Anti-War Talking Points Spouted At The Gym
This is a guest posting from GP Commenter Jeff (aka - I Love Capitalism)
******************
I live in a “blue” area, dominated by liberals. Despite their dominance, some still need to proclaim their views in the oddest places. At the YMCA the other day, an older man and an older couple – think aging semi-hippies: unkempt hair, a tie-dye T-shirt among them, and all three of them caucasian – overflowed in joyful agreement about how terrible the Iraq war is. I couldn’t imagine why they needed to uplift their voices to the whole weight room, but I did admire how the one dude was like a machine, the way he rattled off Daily Kos clichés:
1) He “supports the troops” (quotes here show his words, as best I can remember), but we must understand, his idea of it is “bringing them home and not spending another *dime* on their equipment.” And he certainly doesn’t support “all those mercenaries” in Iraq.
2) America is “making the same mistakes as Vietnam”, as our troops “kill innocent people.”
3) People who don’t think like he does are “blindsided” (i.e., idiotic).
4) Iraqis don’t want democracy and “aren’t capable of it”, due to their “different culture”.
5) He says we should “leave native cultures alone” and not try to “develop these countries, like in Africa” or “teach them anything”, because “we just cause pain” in doing so.
6) Iraq is a “war for Christianity”.
7) He’s into Buddhism because “nobody ever fought a war for Buddhism”. In fairness, at this point, he or one of his companions added, “Well maybe the Japanese.”
I kept my mouth shut, so as not to compound their faux pas - inflicting politics on strangers who only came to do squats! But I kept thinking, wow, surely I know this guy from Gay Patriot. ;-) For the enlightenment of you left-wing GP skimmers who still don’t get it, I’ll answer the guy’s rote points:
1) Our troops and NGOs in Iraq are volunteers, not mercenaries. Their mission is to beat al Qaeda (and some would argue, Iran). They accepted that mission when they re-enlisted. Understand this: You DO NOT support them, if you don’t support them doing their mission.
2) Al Qaeda kills innocent people in Iraq. Our troops defend innocent people with care and professionalism.
3) People who don’t think just like you are not “blind” or “blindsided”. You, on the other hand, may be.
4) Ordinary Iraqis want democracy and are as capable of it as other non-Westerners. It’s not only false, but racist to pretend otherwise.
5) When America “leaves native cultures alone, like in Africa”, we condemn the people to subsistence-farming and lives that are nasty, brutish and short.
6) Iraq is not a war for Christianity. It is, however, a war to prevent a radical Islamist Caliphate, and so to prevent or mitigate a greater, future war. If we leave Iraq in the hands of either Iran or al Qaeda - in 10 years, we are so screwed. Get it?
7) If you seriously believe “Nobody ever fought a war for Buddhism”, Amazon has a book for you.
It’d be nice to go somewhere without running into crazed lefty loonies.
95 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Anti-War Talking Points Spouted At The Gym — September 28, 2007 @ 9:04 am - September 28, 2007
I think it’s sad that so many gays automatically side with the far left on the issue of the Middle East. As a group that knows what it’s like o have been oppressed and fight for greater freedom, and as a group who achieved that freedom not only through our own work but throug hthe work of straight allies, you’d think most gays would understand the importance of fighting for the freedom of the Irqis, Iranians, and wherever else we eventually must go.
Comment by JES — September 28, 2007 @ 10:22 am - September 28, 2007
So, can we assume that you are in agreement with Rush Limbaugh who just claimed that soldiers who support ending the occupation of Iraq are “phony”?
Comment by Ian S — September 28, 2007 @ 10:33 am - September 28, 2007
Ah, I see Ian got his DNC blast fax early this morning!
I can’t figure out embeds, but the truth is at: http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/09/phony_soldiers_a_phony_story_i.php
But keep on creaming your panties, Ian, you loveable seditionist chump, you.
