When fundies are too far gone - email from a soon-to-be-dropped friend . .

[HughBeaumont]

So some background here - fundie friend sends me something about Tribes, written by some obviously talking-point addled conservatard named Bill Whittle. I proceed to lay into this shitty piece, asking if anyone on the right could possibly write something that isn't laden with badly-worded left stereotypes and bashing and that I want a leader who is for the PEOPLE first and the corporations second; asking when is the Michael Moore bashing EVER going to stop; asking why W started a war on a lie?

Here's what I got back - paragraph after paragraph of WND-bag and freeper stupidity, obviously a TON of time on his hands. The comments in bold are mine from the e-mail he's responding to. Sad:

Alright, read these "talking points" very carefully, because I'm going to ask you some simple questions about them.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 678 stated that Iraq must fully comply with UNSCR 660 (the one that brought about the CEASEFIRE during the first Gulf War) and it authorized UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all SUBSEQUENT relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." UNSCR 687 demanded that Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities", "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities, "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities." It also demanded that Iraq not support terrorist organizations or allow terrorists to operate from within the country. UNSCR 688 condemned Saddam's repression of his civilians, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security...", demanded that such repression end, and called for immediate access of humanitarian agencies to those in need of assistance. The U.N., repeating itself AND establishing that Saddam was ALREADY in material breach states in UNSCR 707 that it "condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687, that it "further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance, that Iraq must make a FULL, final and COMPLETE disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, and that Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, that Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities (is that an admission that Saddam was concealing and moving WMD???) UNSCRs 715, 949, and 1051 all demanded that Iraq comply fully with U.N. weapons and IAEA inspectors. UNSCR 1060 then goes on to "deplore" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions. It also demands that Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access (AGAIN.) UNSCR 1115 "condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060, demands that Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and states Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview. UNSCR 1134 practically states the same exact thing as UNSCR 1115 with the exception that UNSCR is now included in the list of resolutions that have been violated. UNSCR 1137 "condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment, and ONCE AGAIN demands that Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. UNSCR 1154 states Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq." UNSCR 1194 "condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154 (so much for severest of consequences, huh?) Oh yeah, did I mention Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access? Yeah, that was in that resolution, too. Ditto that on UNSCR 1205 written two months later. UNSCR 1284 shuffled some people around (replacing UNSCOM with UNMOVIC), again demands unrestricted access blah blah, stated Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners (because Saddam hadn't, per UNSCR 686), and called on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination. FINALLY...UNSCR 1441 found that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its disarmament obligations, gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply, demanded that Iraq submit a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of its weapons of mass destruction and related programs within 30 days, demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally and actively with the UN inspections, decided that false statements or omissions in Iraq's declarations and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution would constitute further material breach, and *AHEM* recalled that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.

There you have it, members of the United Nations Security Council documenting Saddam's non-compliance of the conditions that maintained the cease-fire of the first Gulf War.

Saddam didn't fully disclose how he allegedly got rid of his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam maintained WMD development programs. We have interviewed Saddam's scientists (the ones that haven't had their tongues cut out or had their intestines pulled from their anus), and they have disclosed details of programs that coincide with each other and what we've found. Also, both Duelfer and Kay reported that Iraq had a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited WMD programs. They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects. They also found equipment for uranium-enrichment centrifuges, whose only plausible use was as part of a nuclear-weapons program.

We know Saddam had Al-Samoud 2 and the Al-Fatah missiles that violated the 150km range set in UNSCR 678.

Saddam illegally imported hundreds of SA-2 rocket engines, per UNMOVIC reports.

