Rumsfeld Wants a Ministry of Truth

George Orwell 1984.

 

The left-wing garbage about neo-Jacobins is getting silly. Rumsfeld hardly operates from a moral perspective, as will be demonstrated below. And, yes, Indiana Senator Lugar did point out that Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Vice-President Chaney were contradicting each other; however, Lugar's point was that George W. Bush is the President and the ultimate authority. There is no GOP infighting about the war against worldwide terror caused by Islamofascists. It is Islamofascism that is guilty of lies and crimes against humanity.

As for all the lies that the left says that they have found, they need to get Teddy Kennedy to move in the US Congress about these lies since the Senator from Chappaquiddick has said that week after week after week--oh, you know what the rest of the bottle of whiskey says. This all must be heady stuff to that most infamous of all Libertarians Howard Stern.

Most Americans put the Ba'athist Party, the Nazi Party, and the Communist Party in the same category. However, I suppose that Libertarians and Democrat liberals are too proud to fight for second-class Arabs in Iraq. Mass graves of common everyday Arabs are of no concern to "intellectuals".

But let's look at Rummy's real problem as outlined by Robert Novak on August 2. Here, too, the Libertarians and Democrat liberals will not tell you and here is the proof that there are no neo-Jacobians. The reason that Libertarianism and liberalism will not tell you about the real nature of the problem is that they approve of Rumsfeld's error.

Here is what Novak wrote on August 2:

"RUMSFELD'S GAY ADVISER

"Gay activist Stephen Herbits, who worked temporarily at the Pentagon on two occasions in 2001 and 2002, has settled in as a special adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"Herbits now has his name on the door and has been assigned a Pentagon e-mail address. A longtime friend and ally of Rumsfeld, he is clearing all major personnel choices in the Defense Department.

"In 2000, former Seagrams executive Herbits contributed $17,000 to Democratic causes, including $13,000 to the Democratic National Committee and $1,000 to the Gore-Lieberman Recount Fund. Federal records show no 2000 political contributions by Herbits to Republicans. Generally, even contributors to other Republican candidates in 2000 have had trouble getting named to the Bush administration."


The Libertarians approve of Herbits. And the Democrat liberals approve of Herbits. No matter that gays are not supposed to be in military jobs. So these two political forces continue their desperate search for an issue. The "intellectual" Howard Stern must be the brains of the Libertarian Party.

 

Was not Novak the guy who outed a CIA operative whose husband was unfriendly to Bush?

 

Yep. I can understand shield laws that let journalists protect sources. But I wish someone could explain to me why the White House official who gave Novak the information is a traitor for aiding our enemies, but Novak isn't a traitor for helping him.

 

Finally somebody has thought up a job that Bill Clinton can do! Minister of Truth !!

 

Irrelevant. You don't have to be ultra-moral to be a dangerous neo-conservative with desires to conquer the world.

Actually, the last 100 years of European colonialism combined with the superpowers' actions during the Cold War have a lot more to do with terrorism than Islam does. But that's a level of analysis that you're probably unable to manage.

 

Oh, isn't that a subject of a Department of Justice investigation? Novak had a statement on the issue if you are really interested. Others have said that the husband and wife had already made it all but public that she worked for the CIA. What do you mean by operative?

But all that has nothing to do with Rummy's gay advisor, which you, as a Libertarian, would have no objection about. Yet you are trying to claim that Rummy is some sort of Jacobin because of his morals. What morals?

 

Who is the White House official, Galatian? It seems that you may be withholding information here.

This argument against Novak misses the point of gays in the military, or. in this case, in the Pentagon. But then you might also tell us Galatian about gays in the Roman Catholic clergy worldwide--the so-called lavender mafia. Is that okay with liberal Clinton admirers? And how about gay bishops in the Protestant Episcopal Church USA?

 

Irrelevant. You don't have to be ultra-moral to be a dangerous neo-conservative with desires to conquer the world.

Actually, the last 100 years of European colonialism combined with the superpowers' actions during the Cold War have a lot more to do with terrorism than Islam does. But that's a level of analysis that you're probably unable to manage. </font>[/QUOTE]The thread dealt with neo-Jacobins and the author defined what one was on the other thread on this subject. He wrote:

"Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other societies in the Jacobin image.

"Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its dominance over others, including its own citizens."

So it is your side, True Blue, that said that Rummy was acting from a moral point of view. Perhaps you agree with me that this Jacobin label is getting silly.

Thanks for the insult about my limited ability to imagine. I can only pray that I could be as smart--True Blue, as you--LOL. You are probably rich, too, and not as poor as a church mouse.

The fact that there is no GOP infighting in the war against Islamofascism is proven by the vote to authorize the eighty-seven billion dollars as requested by the President. As for the French and German and Belgium argument that the casues of Nine Eleven are America's fault, I would say that that is the talking point of liberal Democrats, who should control their party's nomination in the person of Dean.

Islam is guilty of worldwide crimes against humanity daily. It is a cruel and barbaric religion, and Allah is another name for Satan, whose birthday is October 31.

