Liberal Scum’s Response to “Telling the Truth and Tarentino…”

The friend of mine described in my piece “Telling the Truth and Tarantino…” decided to respond formally . We agreed that his pseudonym should be “Liberal Scum.” Here it is: (JD)

I believe I may have either failed to communicate or you (conveniently?) misunderstood some of my stances First I do not offer a defense of everyone of Obama’s actions, and I believe he is as prone to mistakes as any other leader… however I believe he is a wise leader and is guided by an ideology of liberty and peace both of which resonate well with my own personal values.. Also I laud his and Hillary Clinton’s ability to transform America’s narrative in the international community to that of a restrained peacemaker despite 6 times the drone strikes than his predecessor. There is something to be said about diplomacy and image management. Sometimes these can be more potent weapons for peace than all the war machinery in the world.

Second I do not believe that random killings of Americans should ever be condoned, but in the interest of peace if we through covert means were to facilitate the removal of a destabilizing leader versus invading a country resulting in thousands of deaths including american soldiers, I prefer the former any day. To me, the sneaky strategic removal of a “Hitler” like leader is far far more moral than a righteous war that kills millions.

Three I do not agree with the concept of big Government or redistribution (irrespective of Obama or the liberal stand on this), I believe in free enterprise and that the role of government is to promote it. However I do believe that taxes are a necessary evil and that it is the moral obligation on a people that can afford it to not see their lowest strata of society die “involuntarily” of hunger or lack of medical care (basic human needs). I have seen too much of that in the third world and believe it is immoral and makes us less of a civilization.

Also I do respect your extensive experience, scholarship and reading , which is why I pay attention to what you say even if it sometimes makes no sense to me I typically have faith that what you tell me is rooted deeply in your beliefs and your scholarly background, versus the propaganda one hears from right wing TV shows.

Frankly I was also a little disappointed as well that Obama’s inaugural speech was a bit too much to the left and did not focus as much on the economic agenda. I believe or hope he may have in some respects been pandering to some of his more staunch constituents as his inaugural victory lap, and will take a more pragmatic approach to resolving our economic challenges once the rhetoric is done. So my support for Obama is driven not so much by his rhetoric or political affiliation but my faith in him as a wise leader who believes in doing the right thing.


About Jacques Delacroix

I write short stories, current events comments, and sociopolitical essays, mostly in English, some in French. There are other people with the same first name and same last name on the Internet. I am the one who put up on Amazon in 2014: "I Used to Be French: an Immature Autobiography" and also: "Les pumas de grande-banlieue." To my knowledge, I am the only Jacques Delacroix with American and English scholarly publications. In a previous life, I was a teacher and a scholar in Organizational Theory and in the Sociology of Economic Development. (Go ahead, Google me!) I live in the People’s Green Socialist Republic of Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in comments by others, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Liberal Scum’s Response to “Telling the Truth and Tarentino…”

  1. When you talk to liberals, you have to be prepared for a lot of drifting. The drift often leads to a spot of useful ignorance (for them). Yet, I don’t think it’s always voluntary. There is a nice example of such drift in Liberal Scum’s response :

    When I raised the issue of presidentially ordered murders, I was certainly not referring to “random killing of Americans” as he says here. On the contrary, I was talking about the precise targeting of Americans the President thinks need killing. Two relevant cases are those of Al Awlaki in Yemen and of his sixteen-year old son. The son was targeted, separately, by the way. Apparently,the “wise leader” President Obama thinks he has the right to kill bad Americans if they are abroad, including those who are not old enough to purchase cigarettes.

    Liberal Scum’s switch to “random killing” has the consequence of making my original argument sound unreasonable.It makes sense to simply dismiss those with whom you disagree if they act unreasonable. I am not unreasonable, period. I am not easy to dismiss. I am not going away soon.

    • Bruce says:

      The only thing I liked about what the liberal scum did was that he numbered his responses. I will too.
      1. Hillary’s performance as Secretary of State was among the worst ever. She was invisible until Benghazi, where she melted down. She projected weakness with a floundering foreign policy everywhere she was tested. Kim Jong-II, Putin, Ahmadinejad. There were eight embassy bombings under her watch. Some of this was no doubt a result of her bosses affinity for bowing down to tyrants, but a lot of it was her not packing the gear needed to serve in the position. She is a shop worn “Bill Clinton worn” left wing feminist dinosaur. All the main stream media can say about her now is that they’re happy she will be getting some much deserved rest. We should feel some kind of pity for her, anyway she always gets a free pass, cause she cares. They’re no doubt hoping she will be the first female president four years from now. She’s still the undisputed smartest woman alive today, all one has to do is recall here lightening bolt of genius comment “What difference at this point does it make?” Imagine how the media would have handled a conservative saying that? That’s one difference.
      2. Random killings. It’s funny how when the Republicans do it it’s wrong, but when the Democrats do it, it’s brilliant diplomacy. Brute force versus surgical precision. On a larger scale the Left has been so successful in re-writing history that most people think the Vietnam war was entirely Nixon thing. When was the last time you heard the daily American serviceman death tally from Afghanistan? Hint- it was around the time Obama took over. The Democrats neutered our CIA a long time ago, so you have to do it primarily with drones, which are not very covert.
      3. The Liberal Scum does not believe in big government re- distribution. What does he call higher taxes? What does he call my having to work harder for nothing to pay other people’s bills? It used to be called slavery, now its called fairness. It most certainly is not freedom and liberty. He does not believe in big government but believes big government stands for fairness. He believes in government controlled free enterprize. Got it. My guess is that he’s either on the free stuff entitlement take or someone made his inner child feel guilty. As you suggest, he need to take his inner child out and give it a good ass kicking. Here in Florida we might ask him “When was the last time your inner child had a good country ass whooping?”
      4. “So my support for Obama is driven not so much by his rhetoric or political affiliation but in my faith in him as a wise leader who believes in doing the right thing.” This sums it up perfectly. To those unable or unwilling to think critically or rationally, what their person says or does does not matter. What matters is what they think their guy must have been thinking when he did what he did. Applying that logic, it does not matter what he does, we have faith his heart was in the right place. After several generations of public school indoctrination and a far left media continuing the lesson, it’s no wonder we’re where we are today.

      • Bruce: Splendid, as usual.

        Still, I deserve a commendation for my talent in making them come out, don’t I?

      • She projected weakness with a floundering foreign policy everywhere she was tested.

        This juicy tidbit explains quite well, I think, the impotence of the GOP at the national level over the last eight years. It’s the reason nobody under the age of 25 who is not a Born Again virgin would ever consider voting for a Republican, despite the fact that the GOP harbors smart, competent men capable of making hard decisions (Gary Johnson, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul come to mind).

        I always smirk when I read conservative lamentations about ‘weakness’ and ‘projection’ in terms of foreign affairs. The very people who cannot fathom traveling to other countries for more than two or three weeks every decade or so suddenly become experts in international relations when their team is out of power.

        Remind me again, Bruce: is Amsterdam in Denmark or the Netherlands?

        The Republican Party will remain in the wilderness on the national stage until decides to govern as a fiscally conservative coalition. In my mind, and in the minds of millions of others in composing my voting bloc, invading and occupying foreign states under ambiguous congressional directives is on the opposite pole of fiscal conservatism. Such actions represent the epitome of reckless abandon and utopian delusions.

      • Brandon, Brandon: Always interesting; sometimes amazing!

        One is not competent to critique foreign policy because one does not itch-hike through Africa and catch amaebe?

        How about reading National Geographic instead and avoid le caca du touriste? (He,he, I speak an African language pretty well.)

  2. Terry Amburgey says:

    “I am not unreasonable, period.”

    Of course you are. If you were reasonable, you’d be a progressive instead of a teapublican.

    • Here you go again, Prof. Terry, giving responses that make people believe that I invented you, that you are a figment of my imagination! I think I am going to insert a picture of you somewhere to prove otherwise.

  3. Bruce says:

    I think they’re drawn to you because somewhere deep inside they know instinctively that someday they might need a solid dose of reason to survive. They sure are soft targets when you flush them out into the open too. You can’t make up the crazy stuff they say. I’m always on the look out for name calling, a sure sign you’ve got one hooked. Keep tension on the line and reel ’em in!

  4. Terry Amburgey says:

    Pissing away trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in the pursuit of bogus WMD isn’t fiscally conservative?

    • Prof. Terry.

      In my recollection, the Constitution says that the federal government is in charge of national defense. Spending what I think amounted to $400 a year of my money and my wife ‘s money on our behalf for purposes of defense was conservative and fiscally responsible if it was really on behalf of national defense.

      Of course, it ‘s possible to have different opinions on the issue of whether the liberation of Iraq qualified as US national defense.

      Determining whether it helped US defense or not is not helped by verbal deviousness. WMD were “bogus” either because they did not exist, or because President Bush lied about them. Those are quite different interpretations of recent history. It would be honorable to state which you believe.

      Calling Pres. Bush silly names does not enhance your intellectual respectability. Mine would suffer if I called Pres. Obama: “Sheik Hussein,” wouldn’t it?