Comment by Christopher — September 28, 2007 @ 10:45 am - September 28, 2007
#2: Sorry, the truth is nowhere near rightwingnews. The transcript is crystal clear: Rush calls soldiers who speak out against the war to the media “phony soldiers.” Whether or not the media talking to the soldiers or the soldiers themselves are liberal is irrelevant to the fact that they are REAL soldiers. That they’d be termed “phony” by a drug-addled gasbag who never served himself is disgraceful.
Comment by Ian S — September 28, 2007 @ 11:00 am - September 28, 2007
Ian, where did I reference Rush Limbaugh? Weak try.
And, no: you cannot assume anything about my possible opinions on that matter (whether your assumption would tend to project my agreement or disagreement).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 28, 2007 @ 11:02 am - September 28, 2007
Christopher, remember Ian is basically just looking for attention.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 28, 2007 @ 11:04 am - September 28, 2007
# 3
When will the president take time out of his schedule to disparage Rush?
Will fox news spend hours talking about this? Will Limbaugh’s patriotism be questioned? Will the conservative noise machine rumble?
OR
Is their outrage over “Betray Us” false?
Time will tell.
Comment by gil — September 28, 2007 @ 11:43 am - September 28, 2007
And Ian provides another “teaching moment” to show what a steady stream of hate looks like. Thank you, Ian.
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 11:47 am - September 28, 2007
As to point 4 on Democracy (big D), I don’t know if Democracy is the problem in the Middle East. Democracy isn’t some magic wand that makes everyone act like America… just look at what the Palestinians have done with “Democracy”. What the Middle East needs is Liberty: protection not just from the Tyrant, but from the tyranny of the Masses. Democracy guards against the first, but unfortunately it nurtures the second.
And I don’t know that it’s racist to suggest the Middle East is incapable of our style of democracy, at least for now. American society is a product of a broad matrix of circumstances, causes, and powerful personalities that may or may not be reproducible. So far, the American experience seems exceptional and even Europe has a difficult time mirroring it.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — September 28, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - September 28, 2007
Let’s see now.
Scott Beauchamp.
Jessie McBeth.
Micah Wright.
Jimmy Massey.
Gil and Ian are now screaming that not a single one of those was fake.
Media Matters believes that not a single one of those was fake.
These people quite clearly have no grip on reality.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2007 @ 12:34 pm - September 28, 2007
That is one thing… the MoveOn = Rush analogy has a major flaw. There is no reason to believe that the generals in the field would “betray us” beyond partisan speculation, but we have several examples of soldiers wanting to end the “occupation” and ending up being charlatans.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — September 28, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - September 28, 2007
Some of both your and their comments made me roll my eyes.
1. We do have contractors in Iraq doing the work of the military –so a rose is a rose even with a picture of a pig painted on it.
2. Was al Qaeda in Iraq before the war ? (no. But of course it is there now)
3. How do you know Iraqis want democracy so bad? Which do you think they would want more—democracy or peace? You know, the ability to go outside without being shot or blown up? Electricity more than 3 hours a day. That sort of thing.
4. Africa is nasty by your standards. How do you know that Africans are not just as happy or happier than you are? Maybe they don’t want to hop in a BMW and drive down to the Whole Foods.
In fairness, not that I disagreed with all you said. We have created such a mess (thanks, war mongers) that we cannot just pack up and leave without trying to make the factions in this country come to peace. Republicans should hope the Democrats win in 2008. Because there will be almost no way of straightening this mess out peacefully. Good luck, there are thousands of years of history against us.
If we do leave, we will leave al qaeda in place where it was not before. And we will leave Iran with control over a huge stash of oil and territory–and they will have their hands in a tight grip around our balls. Sum it up?
Comment by wes — September 28, 2007 @ 12:51 pm - September 28, 2007
Unfortunately Jeff, my hometown of Ann Arbor is probably even more blue than where you live… unless that’s SanFrancisco.
The liberals’ big point around here this week was to remind everyone that Columbia’s Prez, Lee Bollinger, was UofM’s President before he joined the bluest liberals at Columbia. I think if Lee had been UofM Prez’s this past week, he’d have given Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an honorary degree instead of just a podium and credibility back home. And the faculty would have been applauding and CodePink chanting support in the belfry with the other bats and kooks.
