Folks, this is the kind of discourse we can look forward to from the Christian right.
Dodging, spinning, providing no evidence (links, actual quotes with dates, etc.), and if you dare question you are not a Christian yourself.
PTS's response forthcoming.
-PTS
________________________________
We were indeed attacked by terrorists. President Bush did not lie. Neither did I. First of all, the President acted on the intelligence that he was given. Almost everyone, including the U.N. and the French, and most of the anti-war liberals in this country believed that Iraq had WMD and that Saddam was fully intent on continuing to build his strength. Past history with him indicated that he was a threat to us. He was unquestionably a sponsor of terrorism. To act on that intelligence, especially after Saddam's rebellion against 17 U.N. resolutions warning him of consequences if he didn't cooperate, is not a lie. If the intelligence is faulty, that doesn't make the President a liar to act on it.
Obviously, you don't know what a lie is. A lie is "deliberate deception". To believe something is a certain way and act accordingly may be acting on a lie someone else told, but it doesn't make you a liar to have acted in good faith and full confidence that you were being truthfully informed. If you are really a "truth squad", perhaps you should learn what a lie is. You call me a liar for stating that the President said he would take the war to the terrorists before they could bring it to us. He did say that. That's what I said he said. And, you call that a lie. I didn't say Iraq attacked us. Read my article again and you will find quite the contrary. I mentioned others that DID NOT attack us, but that we attacked. President Bush did not say Iraq attacked us.
Clearly, you aren't interested in truth. Apparently, you are interested in promoting your liberal agenda and promoting hatred of George W. Bush. Nothing he could do (short of resignation) would please you folks. Had he not attacked Iraq, and if they had attacked us, you would criticize him for sitting around while they built up their arsenal and killed our citizens. You "truth-proclaimers" would have been vicious in your attacks on him for not recognizing the looming and growing threat of Iraq.
How much do you really know about Christian virtues? I suspect that you are also on the side of removing the Ten Commandments from public places, and likely on the side of pro-abortion. And, if that is so, I will look forward to your next sermon to me on Christian virtues. It should be interesting.
I will read your e-mail on my radio program tomorrow morning.
Ricky Pfeil
kjrt@kingdomkeys.org
___________________________________________
Mr. Radio Preacher,
We read your column in Today's Amarillo Globe News.
You state, "We were attacked by terrorists. President Bush responded with force, declaring that we would take it to the supporters of terrorism" . . .
The truth is that Iraq did not attack us on 9-11.
Also, Bush's reason's for going to war in Iraq was that it was an immediate threat, and there is no evidence that Saddam supported Al Queda.
You are lying when you say different
Is lying to the public in our local paper a Christian value? Who lacks perspective and honesty here?
I look forward to hearing your correction on your Radio Shows
-Panhandle Truth Squad
(We are also Christian. Please see Beatitudes about peacemakers.)
PS: Any readers want to join us and let 'em know that lying is a sin?
kjrt@kingdomkeys.org
I would say the next terrorist attack we are sure to suffer someday will prove that the war on terror has yet to even begin, but people like Pfiel will undoubtedly blame the gays or single moms.
ReplyDeleteBlogarillo you nail it.
ReplyDeleteThree rules:
1. Bush can do no wrong. He's born again so everything is God's will.
2. If something goes wrong it's pro-choicers at fault.
3. If they can't be scapegoated, Bill Clinton did it.
Any thoughts on a response welcome.
-PTS
Re your comment: "... Bush's reason's [sic] for going to war in Iraq was that it was an immediate threat...You are lying when you say different"
ReplyDeleteActually, the President argued just the opposite, that the threat was emerging, but we couldn't afford to allow it to develop into an immediate threat before we acted. Rather than relying on revisionist history or the Democratic Party line, here's a quote from a primary source, the January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, given just weeks before we went to war with Iraq (Before you accuse me of lying too, you can check this at the website www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html The text can be found on other websites as well):
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
This isn't the first time I've caught someone on this blog erroneously excoriating the "religious right" for lying. Back on July 24, 2004, the following was posted:
"In todays amarillo globe news, Chuck Jones, who is dean of students for Trinity Fellowship Christian School, lies to the general public.
"Here it is. . . ' We must realize, however, that more than half of the country's voters voted against Gore in 2000' . . . "
"This is a COMPLETE lie, as Gore received 500, 000 MORE popular votes than Shrub."
I politely pointed out the following off list:
"How do you figure that a majority of voters voting against Gore in 2000 is a COMPLETE lie? Do the math! It would be a lie if Gore and Bush were the only candidates for President in 2000. But there were no fewer than 16 candidates. Check out the official results:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
If 48.38% of the electorate voted for Gore, that means that 51.62% voted against him. That sure looks like a majority to me. It's also true that a majority of voters voted against Bush."
I'd like to offer a few words of advice (for what it's worth):
1) Do your homework before you accuse someone of lying. Better yet, don't be so blunt. Just counter their arguments with your own facts and let the reader decide;
2) Read carefully what someone is saying. Don't read into it what's not there;
3) Don't let a person's religious convictions get the better of you emotionally so as to cloud your ability to do 1) and 2) above; and
4) As Joe Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am."
There have been some very thoughtful posts on this blog that have given me pause, even as a conservative. Two that come to mind are "When the CHIPs Fall" (07/26/04) and "Day in the Life: Joe Repbulican" (08/01/04).
If you really want to make a difference in the marketplace of ideas, lay off the personal attacks and give us conservatives a positive alternative. But if you just want to vent your frustrations and ruminate your hatred, keep on keepin' on, and you'll soon find that no one outside your own circle will even read what you have to say, much less take you seriously.