 

Watch out, CMG, you'll soon be called a bigot for that last paragraph. It's a favorite accusation by the left, ya know.

 

church mouse guy,

The left-wing garbage about neo-Jacobins is getting silly.

There is no GOP infighting about the war against worldwide terror caused by Islamofascists. It is Islamofascism that is guilty of lies and crimes against humanity.

Excellent post! Rumsfeld and company aren't to be let off the hook as you pointed out about his homosexual activist appointment and the many others detailed by PA Jim elsewhere, but there's not a cabal in the Administration out to rip apart the Bill of Rights, as the hard Left and the isolationist/Libertarian Right would have us believe.

 

Yes, I have.

 

I haven't read it yet (have you?) but will try to do so. I did find a link to the text. Do you by any chance know of an unbiased source to decode the "strike x" and "insert y" (that stuff makes my eyes glaze over)? To be honest, about the only thing I've heard (and believed) have been Rush and Sean's protestations, along with some National Review articles making the argument that there is nothing inimical to our liberties, that wiretapping, etc. still require a judge's approval as before. Any links you know of on the contents would be appreciated, except for any hard Left garbage (though I suspect you don't hang around hard Left websites).

Thanks.

 

Not me. Novak. He's already admitted that a "senior White House" official gave him the information about the identity of one of our CIA agents, but he won't say who it was.

What do gays have to do with this? I don't think Novak is gay, and the woman in question is married, so I don't think she is.?

Oh, one of those... No, I don't think that gay Roman Catholics were involved, although I suppose we can't rule it out at this point.

I don't know. But my guess is that most of them aren't too pleased Novak and the WH tipped off our enemies about one of our agents.

What's the "Protestant Episcopal Church USA"?

 

For the record, Galatian, when I mentioned Novak, it was in connection with his report on Rumsfeld's gay advisor in the Pentagon. Someone tried to switch the topic to the CIA case when Novak was mentioned.

Rumsfeld has appointed a Democrat gay activist to a job in the Pentagon, as reported by Novak. The Libertarians and liberal Democrats have no objection to gays in the military or Pentagon.

Since you posted, I thought that I would see what you thought of a Seagram's whiskey owner and gay activist in the Pentagon and what you thought of gay priests worldwide--the lavender mafia--in the Catholic Church and what you thought of the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire who divorced his wife, left his children, and lives openly with another man.

 

Who made you the spokesman for what all Libertarians believe? I do have objections to gays serving in the military because I think it could cause problems within military units. I don't claim to be the spokesman for Libertarians in this however.

The last time I checked though Bush and Rumsfeld were Republicans and not Libertarians. They are the ones appointing gays. I'm not sure why he appointed the fellow. Curious though should there be a morality test for being hired at Walmart, Sears, US Post Office etc... which would mean that people who are involved in hetereosexual relationships outside of marriage as well as homosexual relationships be excluded from employment?

I worked in a Clothing store years ago and one fellow I worked with was involved in hetereosexual relationships outside of marriage (or as we say in the South, they were shacking up) Should he not have been hired? He was a good worker despite being involved in a immoral relationship. This gave me opportunities to witness to him about Christ that I would not have had otherwise.

 

No one made me spokesperson for the Libertarian Party. I would not do that horrible job for ten million dollars a year.

Here is what the Libertarians say from a link that Ken gave on another thread:

"The Libertarian Party's Statement of Principles

"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

That in itself sounds as if the Libertarians say that they are not against homosexuals working for Rumsfeld in the Pentagon. Kiffin, I think that you are in the wrong party. You seem to be a minority within a minority party. Tell Dr. Demento goodbye.

 

CMG you stated,

What is wrong with that statement? Do you not agree that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose? Is not that what the Bill of Rights espouses? It does not mean that you and I agree with their lifestyle but that individuals under the Constitution can live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others.

The reason I oppose openly gay people serving in military units is that I believe that such a lifestlye in a close enviroment could interfere with unit cohesiveness and morale....thus interfering with the equal right of others.

Here again CMG comes our dilema. Rumsfeld and the fellow working for him are civilians. What are the justifications for firing the fellow? Just because he is a homosexual? Must the same be done to individuals in hetereosexual relationships outside of marriage (That is fornicators, Adulterers)? What Constitutional reason can he be fired? If he was hired as some sort of affirmative action plan I can understand the reasoning.

I am reminded of the words of the Apostle Paul from 1 Cor. 5:9-12

Paul is clear that there is a certain criteria for being admitted into the Church. Those living in immoral lifestyles such as homosexuality are not to be received into the Church until they repent and come to Christ. Paul on the other hand was clear that Christian morality can never be successfuly imposed on the world by the church. That is not our mission. We are to seek to win them over with the Gospel to leave their godless lifestyles. The Pentagon is not a Church and there is no moral criteria for having a job in the Pentagon. Maybe some Christians in the Pentagon could have a influence upon him and lead him to Christ.

[ October 31, 2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]