Maybe we should be calling those guys you ran into “HATE-triots” in contrast to patriots? They really do hate the military, the US, conservatives and the Bush Administration.
On 2d thought, it’d only encourage them to more outlandishness.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 28, 2007 @ 12:58 pm - September 28, 2007
M-M! Good to see you again, stranger.
And yes, I out-liberal, out-moonbat, out-blue you all. Worship me.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - September 28, 2007
#7 - DDGR - Agree with your first paragraph. Democracy is a technique for selecting government officials, not for restraining them. The word is widely used these days as a (poor) substitute for the really beneficial concepts like “liberty” and “rule of law”. I was just going along with the other guy’s usage.
As for the question of whether Iraq is “capable of our style of democracy” and rule of law: You’ve thrown a qualifier into the mix, namely “our” style (or “American” style), that I never intended. Every non-Western country that turns to democracy must of course find its own way and adaptation.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 28, 2007 @ 1:29 pm - September 28, 2007
I believe by mercenaries he’d be talking about the for-hire security firms like Blackwater, not the U.S. military. We pay their salaries too, just a lot more pay than we have for our own soldiers. I have friends in those organizations and they make a lot more money there than they ever did in the military.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — September 28, 2007 @ 1:34 pm - September 28, 2007
And yet, they’re still *voluntarily* doing crucial jobs for Iraq that other American’s won’t. BTW, I took them into account when I used the intentional term “NGO” earlier. (Non-Governmental Organization)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 28, 2007 @ 1:42 pm - September 28, 2007
I don’t normally listen to Rush, but I happened to be on the Beltway that day and so I caught the “phony soldiers” remark live. It was clear, in context, that Rush was referring to Jessie McBeth, in particular, and soldiers who peddle phony stories of made-up atrocities (like Scott Thomas “Mindthoughts and Soulpatterns” Beauchamp) in general.
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 1:54 pm - September 28, 2007
#10 –
I guess you had to wait for Big Blue to come on top over the Irish before you could show your face here again…
I can see it. A Division II loss might drive me in hiding too.
Comment by gil — September 28, 2007 @ 2:01 pm - September 28, 2007
#12 It’s true they all adapt to democracy in their own way, but I think for the Middle East it is having unintended consequences. Namely, they enshrine medieval religious laws into their constitutions using Democracy, guaranteeing the government certain powers instead of guaranteeing the people certain rights.
The problem is one of perspective. Our constitution in the US is a mechanism for controlling our government, but Middle Eastern constitutions seem to be created as another mechanism for controlling the people. Which goes back, I think, to the idea that perhaps the Middle East really does just perfer to outsource their decision-making to a strong-man.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — September 28, 2007 @ 2:10 pm - September 28, 2007
The other advantage to hiring companies like Blackwater is they can procure better equipment for their personnel than our soldiers. Why? First of all, they don’t have to go through a Federal “Procurement Process” taking weeks or months to order vitally needed equipment. Second, they can buy their armor and weapons from the best available supplier. They don’t have to buy it from whatever company John Murtha took a kickback from that week. Which is why Blackwater is flying light helicopters and Super Tucano counter-insurgency aircraft in Iraq that are far better suited to the environment and the counter-insurgency mission than what our military has.
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 2:25 pm - September 28, 2007
Not to monopolize - in fact, I have to get back to work! - but I want to pre-emptively say a bit more on the “mercenary” issue. It’s a common misconception, and I’ll give it a fair answer.
I use the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2002. I don’t have it in front of me, but from memory, its definition of mercenary had 2 general points:
- Someone whose primary motivation in life is money
- A professional soldier working for a “foreign” army. (their word, “foreign”)
Blackwater contractors fail the definition on both points. As to the first point: No one here can know. Motivation is internal. Many so-called “non-profit” employees collect high salaries. The fact that a category of people collects high salaries may be evidence of positive virtues, like experience.
That leaves us with the second point. Well, that’s out: Blackwater employees in Iraq are working for America, not a foreign army.