Saddam may not have been involved in 9/11, but he definitely had terrorist AND al Qaeda ties. Saddam paid Palestinian homicide bombers' families $25,000 (up from $10,000 in years past.) In the year following the payment increase (and might I note, ABRUPTLY ENDED by our initiation of this unjust war for oil), homicide bombers in Israel killed 223 people, and injured another 1209 people. Oh yeah, I'd like to mention that eight of those dead WERE AMERICANS. Also, Saddam welcomed the Arab Liberation Front, the Palestinian Liberation Front, Hamas, and the Abu Nidal Organization responsible for terror attacks in twenty countries, and whose resume includes the bombing of a TWA liner in 1974. These TERRORIST organizations had offices and/or bases within Iraq, and had Saddam's blessings to operate there. Speaking of airline bombings, remember the terrorist training camp Salman Pak found in Iraq? Yeah, they had an airliner fuselage so terrorists could hone their skills at hijacking aircraft with eating utensils. Numerous Iraqi defectors have told of the dangers terrorists from this camp pose. Al Zarqawi, the terrorist giving us so much trouble in Iraq now, received medical care for wounds he received while fighting in Afghanistan. I might mention he arranged for the assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley while under Saddam's care in Saddam's Iraq. Farouk Hijazi, Saddam's former ambassador to Turkey, admitted to meeting with al Qaeda per Saddam's request in 1994. Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim an-Ani, an Iraqi diplomat and intelligence agent, met with Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001. U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson along with two others were killed when Abu Sayyaf terrorists detonated a nailbomb in the Philippines in October, 2002. Cell-phone records indicate that Iraqi diplomat Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy, had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf just before the explosion. Al Qaeda member Abdul Rahman Yasin, the terrorist who mixed the explosives used in the first WTC attack was given housing and a salary by Saddam. Abu Abbas, the terrorist that masterminded the Achille Lauro hijacking and murderer of AMERICAN Leon Klinghoffer, had lived in Iraq since 1999. Ironically, he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head four times just months before the invasion of Iraq.

Saddam tortured and murdered around a half a million of his own citizens (direct violation of UNSCR 688, not to mention human rights laws that most of the rest of the civilized world abides by.) We know this because of countless eyewitness testimonies and hundreds of mass graves chock full of dead men, women, and children.

Saddam witheld food and medicine from his citizens (UNSCR 1284 violation.) We know he was getting it because of U.N. oil-for-food programs. We know his citizens didn't get it because we found his peoples' medicine on the black market. And because his people were dying in hospitals while he bought forbidden weapons systems from the French, Russians, and Germans (go figure, these three countries were the most vocal in their opposition to the war) with the money he got from his black market dealings.

Saddam interfered with U.N. weapons and IAEA inspections. We know this because the inspectors were constantly telling tales of how they'd arrive at a location and be held up for hours while trucks drove out the back before they were allowed in. We also know this to be true because the U.N. Security Council had to keep passing resolutions telling Saddam to stop doing it, "or else".

And last but not least, we know Saddam was in material breach of UNSCR 1441, the one that Bush pushed for, the one that reitterated for the umpteenth time that Saddam was in material breach of this that and the other UNSCRs, the one that the world came together to write, the one that the world came together to agree upon, and the one that gave Saddam one last chance to comply with the demands of the civilized world for once.

In addition to the world coming together through the United Nations SEVENTEEN TIMES over the course of TWELVE YEARS regarding Saddam's continuous violations of our CEASEFIRE agreement (remember UNSCR 678???), we had these statements coming from politicians on the other side of the aisle:

Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 - "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998 - "Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Sandy Berger, same day - "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 - "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998 - "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Carl Levin, Sept. 19, 2002 - "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 - "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Remember this one, it will come back to haunt him.

Robert Byrd, Oct. 3, 2002 - "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

John Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002 - "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Jay Rockefeller, the next day - "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Hillary Clinton, same day - "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

There you have many prominent Democrats stating things ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with what the United Nations Security Council said Saddam was doing. There you have many prominent Democrats ACCURATELY PORTRAYING Saddam as the deceitful, terror supporting murderer he is.

*Note to self* It looks like the United Nations and the Democrats made a better case for going to war with Iraq than George W. Bush did.

