Arguments that ignore the facts

Advertisement

Text size: small | medium | large

Don Scott
Published: August 15, 2008

Oh, come on Larry Remener, get real. Talk about ignoring the facts.  I claim your letter as “wacky” and “freaked out” because it WAS — it was another in a long line of hateful, vindictive letters over almost
eight years, claiming things that just are not true. You said “facts are hard to dispute” right? Then where are your facts?

True to form for idiotic liberals,  you take to slander and character assassination, coupled with the admirable ability to make stupid comparisons. No, there were no explosives or rockets before 9/11 —
not here.

But terrorism occurred all around the world and then here. Actually, you made my point. 9/11 happened and our country, led by the president, looked at terrorism differently. The president has, in fact,
fulfilled his main Constitutional responsibility — to protect our right to free speech, etc. Have you had IEDs on your porch and rockets to dodge since 9/11? If you did, the newspaper failed to cover it!

You tried to use as a “fact” the discredited, false “opinions” of Richard Clarke (someone you guys love to quote!) He has been discarded as just that — false. So he “tried to warn Bush” of possible
terrorism? He was one man and had little credibility when he made his opinions known. Is national policy dictated by one person’s advice? If I advise you to move to Tajikistan, would you just go? I doubt
it. 

Clarke’s vague “warning,” without proof or fact, was one of thousands of “facts” used to guide national defense. Your quote makes my point. Clarke said, “we could have done something to stop 9/11.” 
Wow, a definitive statement — “should have done something.” Done what, Mr. “expert-on-terrorism” Clarke? Remember, hindsight is 20/20.

What “fact” did you mention to prove Bush’s “disdain” for our troops? Disdain equals “a feeling of contempt for.” President Bush has a feeling of contempt for our military? Back it up with facts, not your
silly opinion, please. The facts are that 3/4 of that military voted for President Bush!

I won’t respond to Mr. Remener’s silly comment on “nation building,” nor will I respond to his attack on my military service or stoop to liberal contra-attack playbook tactics and ask if he served in the
military or “shuffled papers.”

I am proud of my military service and care not how a loon demeans it. I hope Mr. Remener revisits the concept of FACTS next time!

DON SCOTT

Woodbridge

Reader Reactions

Posted by ( phdee ) on August 18, 2008 at 8:40 pm

I see Cobra is on the whoopie cushion, passing out gas again. Ah yes, the UVA “coward of the country” who allegedly played football, got his MBA, yet is a gym freak,allegedly, == just didn’t serve.  I imagine that in football he was a “right end guard tackle” at 5’2” - “sit right here on the end of the bench, guard the water bucket, and tackle anyone who comes near it”. Or maybe he was on the team for blood transfusions if needed.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( RonCharest ) on August 18, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Cobra,

Once again, a conservative is fantasizing about what I wear, wondering about who I sleep with, and now for extra points bragging about their manly body.

What is it with you guys?

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( cobra ) on August 18, 2008 at 8:56 am

Hey Don,
Welcome to the most hateful anti-American liberal post in the area. You will get the typical BS from RonCharest & a so called Phdeebag. Ron says he served in the Navy and he should know damn well how destructive the liberal party is towards our uniformed soldiers. Just look at the way the Clintons treated the Marines who were stationed at the White House. There is story after story about how disrespectful they were to those soldiers. Even BJ Clinton was admonished early on for not saluting the soldiers as he passed them both coming & going at the White House. They even went so far as to suggest that the Marines stationed at the White House should not be in uniform. Libs want everyone to believe that we were just loved around the world until George Bush took office. Google it for yourself. Terrorist have been attacking American Interest for decades. Their all are just a bunch appeasers Don. These are the same people who label everyone racist for fighting against illegal immigration. They can’t accept an open & fair election and still cry about Corey Stewart being elected. Surprised they have not gone to court to try and overturn that decision by the people. Man what a sorry bunch they are.
Ron,
See you had some fun with my 6’2” frame. Unlike you and pheedebag who sit around all day in house coats waiting to respond to the next post, I hit the Gym three days a week. Just try and stay in linebacker shape in case one of you libs gets a little out of hand. Glad that don’t ask don’t tell policy allowed you to serve in the Navy.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Anna ) on August 17, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Don Scott’s letter breaks all records for invective directed at another writer. In my opinion, abusive letters like this have no place in a community newspaper.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( phdee ) on August 16, 2008 at 1:37 pm