Conclusion: Blackwater employees in Iraq do dangerous work, do it for America, and do it to let our regular military focus on other tasks. Calling them “mercenary” is unfair if you’re using Oxford’s first definition, and flat-out wrong if you’re using their second.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 28, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - September 28, 2007
The thing is, ILC, Blackwater is helping us win this war. When all is said and done, that’s the real reason the left hates them.
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 2:34 pm - September 28, 2007
It also may be that the Democrats FISA Fetish is contributing to combat deaths in Iraq.
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 2:49 pm - September 28, 2007
On your points 4 and 5… well, along with “free speech” issues… it ought to be clear that these people are not liberal. I mean, really are not LIBERAL.
Multiculturalism, itself, is neither liberal nor humanist. It just really isn’t. The idea that some people are not capable of democracy, don’t want it, can’t understand it… applying that to culture is no less illiberal than applying it to race. The liberal and humanist traditions, (the ones that our fundy pastors railed against from the pulpit, those ungodly humanists!), are traditions of fundamental equality. That is what equal rights are all about.
I’m sure the Southern slave owners explained often how their slaves weren’t capable of living like free men and women. How is this different?
It’s not different. It’s *comforting*.
It’s *comforting* to defend the nasty lives that other people have to live by explaining that they aren’t capable of democracy, of living like free men and women. Leave those cultures alone, no matter that the culture is oppressive to its members. It’s sad, but what else can we do? They aren’t capable of living like we live?
A liberal would not say that there is something different about those people over there who don’t look like me that makes the oppression of women somehow okay for them even if it would not be okay for me. A liberal would not say that there is something different about those people over there who don’t look like me that makes living under an oppressive government okay for them even if it would not be okay for me. A liberal would not say that there is something different about those people over there who don’t look like me that makes the persecution or even judicial murder of homosexuals okay for them in their culture even if it would not be okay for me.
A liberal wouldn’t say that those people over there who don’t look like me must be defined by their culture or limited by their birth.
Comment by Synova — September 28, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - September 28, 2007
note: I sort of hate using the term “democracy.” What we should be trying for is spreading the idea of representative republic, rule by law with protection of individual rights as a limit to majority rule.
Comment by Synova — September 28, 2007 @ 2:54 pm - September 28, 2007
Off-Topic: Winkle Paw, the Number Two Man to Hillary Clinton’s “Close Friend,” Federal Fugitive, and Chief
fundraiserLaunderer Norman Hsu has gone missing. Funny how witnesses to Clinton corruption have a habit of disappearing.(Hey, just because she’s married to an impeached and disbarred felon perjurer and her campaign co-chair was impeached for taking bribes and obstructing justice… how dare one imply that Hillary might not be pure as the driven snow!)
Comment by V the K — September 28, 2007 @ 3:30 pm - September 28, 2007
It also may be that the Democrats FISA Fetish is contributing to combat deaths in Iraq.
I call shenanigans. They had 72 hours to file the wiretap authority and continue wiretapping under FISA. According to the time line they had been tracking them for three days and then decided to file the request. They could have done it from the very beginning. They didn’t, or they were already wiretapping by the time they put the request in. FISA isn’t the problem here, incompetence is.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — September 28, 2007 @ 3:41 pm - September 28, 2007
PS, the one upside to a Democrat in the white house in 2009 will be the GOP return to actually carrying about excessive executive authority. With their boy in the chair they just love giving in to whatever fearmongering BS the white house puts out.
Comment by Mr. Moderate — September 28, 2007 @ 3:42 pm - September 28, 2007
If you find a place like that let me know! :^)
Comment by American Elephant — September 28, 2007 @ 4:03 pm - September 28, 2007
Oh do I hate hearing politics being discussed at the gym, or any major social issue. The gym should be some kind of safe zone from that, the last thing I need is hear some stupid remark and drop a weight on my foot in response.
I am there to lift weights and to scuplt myself into pleasing form that is dictated by the media and advertising, I don’t need deep discussions being thrown around.