      It’s not worth re-engaging the discussion on the serious issue of the function of the Iraq war in the absence of a minimum of intellectual seriousness that is lacking in this case.

      • Bruce says:

        Brandon, sorry for the late response to your inquiry. Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands. I have been there too so imagine my shame for making that mistake. Anyway, thanks for reminding me about the geography lesson Dr. J gave me a while back. You might also note how kind he was when he corrected me. I do know there are the United States has 50 states and the District of Columbia. Even our brilliant and kind leader Barack Obama can mess up on occasion. Remember when he said there were 57 states? That are you going to do? I must confess some of this might have to do with my age, it takes me longer to name that tune. I love the Jackson Browne lament “Don’t confront me with my failures; I have not forgotten them.”
        Just took a look at your website. Well done.Ron Paul has a loyal following of passionate individuals. I think he would be much better than what we have now. Maybe Rand will take off. Something must change!
        I think it’s great your studying anthropology too. It must be a minefield for a Caucasoid anthropologist in our post racial politically correct world. You could pull an Elizabeth Warren and check the Native American box when you apply to a top tier graduate school. Kidding aside, as a smart guy you have the potential to be successful regardless of whether you have a high powered Ph.D or not. I have exceeded most peoples expectations, including my own with a political science degree from Indiana University. It’s about being happy!
        Seriously, take another look at how expertly Dr. J handled my geography mistake. “Different beers”. Whether you’re a professor with students or a maitre d supervising waiters in a restaurant, your people will learn, respond and remember more if you do things the right way. I don’t have to tell you, people make the difference!

  5. Terry Amburgey says:

    “Calling Pres. Bush silly names does not enhance your intellectual respectability.”

    An interesting but puzzling accusation. Direct me to the silly name I called President Bush and I’ll apologize tout de suite.

    “WMD were “bogus” either because they did not exist, or because President Bush lied about them. Those are quite different interpretations of recent history. It would be honorable to state which you believe.”

    They’re clearly bogus for the first reason. I don’t believe President Bush lied [although Vice Presidnt Cheney certainly did]. I believe President Bush suborned faulty intelligence and willfully ignored intelligence that didn’t say what he wanted to hear. As an active practitioner of confirmation bias you’re familiar with the process.

    • Terry: You personally did not call Bush silly that I know of. I was using a generic “you.”

      Your memory of the noise around the bogus WMD is faulty. At the time, the Brits said they existed, and the Italians, and the Russians, and even the French (who voted against the invasion at the UN and made a rousing speech about it). And Saddam expelled the UN weapons inspectors for reasons that are still hard to fathom many years after you become convinced the WMD were bogus. And at least one Iraqi general has declared that he and his colleagues believed to the end that Saddam had secret WMD. All this is common knowledge from serious sources such as the WSJ . Without at least, some of this, it’s difficult to understand why Congress voted for the war with such comfortable majorities. (So many morons?) I believe this included Sen Clinton (but I am only 75% positive on this.)

  6. Terry Amburgey says:

    @ Bruce. Enjoy your youth while you can. I don’t bother trying to name that tune, I’m happy remembering what a tune is 🙂

  7. Terry Amburgey says:

    “At the time, the Brits said they existed, and the Italians, and the Russians, and even the French (who voted against the invasion at the UN and made a rousing speech about it).”

    Based on their own independently acquired information or ‘intelligence’ passed on from the U.S.?

    • This is a naive question. It’s a also a little contemptuous of others. I don’t want to deal with the aprt of your brain that is responsible for this comment.

      Instead, I propose you ask yourself whether it would make sense to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Saddama’s possession after he kicked out the UN inspectors who were explicitly in charge of finding them.

      • Bruce says:

        Part of the training I went through in the US Navy involved countermeasures to chemical, biological radiological and nuclear weapons (CBRN). I considerd these to be weapons of mass distruction (WMD) and still do. Am I wrong? Since Saddam and his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, you might remember him as “Chemical Ali”, used chemical weapons against the Kurds during the Al-Anful campaign in 1988 and used them in 1991 to qwell another uprising, what more evidence do we need that he had these weapons? Not only hid he have them, he used them to kill thousands of his own people. It has always puzzled me that the Bush hating Leftists conveniently eliminated chemical weapons from the list of possible WMD’s. On the other hand they’re quick to add all kinds of items to the list of things they want to ban. Assault weapons, assault magazines (more than 10 rounds), etc. Did we need to find a hydrogen bomb complete with a intercontenental missile delivery system to qualify? My guess is that if we had found one the haters would have said “well, there was only one H-bomb, not a mass quantity”. Bush lied, people died. That was the story and they were sticking to it. Repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth. It’s comforting to know we’re in a much better place with Obama. Drone strikes against American citizens without solid evidence of terrorist activity or due process. Honestly, can you stop for a moment and imagine what the same people who keel hauled Bush over WMD would be saying about this? It’s absolutely amazing!