“The facts are that 3/4 of that military voted for President Bush!“.  Well, where are these “facts”, either your source, r personal knowledge. The FACT is that Republicaqns tell lies, and you are one. It would be interesting to know who leadked voters’ ballots to you.  I suspect you just made up a big fat Rebpublican lie.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( willow703 ) on August 16, 2008 at 10:13 am

This “idiotic liberal” agrees with most of what Mr. Scott says.
In “fact”, 9/11 was the second bombing of the World Trade Center. The first, on 26 Feb 1993, killed 6 people. Six Muslims were convicted in the bombing on 4 Mar 1994 & 12 Nov 1997.
The bombings in Oklahoma City, 19 Apr 1995; Atlanta, 26 Jan & 21 Feb 1997; Birmingham, January 1998; as well as the acts of the Unabomber, the ALF, ELF, & the conviction of 10 Muslims,1 Oct 1995, for tryingto blow up the UN ans assinate political leaders, show that “terrorism” in this country didn’t start on 9/11.
Also, “nation building” didn’t start with George Bush. It started in 1919 & is responsible for much of the hostility we see today.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( DeadEyeDick ) on August 16, 2008 at 9:17 am

The fact is that Clinton was actively engaged in tracking down terrorists and foiling their plans, or in cases where it was after the act, hunting them down, capturing and prosecuting them.
The fact is that the US’ largely successful counter-terrorism efforts of the 1990s abruptly stopped on Jan 20, 2001.
The fact is that when the World Trade Center was first bombed in February 1993, no one tried to blame, or even allude to, the previous Bush (only 6 week out of office) administration’s intelligence failure to even detect that a plot was occurring.
The fact is that nearly 9 months after Clinton’s departure, the better part of a year, when the 9/11 attacks took place, Republicans tried to place all the blame on Clinton.
The fact is that while Clinton’s efforts were foiling terrorist attacks (remember the breaking-up of a ring of conspirators who in 1996 were planning to blow up interstate highway bridges up and down the east coast?) or attacking terrorists in their lairs (cruise missile attacks on Al-Queda camps in Afghanistan, bombing poison gas factories in Africa), Republicans and their hacks were continuously accusing him of “wagging the dog” and trying to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal.
The fact is that Clinton tried to freeze terrorist assets with banking laws that were blocked by Republicans at the behest of large contributors, like the leaders at Enron, who were using the same banking loopholes to steal money from shareholders.
The fact is that Clinton implemented agreements to train special forces in Uzbekistan starting in 1998, the same forces that successfully attacked Afghanistan less than 90 days after 9/11.
The fact is that after the USS Cole bombing, Clinton set up a plan with our allies in central Asia, including Uzbekistan, Kurdistan and Pakistan, to invade Afghanistan and hunt down and capture Osama bin Laden. This plan was why Bush was so quickly able to implement the attack on Afghanistan in November 2001.
The fact is that Republicans and their hacks have spent the last 16 years politicizing terrorism for their own advantage.
The sad conclusion is that if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, the attack on Afghanistan would have likely taken place in March of 2001, and on Sept 11, 2001 the sun would have shone warmly on Manhattan while pundits in the various TV news studios in New York were pontificating about the upcoming trial of the jailed Osama bin Laden and how it was really a publicity ploy by President Gore to divert attention from the scandal resulting from his failure to leave a large enough tip after eating lunch at a Cheesecake Factory in Tyson’s Corner.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( RonCharest ) on August 16, 2008 at 8:00 am

Mr. Scott;

Studies released by “The Center for Responsive politics” shows that “Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain’s haul.“

So there’s your facts.  As a veteran, I am also proud of my military service, and proud (sorta) that I spent 22 years defending the rights of loons such as yourself to enjoy free speech.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Post a Comment

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.


Tags relating to this article:

  • No tags are associated with this article.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:



Email This Print This AddThis Social Bookmark Button RSS Feed Add to My Yahoo!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement