymous said...

Teddy cites election results and the DemocRats like rf and Anon respond with anecdotal evidence that they derived from television.

Sporer, get out here and put an American boot up their asses.

Anonymous said...

It was Jacques Chirac that was irrelevant, not the wiser, more mature people of France. They obviously are smarter than Jacques.

So, how is that corruption case going with Jacques. You know the one...the oil for food bribary scandal? You know the one, the one where Jacques was paid millions under the table to oppose the Iraq war? Remember that? Remember the secret bank accounts for which he is being investigated?

Remember that?


The Real Sporer said...

rf, my friend, and anon as well.

You demonstrate a classic liberal failing. You again substitute "feelings" for factual reality.

Of course there are people who are anti-American. Maybe even more so because of the Iraq campaign. Much of that is the result of the even more liberal press and the lunatic hatred of George W Bush that is produced by that press. I am sure it will be much better if a Democrat wins.

However, as I have often cited, the election results, which after all seem the best indicator of national mood and most certainly the objective indicator of political climate, overwhelmingly show support for the American WoT policies have been vindicated and supported throughout the world.

Should I believe the anecdotal evidence or the elections results when determing policy? Obviously the election results because they determine the governments with which whom we must deal in the international arena.

Or is your solution a recommendation that we do what makes us popular with people who mean us no good, like the Russians or the Chinese or the Chiraq era French?

Of course the Islamic world liked us more before we began fighting back. But they still hated us enough to support and sustain multiple terror attacks against American and Western civilian targest for the preceeding 25 years so the level of Islamic hostility is pretty unimportant. In fact, Ws greatest failing has been this naive bullshit about Islam is a religion of peace. Anyone who spent one hour reading world history knows that is simply not the history of the Islamic world and its realtionship to the rest of the world.

RF said...


You demonstrate the classic modern R MO. Lack of logic, denial of reality, and picking your facts and explanations to fit a predetermined end result.

Using your logic, when a European voter goes into a voting booth, s/he is primarily concerned about W's WOT and Iraq policies? Those issues are mostly on his/her mind, instead of domestic issues, balancing their welfare system, European Union, relations with the rest of the world, etc.? - Sorry friend, but that logic does not pass the laugh test. If you truly believe that, you are more delusional than I ever thought or you are incredibly self-centered. Maybe you are one of those people who thinks everyone else in this world is always thinking about you and talking about you. Or, maybe you will be going to the voting booth come next November being primarily concerned about the direction of Angela Merkel's policies?

Nobody is denying the election results in Europe. But, your delusional conclusions about those results have much less to do with reality than my personal anecdotal experience - or the many international opinion polls that confirm my point. Hell, one can make all kinds of conclusions based on election results. How about the Kentucky governor's race? From that, I could say that Hillary will trounce the R nominee by 15-20% next year and D's will have a permanent majority in this country. You can't argue with that. The Kentucky guv race is a fact, you know. - As I said, the logic is laughable.

Why the right-of-center folks in Old Europe has been successful as of late is definitely a topic worthy of discussion. But to have an honest discussion, we cannot project everything through our own partisan prism and spin.

Anonymous said...

Iowa Conservatives: Don’t Fall for Rudy


“We’re not going to beat Hillary Clinton with someone who has a record of agreement with her on abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration and many other issues important to Iowa conservatives.

Some conservatives seem willing to look past Giuliani’s liberal record because he appears strongest in national polls against Hillary Clinton. The truth is, the national election is still months away. Iowans should nominate a candidate who can draw a contrast with Hillary, not someone who shares her New York values. In fact, recent polls point to Giuliani’s slippage against Hillary Clinton on the national scene and are evidence that the “electability” argument doesn’t hold water.

Social conservatives such as Pat Robertson who back pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage candidates do a disservice to the conservative movement. At the end of the day, we have to stand for something, or our movement has no purpose.”