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        As usual, Jacques remembers history not as it occurred but as he wishes it had occurred. I remember Hans Blix on tv talking about the inspection program and how close it was to being done but Pres. Bush claimed we couldn’t wait, the threat of WMD was too urgent [Besides VP Cheney was spinning his bullshit about Saddam & Al Qaeda]. Jacques’ fiction about the UN inspectors being ‘kicked out’ is the product of his [admittedly rich] imagination.

        “During the lead-up to war in March 2003, United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting “proactive” but not always the “immediate” Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence.[14]”

      • I think Wikipedia – on which Terry relies – is worse than useless on such contentious issues. I believe it gives one a false sense of having done one’s “research.” In fact the Wikipedia safeguards against an issue being captured by a powerful and large opinion faction are weak. This does not mean that I have a good alternative to propose except to go to the original sources.

        First, a restatement of my position: I freely concede that the belief that Iraq possessed WMD was based on erroneous information, on a bad intelligence failure. There are good reasons why the failure was so widespread. Here is what the head UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix told the UN Security Council on 1/27/2003, shortly before the start of military operations:

        “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it…” (as a part of the armistice, the agreement ending the Gulf War which Saddam Hussein had signed.)

        Mr Blix also said on the same occasion that Iraqi Air Force documents showed that one thousand tons of toxic nerve gas remained unaccounted for. Now, I don’t know how much that really is but it sounds to me like a lot to be left in the hands of someone who had previously used nerve gas to massacre civilians. I will be glad to let Terry argue that one thousand tons is no big deal.

        And, let me repeat that a captured Iraqi general said that he and his colleagues believed there were WMD, that he was flabbergasted when American soldiers were allowed to enter Bagdad.

        This being said, Terry is right on ene point, my memory failed me: Saddam Hussein did not kick out the inspectors, Blix withdrew them in disgust.

        I regret, I regretted at the time that the Bush administration put forward the weapons of mass destruction to make its casus belli when Hussein’s forces had violated the armistice thousands of times in more visible ways and had massively cheated on the humanitarian food for oil program. If it had been my decision then, and if I had been 100% convinced there were no WMD, I would have gone ahead.

        United Nations resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force against Iraq? Note that I care that much about the UN as a moral force: At the time, the country chairing the UN Disarmament Commission was ….Iraq!

        The collective self-delusion on Iraqi WMDs is in itself very interesting and it does not look much like lying to me. Senator Clinton, for example made clearly-worded declarations affirming unambiguously her belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Qaida. In the end, as I keep repeating, Congress authorized military action by large majorities in both houses.

        This is not to argue that what turned out to be false was true. Yet, and beyond the faults in my memory, I must ask Bush critics like Terry to push their thinking a little further, to express themselves more openly. I suspect their agenda includes more than denouncing the widespread intelligence incompetence that triggered the war.

        What is Terry saying?

        That the US and the UK did not start this war because of WMD but because: __________________(Complete sentence.)

        That it’s a pity the US and its allies interfered with the Saddam regime?

  8. Terry Amburgey says:

    “On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of a small number of degraded chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that “Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.” However, all are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions.[117]

    These munitions meet the technical definition of weapons of mass destruction, according to the commander of the National Ground Intelligence Center. “These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee. The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, though agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said.[118]”

    This was the casus belli for the Iraq war?

    • Bruce says:

      Good information, thanks!
      I’m not sure if this alone would qualify as a reason to wage war. Likely not. Sometimes it helps me to mix things up and see if a different perspective emerges. What if Obama had been President (instead of Bush) and we had solid evidence that the leader of country X planned an assassination of former President Bill Clinton (instead of George H.W. Bush). What if the leader of country X continued to violate UN Resolutions by firing on aircraft enforcing the no fly zones in spite of Obama’s continued warnings (instead of Bush’s)? What if Obama, based on the best intelligence available (from an admittedly neutered CIA) had information that the leader of country X was actively sourcing a nuke and enhancing the chemical and biological weapons he already had, and had used against his own people? I think Obama would have done the same thing, and I think he will do whatever the UN Security Concil recommends because he’s a One World kind of guy. I say the hell with the UN, I would defund the bunch, no more high class New York City hookers on the taxpayers dime. The only difference would be the how it was reported. As I have stated, if Bush, or any Republican for that matter, was using drones to kill American citizens without due process outside the rule of law, there would be a fire storm in the media. I think if Obama wanted to spank North Korea right now the media would be right there behind him. If it got ugly, and it likely would, there would not be any daily body counts either. If anything, I think we’re more likely to go to war with Obama in the White House than ever. U S Secretary of State John “Swiftboat” Kerry, reporting for duty!
      Note: Have you heard anything about closing Gitmo? Maybe Obama will share his plan tonight in his address.

