I've been a fan of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for quite some time, and was very pleased to see that they now have a Skeptic's Annotated Quran. Both are invaluable resources if you ever want to critically examine these two important books--they provide line-by-line annotation which cross-references any passages which contradict each other, as well as pointing out the good, the bad and the ugly in scripture.
But I've long wished that someone would do something similar for the Bush administration. After all, the administration is practically begging to have its public statements on Iraq subjected to this kind of compilation and annotation--one need only look at Billmon's WMD Quotes page to get a taste of how ripe this field is for picking.
Via Kevin Drum, now we have Iraq on the Record:
For example, search for "we know" under "Rumsfeld". The first entry that comes up is:
"The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is, is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat. Second, the kernel facilities, there are dozens of them, it is a large geographic area . . . I would also add that we saw from the air there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press, and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploration is just starting."
Source: This Week with George Stephanopolous, ABC (3/30/2003).
Or for more fun, try searching for "urgent" or "immediate" under the "Urgent Threat" category, and use "All" for the speaker. This is the subject Rumsfeld was recently caught lying about on TV. I've archived American Progress's video of Rumsfeld lying, but for those who can't play the video, Iraq'd has a transcript of the important parts. I recommend the video, though, if you can.
S-Train poses an interesting thought: if the world wants to know how to fight terrorism, they should ask former gang members.
So how do you fight those who are willing to go there? Well, you can escalate also to higher levels of violence and intimidation towards them. And I can't knock it. It's an instinctive reaction. But many times that leads to a circular pattern of destruction. Incident, retaliation, and counter-retaliation is par for that course. But you know what stopped gang enforces like Rico and I? It wasn't the rival gangs. It wasn't necessarily law enforcement. It was the community. When they stood up to us, we faded. When 25 - 30 hard workin' men and women from UAW Local 22 showed up when we were "roughing up" a couple of drug addicts that owed money, we stopped in our tracks. And what made it worse for us is that they marked us. They got our nicknames and gang affiliation. We were basically screwed.
This means that Iraqis who are upset about terrorists bombing their own people need to stop harboring them or looking the other way. I'm sure it's tempting to cast your lot in with foreign terrorists who also want the Americans out of Iraq, but they're not helping your cause--they're hurting it and killing you. Your lives mean nothing to them when weighed against their need to make a political statement through murder.
This means that the United States government needs to take a good, hard look at a great many of its policies in the so-called "War on Terror", and decide whether the degree to which they help remove opportunities and resources from terrorists is outweighed by the degree to which they exacerbate the problem and incite recruitment. We need to be engaging the world instead of alienating it, reaching out to the people of Arab and Muslim countries instead of providing them with unnecessary motivations to blow themselves up.
It means, above all, that the people of countries like Syria, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia need to realize that terrorism is a dead end. It is a tactic employed by the powerless against the soft underbelly of the powerful--its propoents will take no territory, hold no ground, and win no wars. The only thing it can accomplish is the sowing of fear and the strategically useless deaths of innocents. And it will end not when Osama bin Laden is dead, not when al Qaeda is gone, not when Israel and Palestine have their own states, and not when the US Military rolls into Damascus or Riyadh. It will end when the communities from which terrorists are recruited decide that it is no longer an acceptable or necessary option.
A number of pundits--most recently and often Dave Neiwert--have pointed out the propensity many on the extreme right have for "projection"--accusing their opponents of things of which they themselves are guilty. It is a special flavor of hypocrisy that seems particularly prevalent in people like Rush Limbaugh, but this odious trait is not unique to the right.
Today, however, I was treated to an amazing display of projection over at Spatula City. In his first post on Friday, Spatula took a question from Bob Blount which asked:
With libs, that almost NEVER happens. I'm having trouble thinking of even one example where I gave a lib my reasoned disagreement, and he gave me reasoned disagreement back. Instead, what I get back is exactly what we've learned to expect from libs: Hostility, hatred, intolerance, insults as to my motives, etc.
Conservatives seem to have no trouble with the very Jeffersonian idea that someone can disagree with you, and he can still be a good person with good motives who simply has reached different conclusions about a specific topic. To libs, OTOH, that sentence seems to be utterly inconceivable - and I chose that word with care because that's exactly what it is, they literally CANNOT conceive of it, the concept is unable to enter their consciousness.
So my question is the obvious one: Assuming that you've observed the same thing, why do you think that happens? I know what Sowell has written about it, and I know what I think about it, but I'd really like to know what YOU think about it.
Does anyone else see the irony and hypocrisy in asking why liberals can't civilly disagree and insist on insulting and impugning the motivations of their opponents, and answering the question by insulting and impugning the motivations of liberals? Is this another case of right-wing projection, or did they really just not think this through?
Apparently Spatula didn't see the irony either, because he posted his answer today, and it simply must be read to be believed:
What he really is, though - besides a master of deception - is the ultimate hatemonger. Satan hates God, and all of his creations as well, and wants to see them all destroyed. And he is an expert at using his powers of influence to get the unwary to do just that - destroy God's creations...all people in general, and the Christians he despises in particular. And liberals who simply don't know any better are easily swayed to hatred by this old serpent, not really having any moral foundation against which to steel themselves. [...]
Thus (and here's where I come back around to the main point), when liberals look at Christians (and conservatives who generally line up with them), they see what Satan sees when he looks at Christ - the enemy. An enemy to be hated, despised, screamed at, spit on, bitch-slapped...you name it. Anything Satan can do to destroy Christians and the things in which they believe (as well as the other, non-Christian conservatives who generally agree with them), he'll do. That's why most of the time, libs and conservatives can't get along.
....
Right.
Not long ago, a conservative Christian read my blog and wrote to me to point out that not all conservatives and Christians are misguided, stupid, or evil. I was a bit puzzled by this, because I don't think they are, nor do I recall ever saying that. I appreciated the reminder in any case, as it's always nice to hear from people on the other side of the fence who are sane and rational--and I'd like to offer Spatula a similar reminder.
But I'm not sure it'll do any good. As far as I'm concerned, if someone truly believes that liberals are under the influence of mythical creatures who plot the destruction of humanity, I'm not sure there's much room to find common ground.