On October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives voted 296 to 133 in favor of giving Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Saddam comply with U.N. resolutions requiring him to give up his weapons of mass destruction and his weapons of mass destruction development programs. The next day, the Senate voted 77 to 23 in favor of giving Bush the authority to use military force to make Saddam comply with U.N. resolutions. Just for perspective, the resolution in 1991 authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam from Kuwait only passed by a vote of 250 to 183 in the House and 52 to 47 in the Senate.

There you have it. Twelve years of negotiations. Twelve years of hide-and-seek games. Seventeen chances after the cease fire to comply with the world's demands. Clear as day depiction of a world in agreement that Saddam was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284, and 1441. Overwhelming evidence that Saddam was in clear violation of almost EVERY facet of each resolution. How much more time and evidence is needed for this to not be a "rush to war"?

But Bush lied.

Here's the way I see it...you can refute what I've just stated. You can show me how it's been proved that Saddam disclosed all information on how he dismantled his existing stockpiles of WMD and the programs that developed them. Show me how he did not hinder any U.N. weapons and/or IAEA inspectors from doing their work. Show me how Saddam's Al-Samoud and Al-Fatah missiles did not violate the 150km range (or show me how Bush planted them for the inspectors to find.) Show me how Saddam did not actually import any illegal weapons systems after the cease fire (good luck explaining away the French Roland II anti-aircraft missile system.) Show me how Saddam had no terrorist affiliations. Show me how Saddam did not actually order the murder, torture, and oppression of hundreds of thousands of his citizens. Show me how Saddam actually tried to get ALL of the food and medicine acquired from U.N. programs to his people. These aren't conditions that I, or even George Bush set as being those that justify going to war; the world did through the United Nations. And while you're at it, show me how it's a lie when Bush says Saddam was a threat, but it wasn't a lie when the Democrats are on record the same thing hundreds of times over the years long before Bush ever had a chance to deceive them. As a screaming Al Gore eloquently put it, "HE PLAYED ON OUR FEAR. HE TOOK AMERICA ON AN ILL-CONCEIVED FOREIGN ADVENTURE, DANGEROUS TO OUR TROOPS, AN ADVENTURE THAT WAS PREORDAINED AND PLANNED BEFORE 9-11 EVER HAPPENED." Yeah, Al, you knew all along, you two-faced traitor.

If you can't refute every single violation (I say every single one because it only takes one violation to be in material breach) that I, and apparently the rest of the world claim Saddam is guilty of, then you could at least admit that maybe the war in Iraq was justifiable.

If you can't refute what I've said, and you can't admit that the war was justifiable, I'll be forced to conclude that you're perfectly OK with letting murderous dictators thumb their nose at the world while they develop WMD, support terrorists that kill Americans, terrorize and torture their citizens, and give Kofi Annan a reason to exist.

And in the meantime, I'll continue using facts and timelines to explain to the ignorant "Bush lied no blood for oil Haliburton quagmire no exit strategy the world hates us" chanting freaks that this war WAS righteous AND justified. I'll keep pointing out the documented flip-flopping of opportunistic politicians that once upon a time were on the right side of history, but now count on the short memory of Americans to drum up votes and support for themselves and their party. I'll continue trying to state the above case calmly and politely to inlaws at holiday get togethers while they rant and rave about how Bush is a liar. And while partisan pukes are bitching about Club Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and Geneva Conventions for terrorists caught fighting Americans on the battlefield, I'll remind them that THIS http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0904/092104-armstrong-beheading.htm is the face of our enemy.

I want a guy who, when a disaster of unprecedented magnitude happens, will allow independent investigations into the matter, vanquish or fire the people responsible for it, and if it's proven that he could have done something to prevent it from happening (DEFINITELY 9/11 and to some extent the destruction of the levees in New Orleans) to ADMIT HE MADE A MISTAKE and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY (and yes, be still my heart, he's taken responsibility for NO . . but not the blame. He'll never do that).

http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/plans/EOPSupplement1a.pdf

Page 13, paragraph 5: "The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating." Considering the pictures I've seen of hundreds upon hundreds of busses just sitting there in flood waters, one can only assume state and local authorities dropped the ball on that one. Unless, of course, you want to blame Bush for not personally driving them.

