When stuff isn’t quite good enough for Men’s News Daily
Amber has to post it to her personal web site. This undated essay is titled: The Irony of Leftists Brow-Beating Iran-Contra. As you might expect, Amber’s never ending war on straw decides to take a whack at leftists:
As to be expected, after the death of America’s greatest President of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan, the left loves to subtly mention all negative things about him that they can muster up. Therefore, while Americans mourns his death and celebrate his life, leftists slyly mention Reagan’s biggest weak point during his Presidency at every chance they get: Iran-Contra.
Those no good mother fucker leftists, they make us so mad! Why you ask? Let Amber tell you:
Indeed, Iran-Contra was a major flaw in the Reagan presidency. After militant Muslims in Lebanon slaughtered American soldiers while they slept, Reagan did not adopt a get-tough policy. Instead, he negotiated and compromised with them, offering them arms for hostages. The left gleefully reminds Americans of this every chance it gets.
But isn’t this exactly how the left wants us to deal with terrorists?
Amber’s got you there, Mr. & Mrs. Leftist! It’s right there in the Democratic Party Platform: “We shall trade arms for hostages at every chance we get. Even though this goes against our stated policy. And regardless of the fact that it violates the Arms Export Control Act. And then we will use the proceeds from those sales to secretly finance the Contras in violation of US law.”
After September 11, 2001 ? even before the war in Afghanistan and before the war in Iraq ? the left screeched at us, ?Why do they (the terrorists) hate us!?? The message being that, clearly, getting to terrorists to love us, by pandering to their needs, whims and emotions, is the solution to terrorism. So, I ask again: was Iran-Contra not exactly how the left would want us to have dealt with those savages?
Amber darling, the answer you seek is… Sadly, No!:
On December 8, 1982, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed the “Boland Amendment” to the 1983 military appropriations bill stating that none of the appropriated defense funds could be used to “train, arm, or support persons not members of the regular army for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua.” This amendment made it illegal for the CIA to continue funding its anti-Sandinista army, which by then was calling itself the FDN (Nicaraguan Democratic Forces), but was better known as the Contras. [Emphasis added]
Amber’s got more however:
If it were up to the left, Saddam Hussein would not have been dragged out of a hole, like the rat he was, and tried for his crimes against humanity. [Emphasis added]
Yeah, we really enjoyed that time when Saddam was tried for his crimes against humanity. Good times.
We also wouldn’t have taken out one of the most ruthless, violent groups in the Middle East: the Taliban.
Of course not, those traitorous lefties in the Senate didn’t want to go to war!
Verbatim: Use of Force Resolution
Following is the text of a joint resolution approved unanimously by the Senate today.
ok, but those commies in the House didn’t want to!
In a 420-1 vote late Friday, the House gave final congressional approval to a resolution authorizing President Bush to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against those involved in Tuesday’s deadly terrorist attacks.
So as long as Barbara Lee = leftists, you can see how Amber has a point there, can’t you???
So, I want to ask leftists: would you have supported a get-tough policy against the Islamic terrorists who killed American soldiers? I?d like it in writing: I, (fill in your name), would have wanted Reagan to have killed all terrorists who killed American soldiers, and all states who sponsored them, with whatever military force that would have been necessary.
Well if there’s one thing we always favor here at Sadly, No!, it is the killing of states who sponsor terrorists who kill American soldiers. And if there’s anything we learned during the Reagan presidency, it’s that his administration will always stay within the limits of what is reasonable and legal, so there is no reason why Congress wouldn’t just let Reagan & Co. do whatever they wanted.
As Americans, we may [sic] not even have to send ground troops in to overthrow this [Iran] regime. The critical component is nothing more than to give moral support to the rebelling people of Iran. [Emphasis added]
Because you know the only thing stopping a full scale magical revolution that will turn Iran into the United States is some positive vibes sent by Jane Fonda. Amber said so!
As for Reagan, there’s one thing we learned during the Clinton presidency: it’s not the blowjob, it’s the lying that gets you.
“…the left loves to subtly mention all negative things about him…”
I was never once subtle when I brought up the negatives about Ronnie!