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        “Note: Have you heard anything about closing Gitmo? Maybe Obama will share his plan tonight in his address.”

        Not a word. It will never be closed under this president. It’s a shame that the notion of putting gitmo prisoners in federal prisons fell through. The thought of terrorists enjoying the company of the general population in prison warms the cockles of my heart.

  9. Terry Amburgey says:

    “That the US and the UK did not start this war because of WMD but because: __________________(Complete sentence.) ”

    : a weak minded and weak willed president allowed himself and his country to start a war based on the ideological fantasies of his neo-con advisors.

    “That it’s a pity the US and its allies interfered with the Saddam regime?”

    That it is tragedy that the US started a war costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars under false pretenses. What did we, as a country, gain?
    I answered your fill-in-the-blank question, here’s one for you.

    The war in Iraq cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars but it was worth the cost because:___________________(complete sentence).

    • Terry: OK. so, you are not one of those who think that evil, or oil, or evil oil was the cause, right?

      Your challenge is fair. Before I give your question the answer it deserves, please, let’s make sure we are speaking from similar facts:

      Order of magnitude of the cost of the Iraq war to the US?

      When you speak of the dead, do you refer to the number of Americans dead – which is known – or do you refer to the imagining of various liberal groups and the invented numbers supplied by a Baathist official that prevailed on the internet for several months?

      FYI i I tend to trust Human Rights Watch.
      For Wikepedia numbers, see above.

      In the deaths of Iraqis, are we talking excess over normal Saddamite times or just a raw numbers?

  10. Terry Amburgey says:

    “Terry: OK. so, you are not one of those who think that evil, or oil, or evil oil was the cause, right?”

    Evil was a contributing cause in the person of Vice President Cheney. I typically reserve that descriptor for mass murderers, child rapists and the like rather than politicians. In my opinion he qualifies. When he dies I’ll have the same sense of deep satisfaction that I had when Bin Laden got his just desserts. Oil? No, in my opinion ideology; oil wouldn’t have required all the neocon nation building crap.

    As for costs just U.S. deaths and expenditures. I don’t want to devalue the death and destruction of others but I admit to a biased preference with Americans at the top.

    • Tery: THanks for the clarifications. I will answer. You forgot to tell me what the financial cost to the US were.

      • Second reply to Terry: I like how you use your special access to secret information to write scripts for horror movies. Cheney is evil because/ Are there specific acts or is it more subtle than this? At any rate, I am glad to know that there are conservatives who believe in evil. (Unless, of course, you think Cheney is evil because he was deprived of something or other in childhood.)

        The cost of the Iraq war was?

      • Terry Amburgey says:

        4,487 American deaths both combat and non-combat combined. Lets go with just direct DoD spending of $757.8 billion and ignore the indirect spending.

  11. Thanks for the deaths count.
    Don’t do me any favor with respect to indirect spending. Actually, I and a few other would like to see you deal with INDIRECT war spending. Great program.

  12. Terry Amburgey says:

    “Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[12] Stiglitz has stated: “The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions…Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq.”[12] It should be noted that Stiglitz is a staunch liberal and that his estimates of the cost of the war may well be on the high side since the war was the responsibility of the GOP, meaning that more of the Obama deficit and debt can be attributed to the wars.”

    Use whichever number you like….when you get tired of ducking the question.

  13. Not ducking. I wanted to make sure I knew what you were talking about (since you are one of three liberals brave enough to brave me). I knew of Stiglitz’s declaration. I did not know he had actually conducted a study as the word is usually understood. Can you help there too?

    I have to know because, as you well know, there are studies that show anything you wish to show depending on the assumptions you begin with. I have to be weary of Stiglitz – Nobel Prize or not- because I remember his book on globalization as impressively dishonest.

    Worry not,I could give a response based on the Pentagon direct costs alone but it would not be a satisfying.

  14. Pingback: The Iraq War: What It Gave Me | FACTS MATTER

  15. Pingback: The Iraq War: What It Gave Me (bis, smaller font) | FACTS MATTER

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s