Also, I'd like to direct you to http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html#4524 where it's made clear that STATE and LOCAL AUTHORITIES have hindered aid from getting into the area.

"Acess (sic) to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders."

"The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city."

The Louisiana Homeland Security Department answers directly to Governor Blanco.

And then there's the issue of levee funding.

From the Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-050901corps,1,7189346.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that a lack of funding for hurricane-protection projects around New Orleans did not contribute to the disastrous flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina. In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way--inundating much of the city--were completed and in good condition before the hurricane. However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3 hurricane and couldn't handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis. "I don't see that the level of funding was really a contributing factor in this case," said Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, chief of engineers for the corps. "Had this project been fully complete, it is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm that the flooding of the business district and the French Quarter would have still taken place."

Then there's the February 16, 2004, New Orleans CityBusiness (a publication generally known as being critical of the Bush administration) article that backs that statement: "The Corps' New Orleans district in 2003 spent about $409 million on construction contracts, dredging and maintenance for the state's waterways, real estate purchases, private sector design contracts and in-house expenditures, according to the Corps. That more than doubles the $200 million the district spent in 1991."

So let me get this straight. Mayor Nagin is bitching and cursing at the Feds and Bush that they need busses, even though he had them and refused to evacuate people on them. He's claiming it's Bush's fault that his people don't have food, when the food was right there with the Red Cross but the Governor was turning them back. Then we've got opportunistic liberal politicians claiming Bush didn't do enough to fund levee projects and that's why everyone died. Louis Farrakhan is going around claiming whites bombed a hole in the levee to drown the blacks. And then we've got you and all the other gliberal bloggers gleefully comparing Bush receiving a guitar as a gift to Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

I want a guy who, when someone in his office does something like . . oh I don't know . . . OUTS A CIA OPERATIVE DURING A TIME OF WAR . . . that he fires that person and begins a criminal investigation on him. NOW.

Richard Cohen, hardly a friend of Bush's, wrote in his column at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071301989.html "The law prohibiting the outing of a CIA agent is so restrictive that it has been applied only once and does not seem to fit this case. I find it hard to believe that Rove or anyone at the White House specifically intended to blow the cover of a CIA agent. Rove is a political opportunist, not a traitor."

George Bush met with Cindy Sheehan already. On June 24, Cindy was interviewed by a local newspaper http://www.thereporter.com/republished/ci_2923921 in which she stated; "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." Her husband stated; "We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us."

That was before Joe Trippi (Howard Dean's advisor - 'nuff said) and Fenton Communications (a left-wing PR firm) got to her. Now she's done a 180 and is lock-step with the anti-Bush special interest groups.

Those of us on the right mourn her loss. Those of us on the right agree she has the right to say what she wants. And those of us on the right are disgusted at the way leftist special interest groups brainwashed her and are putting her on a soapbox to grieve.

The Sheehan family issued this statement: "The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."

I gotta ask this, because I'm just NOT getting it: When does the Michael Moore bashing STOP already?

When the propagandist stops using deceit to advance his ideology. I'm tired of writing, so I'll just spare myself and copy and paste just a few of the dozens and dozens of websites that have exposed his deceptions.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com

http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/

http://www.mooreexposed.com/

http://www.moorelies.com/

http://www.modamag.com/fahrenheit911.htm

http://www.worldthreats.com/Michael%20Moore/Responding%20to%20Michael%20Moore.htm

http://www.worldthreats.com/Michael%20Moore/Responding%20to%20Moore%20Part%20Two.htm

And in the event that you stumble upon http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2003/09/30/1683/ while trying to refute the above sites, the following two thoroughly refute leanleft.

http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

http://www.scientistscanvas.com/?page=art&article=4

Should I just lose this guy? I think I should. It's beyond the pale. This is what happens when smart people dig up every out-of-context "fact" to believe a story. This is what happens when people cannot admit mistake.

I find it funny. A conservative . . . calling Michael Moore . . . a propagandist. Ooooooooooo kay..