I just posted this at World O’Crap in response to some more pearls of Amber’s wisdom, and since it’s relevant, I’ll post it here as well:
Building on the theme that Sadly, No! started with Doug Giles: Guess how much of the following Amber Pawlik wrote?
The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole…
By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism…They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own…Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.
Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.
Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
None, actually. That’s all from the Unabomber’s manifesto.
Astoundishingly, I was without even trying able to find two factual errors and one grammatical error in the quotes of Amber.
1) “Greatest President of the 20th Century…” Um, FDR anyone? I mean dealing with a decade long depression AND defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan compared to dealt with a one and a half year recession and got to see the end of a 45 year policy of Soviet containment.
2) Locating the Taliban in the Middle East. That’s stretching it a bit. Greece is about as close to Syria and Saudi Arabia as Afghanistan is. Most geographers would put Afghanistan in either Central Asia or the Indian subcontinent.
3) Boldly splitting infinitives. Admittedly this is picky but Amber bitches about how liberals have ruined education. So zero tolerance on crappy grammar from the wingnuts.
it’s amazing that wingnuts acuse demos of appeasement, but he only administrations that have negioated with AQ, Iran and the Taliban has been Reagan, Bush, and Bush II: The Revenge- This Time It’s Personal
Chris-
“So zero tolerance on crappy grammar from the wingnuts.”
A word of warning: if you can do this go ahead, but be careful. I try not to do the whole grammar police thing myself, because the few times i have, I usually end up using worse grammar than whoever I’m trying to berate. And proofreading sux.
Okay, just out of curiousity, is it any way possible that Amber Pawlik could be an elaborate hoax? I ask this because it’s happened in fandom a few times, that people have, out of the evilness of their hearts, concocted such charades to draw fire, deliberately writing stories with no grammar, no spelling, no plot, no concern for the canon and characters, and lots of badly written sex – just so that they can laugh at all the people who either try to explain to them how to write better, or yell at them for being paraliterate dopes.
Amber seems almost too bad/good to be true, what with the total ignorance of history, the colonized-mind gender treason, the inability to write grammatical sentences, and the sex-fixation.
Is it possible we’re all being had?
Is it possible we’re all being had?
It’s possible, but if so, it’s a hoax worthy of the Smoking Man on “X-Files” (completely consistant persona maintained for years, photos faked of “Amber” with such notables as Ann Coulter, mentions by the legit press, RECIPES).
So, keep telling yourself that you want to believe, even though the alternative might be more comfortable.
It’s not what I “want to believe” – it’s a question of examining all the plausible options and weighing them. If you don’t think that there are cynical malicious dilletantes out there who get a kick out of stringing people along like angry dogs behind a fence, getting them to bark and raise hackles, so to speak, by playing dumb – got news for you, I personally know of at least 4 cases like that. Some of them are obviously too bad to be real, but even then – there are some amazingly bad writers/thinkers out there. Those are the “trolls” in fanfiction.
Then there are cases of people pretending to be multiple individuals who sometimes fight with each other online, carrying on little soap-opera dramas. Sometimes they get busted by ISP #s, and sometimes they give themselves away otherwise – but again, there are several historical cases where it was strung out for months in fairly busy online groups, which is pretty challenging (these kids’ talents are being wasted, they should be in MI5…)
But in either case, they get psychic power from being hated and insulted by people stupid enough to think they’re for real, or pitied and consoled by people who wouldn’t be impressed by their boring lives in RL, via their fictional personae.
So – *has* anyone ever clocked Seb and Amber online at the same time…?
See, there’s just this “Bonsai Kittens” feel to it – that’s the best way I can put it. A lot of people fell and still fall for that one, there have been several outraged cries on maillists I belong to.
So I’ve sent “Amber” a challenge – a “Fly at once, your secret is known” email, just for kicks, to see if I can start any hares…
Afghanistan is in the Middle East?
Amber Pawlik: America’s Dumbest Libertarian(tm)
Wonder if TBogg would be interested in the trademark…
I’m willing to be reasonable. Perhaps in exchange for a 40 gallon drum of Snark.
Holy shit! If I’d known I was getting sent to the Middle East I wouldn’t have come here. I’m packing my… what? Asia?
O thank God.