It's funny, really. I make diary entries that get no love all the time. And then yesterday I left a comment on a diary and it got over 70 almost 80 Recommendeds. I think it was the video I used to make my first point - it seemed to make people say "yeah, that's what we're talking about..."
So I'm going to post it as a diary entry.
Here's the thing: this whole 'appeasement' non-issue? It's just that. It's a non-issue compared to what matters - the war, the economy, the raping of this nation by Bush's special friends. Chris Matthews showed it was just the latest buzzword that was to be used in concert with the rhyme "energizes, legitimizes."
And how trying to explain how someone practiced appeasement with the answer "he appeased, he was an appeaser" wasn't an answer, it was a solo game of Mad-Libs.
But there was one thing at the end of that video: something said by Kevin James which wasn't questioned. It never is. And it's the Conservative's biggest weakness, because once the facts are presented their whole world will fall apart.
Join me... below the fold.
1 - The difference between 'talking' and 'appeasing'. Here's a video of people talking. Well; one person talking, mainly. And this person talks a lot. First he talks nicely to a guy in a diner to make sure he has all the facts, then he talks to a guy on the street. Talking, talking...
...and as it turns out, Inspector Callaghan was completely unarmed at the end of it all too. He only fired when fired upon or when his life was in danger. And he talked when he needed to, and it saved life.
You think Dirty Harry was appeasing there? No. Talking does not equal appeasement. And if this were George Walker Bush, he would have prevented the bank robbery by killing people in the diner. Then claiming victory over the bank robbers. Then he'd have claimed that his real intention was to stop those that didn't tip adequately, because he was going to bring a better level of tipping to the dead patrons of the diner.
You get the idea.
2 - at the end of the Hardball video, the only thing Kevin James had left was "Clinton did nothing". WTC in 1993, embassy bombings and so on.
100% wrong. And here are some links and facts to prove how it's horse-s***.
First off, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 happened on February 26, 1993. I'm guessing the terrorists were planning it since before January 20 that year, and George Herbert Walker Bush was in the White House before then. So if they want to pin 1993 on Bill Clinton because he was in the White House for a month, they'd better be prepared to blame George Walker Bush for going on vacation for six months as President before 9/11, because that was on his watch.
As for Clinton not doing anything, go to Google:
http://www.google.com
Now type this date in:
August 20, 1998
and see what the first link is.
It's this one:
http://www.cnn.com/...
It says...
Saying "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists," President Clinton on Thursday said the U.S. strikes against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a facility in Sudan are part of "a long, ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism."
It also says...
American officials say they have "convincing evidence" that bin Laden, who has been given shelter by Afghanistan's Islamic rulers, was involved in the bombings of the east African embassies.
In the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries factory -- which U.S. officials say was housing chemical weapons -- was also attacked.
Pentagon sources confirmed to CNN that the attacks were made with cruise missiles, not aircraft. The missiles were fired from ships in the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. The simultaneous attacks took place about 1:30 p.m. EDT (1730 GMT).
In a brief comment made before his departure, the president said, "Today, we have struck back."
Today we have struck back. Against Osama bin Laden. And this was in 1998.
So what do you think the Republican opinion was? I don't mean from some TV movie that was full of inaccuracies. I mean real news from the time. What did the newspapers of August 21, 1998 report as the reaction?
They reported this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of Clinton's severest critics earlier in the week, said, "There's an obvious issue that will be raised internationally as to whether there is any diversionary motivation."
Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), a possible presidential candidate in 2000, noted "there is a cloud over this presidency."
And Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who called on Clinton to resign after his speech Monday, said: "The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action."
Told of these criticisms, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, branded them "preposterous," and noted that Osama bin Laden, suspected of bankrolling the installations that were bombed, "is one bad mother."
Clinton went for Osama bin Laden. It was all over the news. The newspapers reported it.
And the Republicans said it was "diversionary". It threw "a cloud over this presidency". It was questioned whether or not a President should even concern himself on "this issue", and even questioned whether or not we should "call for military action."
Those are the facts, recorded forever in history. And yet nobody pulls this up.
So from now on, this is how we kill the Hydra.
08-20-1998
August 20, 1998. The day that Clinton went for Osama bin Laden.
August 20, 1998. The day that three Republican Senators asked for Clinton to resign. Because the "call for military action" was made against Osama bin Laden.
August 20, 1998. The day that Conservatives and Republicans appeased the terrorists. The day that consessions were granted to a group that had already declared war on the United States. The day that terrorists were allowed to remain alive, thanks to the Republican Party, because talking about a stained blue dress was more important to them.
The Freepers want to talk about semen stains on a blue dress? Let's talk about semen stains on a blue dress. Let's talk about how semen stains on a blue dress were more important than killing terrorists.
August 20, 1998.
Thank you for reading.