GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

“Un-American, untruthful and a lie”?

by

My apologies for neglecting to contribute here for awhile…

I’m a little confused by comments from Brian Melendez, chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Party, that ads supporting efforts in Iraq are somehow “un-American, untruthful and a lie“. How exactly does he arrive at this? The fact that the veterans and families of slain veterans who did these ads do not cop to the radical Left agenda? His logic seems to escape me given the numerous ads opposing the war from such groups as MoveOn.org, Not In Our Name, Win Back Respect, and a host of other antiwar groups, let alone Michael Moore’s infamous hit-piece Fahrenheit 9/11. Need I even mention that darling of the Left, Cindy Sheehan? Perhaps Mr. Melendez is referring to the fact that Progress for America receives donations from many conservatives and has ties to the Republican Party. Odd reasoning if this is so, given how much in bed the Democrat Party is with not only the groups listed above but others such as Iraqi Veterans Against the War. No, the only one being “untruthful” at least is Mr. Melendez and his party. The Minnesota DFL Party website makes this absurd claim:

The ad then states that the enemy in Iraq are the same terrorists responsible for 9/11, and images of Saddam Hussein are shown along with the Twin Towers. This tactic is misleading at best, as the 9/11 Commission Report states that there is no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attack.

In a word, that’s a “lie”. Neither ad places blame for 9/11 on Saddam Hussein or his defunct regime in Iraq. Instead both rightly claim that Coalition forces in Iraq are fighting the same al Qaeda which attacked us on 9/11 and was responsible for numerous other atrocities. There is no dispute about this, in fact Leftists have used this fact to claim that Bush is somehow responsible for a rise in terrorism by invading Iraq. Whatever one wishes to believe on that score, Mr. Melendez is deluding himself and others if he really believes that al Qaeda isn’t in Iraq now and has been at least since Saddam was removed from power.

I’ve seen both of these ads from PFA and find nothing objectionable about them. They are not political attack ads, unlike many from the Left, but argue in support for the war. Regardless of what anyone’s views on the war are this is hardly “unAmerican”. Besides being politically stupid for the Dems to take such a position, one has to wonder where all the whining about challenging people’s patriotism went on the Left? Lemme guess, Karl Rove put them up to this. Perhaps the man truly is an evil genius after all…

Hat tip: Power Line

Comments

  3. Imran: Oh my, a plethora of Dem talking points. Bravo I guess. Yet you failed to address the one salient point which seems to have escaped Mr. Melendez’ attention as well: al Qaeda is in Iraq now. Feel free to criticize Bush all you wish but that will not make this reality disappear. They have chosen to make a stand in Iraq and Coalition forces are obliging them.

  6. Mr. Melendez is deluding himself and others if he really believes that al Qaeda isn’t in Iraq now and has been at least since Saddam was removed from power.

    First Saddam is an imminent threat, then he never was.

    First Saddam and bin Laden seem to be meeting together, now we’re told that that’s impossible.

    First Iraq had WMDs, then they never did, or they were destroyed a long time ago.

    First it’s cool to help NoKo build nukes, now it’s a bad idea.

    First it was a good idea of John F.You Kerry to publicly state that we should give nuclear material to Iran and now, apparently, it’s not.

    First Al-Qaeda is in Iraq and actively recruiting, now it appears they’re not.

    It all goes to show that liberals will flip-flop with the wind, depending on what will help push their agenda that day.

    Regardless of what anyone’s views on the war are this is hardly “unAmerican”….. one has to wonder where all the whining about challenging people’s patriotism went on the Left?

    Dissension against Bush is “patriotic”. Dissension against the liberal left is not.

  7. #6 ThatGayConservative — February 22, 2006 @ 1:29 am – February 22, 2006

    First Iraq had WMDs, then they never did, or they were destroyed a long time ago.

    Of course Iraq had WoMDs–during the Iran/Iraq war. How do we know? Because the Reagan Administration gave them to Iraq. Recall the famous photograph from 1983 of Donald Rumsfeld–Reagan’s special envoi–shaking Saddam’s hand.

  8. The point of the post is that Dems are practicing censorship against free speech and calling veterans who support the president un-American.

    raj and imran dance on a little tangent that has nothing to do with the actual thread. I understand the temptation when such blatant acts are committed by their side of the debate.

  9. Raj, we know North Korea has Nukes because the Clinton Administration gave them to them. So what’s your point? Regardless of true or false accusations of arms sales from over 20 years ago Saddam’s Iraq was a destabalizing element in the Middles East and a threat to our national security as a supporter and sponsor of terrorism. Did you hear the newly translated audio tapes? Even without such tapes (and 30,000 remain to be translated) the attacks on the US by Iraq continued daily for ten years as we enforced UN sanctions imposed upon Iraq after Iraq was ousted from Kuwait. Thank God you’re not in a position to make tough decisions!

  10. raj at #7, I recall the photograph of Don Rumsfeld, acting as a Special envoy of Pres RR. Are you suggesting he secreted plans or formulae for chemweps in that handshake? Maybe in his palm? Maybe in a tiny microchip? Have you no decency, man?

    raj baby, you can be forgiven for the pedantic posturing but Rumsfeld was there to assess if Saddam had the motivation to work with the US against Iran and Syria… State Dept and DOD back then wanted Rumsfeld, a private citizen at the time, to also raise the irritating issue of the use of chemweps by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq wars. The WH did not want Rumsfeld raising the issue in that meeting. Saddam already had the chemweps; we didn’t deliver them to him … your esteemed French and Germans did.

    Less than a year later, the WH did have Rumsfeld raise the chemweps issue in a subsequent talk and Saddam’s level of motivation to allow US assistance took a nosedive. Rumsfeld has opined he felt lucky to even get out of Iraq with life at that point.

    Nice try to impeach the Special Envoy trips by Rumsfeld to Saddam, but that’s just LeftWing moonbat spin. The dog don’t hunt.

    Just check out the points made by the very liberal National Security Archives project at GWU… in case YOU need the refresher course on why Rumsfeld was meeting with Saddam.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

  11. AGJ,

    You touch on a question of what one could call “political cognition”.

    With the exception of Cindy Sheehan and our local political pervert, rag, the Left mostly does not want to admit that it hates the military, and the type of Americans that would volunteer for it, and an America where the military is respected and valued.

    So instead, it denies that we are in a War on Terror, that a military response to 9-11 was necessary, that Iraq was a rational second step (after Afghanistan) in that response, etc.

    And key to denying that Iraq was a rational second step (after Afghanistan) is pretending that Saddam didn’t have al Qaeda connections, that we aren’t fighting – and beating – al Qaeda in Iraq now, etc.

    They are all willful cognitive choices that enable the Left to reach their anti-military conclusions without having to admit their military-hating motives.

    So cognition, or the basic process of apprehending the facts of reality and deciding or stating what they are, becomes the political battlefield.

    The solution is for people who know the truth to simply keep telling the truth:

    – that Saddam had all the parts and materials for chemical weapons stored next to each other in the same warehouses (they simply hadn’t been assembled fully)
    – that Saddam met with al Qaeda throughout the 1990s and early 00s
    – that Saddam threatened the Clinton Adminstration with terrorist attacks through “diplomatic backchannels”
    – that Saddam invited an al Qaeda subgroup, “Ansar al Islam” to establish bases in Iraq in 2002;
    – that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq – and beating them – right now.

    I agree it’s disgraceful that the Minnesota DFL wants to silence veterans and Gold Star families (keeping them from telling Americans the proud truth about their loved one’s service), and shows how far off the cliff the Democrats have gone.

  12. raj baby, 3 special facts: 1) a group of effected US soldiers are suing a group of European companies for providing Saddam with the antecedents for chemweps… 2) Syria’s principle suppliers of chemweps are still those same European companies that supplied Iraq… and 3) why do you think France, Russia and Germany were aiding Saddam’s interests in the UN Secy Counsel on the inspections dodge game?

    Nawh, it’s hard to argue with facts and the patent conclusions they SHOULD lead a rational, informed person toward… Europe, not Rumsfeld or the US or RR “gave” chemweps to Iraq –despite what the disgraced former Senator from Michigan, Don Reigle, might opine.

    Rumsfeld was there to find out if Saddam was motivated to accept our help against Iran and Syria. He didn’t bite and when chemweps use was raised later in a subsequent meeting, Rumsfeld said he felt lucky to escape Iraq with his life.

    Oh yeah, we were giving ’em the stuff. Pure LeftWing MoonBat Democrat spin.

  13. #13 — It’s funny that raj is so fond of asserting discredited left-wing urban legends as fact, then gets pissy and demands proof in the form exact words” when other people correctly characterize comments he makes.

    Actually, it isn’t. I’m pretty convinced that raj is an idiot. And, I’m not saying that to be rude or engage in name-calling. I’m just trying to accurately characterize the quality of argument from someone who asserts left-wing conspiracy theories as “fact” and does things like blame the Bush Admin for Katrina by asserting that people didn’t evacuate from New Orleans because they had “no where to go to.” (When common sense says, any place other than a place about to be hit by hurricane would have worked.)

    Oh, and don’t forget, raj doesn’t think dying in the service of your country makes you any kind of hero.

  16. I see the usual spin from the Left has been posted. Now that this is out of the way… It makes no difference why the war in Iraq was started, what Bush’s motivations were, who said what prior to invasion (on either side), etc. The point of this post is that we are there now and al Qaeda has chosen to fight there now. Liberals had their chance to make Bush pay in 2004 and lost. The rest of this tiresome argument is up to the historians to hash out later. What Mr. Melendez claimed is demonstrably false and abandoning Iraq to al Qaeda and refusing to fight them would be extremely foolhardy and enable future 9/11’s.

  17. “Gay patriot?” You must be very proud with how the Iraq war is going. I am being sarcastic. Historians will hash this out and YOUR president will go down in history as destablizing the Middle-East, placing the United States in terrible debt to China, and letting the people of the Gulf Coast die and fend for themselves. Yes, indeed, you must be very proud. Hang your head son. You have contributed to supporting an imperialist who just does not understand international or domestic issues. Where are my flowers and candy which Rumsfeld promised the Iraqies were going to throw my way? Its been three years now. You are probably still waiting. This war was a big mistake. The gig is up!

  18. “In a word, that’s a “lie”. Neither ad places blame for 9/11 on Saddam Hussein or his defunct regime in Iraq. Instead both rightly claim that Coalition forces in Iraq are fighting the same al Qaeda which attacked us on 9/11 and was responsible for numerous other atrocities.”

    Not quite. The coalition forces were SENT to remove Hussein from power; it has been only AFTER the invasion that al-Qaeda forces became as involved as they are.

    Hasn’t the administration, save for Mr. Cheney, admitted there was no verifiable connection between Hussein and the 9/11 murderers?

  19. Hasn’t the administration, save for Mr. Cheney, admitted there was no verifiable connection between Hussein and the 9/11 murderers?

    Yes, Bush said that….but continues to make a rhetorical association.

  20. Actually, it isn’t. I’m pretty convinced that raj is an idiot. And, I’m not saying that to be rude or engage in name-calling. I’m just trying to accurately characterize the quality of argument from someone who asserts left-wing conspiracy theories as “fact” and does things like blame the Bush Admin for Katrina by asserting that people didn’t evacuate from New Orleans because they had “no where to go to.” (When common sense says, any place other than a place about to be hit by hurricane would have worked.)

    So you are just calling him an idiot because he truly is an idiot? And it’s not rude, either, because it’s true. And it’s true because you have made the assessment.

    You know, in a dozen years of hanging out on the web, I have never seen people routinely attack one another in such vicious personal ways as people do on this site. It’s almost comical, like the old SNL skits (“Jane, you stupid slut…”) And meanwhile you’re complaining about the press’ failure to behave respectfully and demanding apologies.

    In conversations with other gay people who write for a living, I’ve found we all share a common experience with feedback. The nastiest, most personal mail we get is always, with occasional exceptions, from other gay people. It doesn’t matter what the subject is or what side we’re on politically. I have no explanation for it but it is especially remarkable on this site. I think this is a note of congratulations.

  21. Michigan-Matt — February 22, 2006 @ 12:24 pm – February 22, 2006

    Nawh, it’s hard to argue with facts and the patent conclusions they SHOULD lead a rational, informed person toward… Europe, not Rumsfeld or the US or RR “gave” chemweps to Iraq

    Is that why

    (i) the Associated Press reported that the lawsuit was also against US corporations? You seem to have left that out.

    Lawyers (for the soldiers) said they hoped to force chemical corporations from France, Germany, Switzerland and the United States to reject future requests for business from tyrants around the globe.

    http://www.gulfwarvetlawsuit.com/newyork%20news.html

    A little bit further down on that page

    The banks sued are mainly based in Germany, Italy, France, Japan, England, the Netherlands, Kuwait, and Pakistan, and include such well-known firms as Deutsche Bank, Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, Barclays Bank, Credit Lyonnais, and Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi (the last being a Japan bank, of course).

    You seem to have a selective memory. If US companies were supplying (allegedly, of course) Iraq, why should not European companies also (allegely, of course) supply Iraq. And if banks in Japan, Kuwait and Pakistan (the AP article didn’t mention suits against US banks providing credit, but who knows?) why should not European banks do the same?

    (ii) That the Reagan administration assisted Iraq with chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war can hardly be disputed.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29

    Do a google search for “Iraq American Type Culture Collection” The latter “ATCC” was given a number of export licenses by the Reagan admininstration to export to Iraq cultures that could be used to make biological weaponry. I suspect that that is only the tip of the iceberg.

  22. raj baby, no need to google it for me. If you need to, go ahead ’cause it’s clear you don’t understand that matter and are just using NancyP’s talking points.

    For your edification, the ATCC approval forms were begun in the CARTER Administration and approved by professional Commerce Dept staff after they were disclosed to the appropriate Congressional leaders >>hence, raj baby, that’s why Don Reigle could speak so spinningly of it all. Carter’s folks got them started in the hopes to break a crack in the pro-Soviet alliance in Iraq. Nice try at spin; it don’t stand up.

    The US corps in the lawsuit number 9 >>seven of which aren’t in the Top 1000 US corps. Guess what, raj baby? Your dearly held European corps named in the lawsuit number 217… tell me, again, how it’s a US corp community to share a proportional blame?

    The simple truth is you let your partisanship and cheapened hatred of Bush and all-things American color your defense of those European corps in France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark and elsewhere who supported Iraq’s build up of biochemweaps.

    And let’s remember, YOU tried to impute that a picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam proved the link between chemweaps and Iraq and the US… when in reality, Rumsfeld was there to discuss if Iraq would be favorable toward our interests in containing the now, well-known, nuclear threat posed by Iran and the chemweaps build-up now documented in Syria. We wouldn’t have had to pursue Iraqi discussions if the Democrats hadn’t lost America’s strongest ally in the Middle east, the Shah, while Carter slept at the wheel and played his Noble Prize winning Human Rights card.

    And, of course, raj baby, you highstep like a black booted European thug over the fact that Rumsfeld raised the issue of chemweaps with Saddam on his second visit and barely exited Iraq alive… while your buddies over at Bend-Over-France and We-Know-How-2-Do-Mass-Death-Germany abetted Saddam in the brutal slaughter of Iraqis in the South and Kurds in the north.

    Nope raj, Europe’s hands are bloody with Iraqi children and the innocents’ blood of the 1970’s-80’s-90’s. Not the US.

    Rumsfeld was there with a mission that arose directly out of the diplomatic plunders of JimminyCricketCarter.

  23. Like Average Gay Joe, I’ve also seen both Midwest Heroes ads and there’s nothing political about them. These families and veterans are proud of the job our Armed Forces are doing, and I’m proud of these folks for responding to the constant criticism found in the mainstream media.

    Many of the previous comments argue whether Iraq ever had WMD’s, my response is they absolutely had them. Where did they go? Likely to Syria in 2003, and its probable Russia helped move them there. But this is a whole other issue.

    Sadaam’s terror regime needed to be removed from power and a majority of Iraqis are thankful for our assistance in making this happen. And they are thankful for the soldiers highlighted by the Midwest Heroes ads – as am I.

  24. Melendez has made some very outlandish statements concerning the Midwest Heroes. Average Gay Joe, I think you have brought up a very important point…Al Queda is there now and we are there now to help secure the freedom of the Iraqi people. Bush was reelected and the military are reenlisting in higher percentages now then in the last five years. It is not the American military that is at war – it is the American nation. We need to unite to support our troops and to support their mission. “UnAmerican” – I find this almost too ridiculous to comment on. Obviously it is absurd to call our servicemen and women who have volunteered to protect our country unAmerican. And certainly these advertisements that allow returning troops and gold star families a vehicle to voice their support is not unAmerican. Where is our media now? Where is their “watchdog” strategy now – when politicians attempt to encroach on the freedom of speech of returning soldiers, marines, etc.? The only vehicle for response should not be a blogpost – it should be our newspapers, television stations, radio programs…but the media remains quiet, the Democrats continue to support free speech for only their messages and our troops remain dedicated to their mission. It all seems very unbalanced, doesn’t it