I live in a red area, and I have heard equally stupid remarks coming from conversatives. One instance being a couple talking about democrats trying to get rid of religion in America, that really threw me off my work out vibe.
I am aware people are free to say what they want, wherever they feel like it…but a little self resistant would be nice. The gym should be about fitness, light hearted discussion, and secret steroid dealings.
Comment by DarkEyedResolve — September 28, 2007 @ 4:16 pm - September 28, 2007
lol. Cus Democrats are well known for their reluctance to expand the powers of the government.
Sorry, but lawfully using the powers granted to the executive branch by the constitution is hardly excessive. However undermining the lawful exercize of power during wartime for political gain most certainly is. :^)
Comment by American Elephant — September 28, 2007 @ 4:35 pm - September 28, 2007
“It’d be nice to go somewhere without running into crazed lefty loonies.”
I think you probably live in the wrong zip code to get that wish.
Comment by Zendo Deb — September 28, 2007 @ 4:55 pm - September 28, 2007
Sorry, youre simply wrong.
But nonetheless, I’d point out that while liberals freely admit al qaeda is in Iraq now, they would apparently prefer that our military not fight them there on the battlefield of our choosing, but instead prefer our troops come home so our civilians can fight them in our aircraft and our skyscrapers.
because theyve said they want democracy. furthermore we are now in Iraq at the express request of the duly elected government. why are liberals so eager to abandon a newly free people asking for help for political gain? And the insinuations that Iraqis either had peace when they were routinely slaughtered by their own government or that they would have peace if not for us is risible.Africa is nasty by your standards. How do you know that Africans are not just as happy or happier than you are? Maybe they don’t want to hop in a BMW and drive down to the Whole Foods I’m very curious. What is it about Africans that makes you think they are any more happy with epidemic AIDS, abject poverty and famine (just for starters) than Americans would be?
Comment by American Elephant — September 28, 2007 @ 5:13 pm - September 28, 2007
I hate it when i do that. that last bit should read:
I’m very curious. What is it about Africans that makes you think they are any more happy with epidemic AIDS, abject poverty and famine (just for starters) than Americans would be?
Comment by American Elephant — September 28, 2007 @ 5:18 pm - September 28, 2007
Also, I suppose the leftists are going to argue that the Iraqis preferred this, too.
What evaporates the leftist arguments the most is detailing exactly what life under Saddam’s regime was like — which is why you will never, repeat NEVER, see anything of the sort on American television.
Seriously. Think about it. Documentaries left and right about the tortures committed by Slobodan Milosevic, whole movies about the genocide in Rwanda, but not a whit about the brutality of Saddam Hussein, who made both look like pikers.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2007 @ 5:24 pm - September 28, 2007
Meanwhile, speaking of phonies, looks like Thuggo’s in trouble.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2007 @ 6:07 pm - September 28, 2007
As for the Limbaugh matter, which even hit the floor of Congress today: It is looking like Rush really did have Jesse Macbeth in mind with the “phony soldier” comment.
If - note IF - that holds up, then I would hope Rush repeats it again and again until some people’s heads explode. Since, you know, Macbeth was a phony.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 28, 2007 @ 7:47 pm - September 28, 2007
#32 DER - Hear, hear. We agree
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 28, 2007 @ 7:49 pm - September 28, 2007
#26
But Synova, liberals believe that people are too damn stupid to know what they want. That’s why they crave absolute power so they can run our lives and tell us what we want. It’s especially true (heinous) if you’re black, Hispanic, gay etc. They can’t afford you wandering off the plantation and discovering that you do have control of your life.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 28, 2007 @ 8:46 pm - September 28, 2007
I know.
My point is that it’s illiberal. It’s fundamentally contrary to liberal ideology to think that people, elsewhere, who don’t look like me, like being oppressed, poor, and whatever, just because that’s how they were brought up. Multiculturalism is essentially illiberal. It says that other people are different and that difference should be enabled even when it involves really horrible suffering or oppression.
The points about Africa and how maybe people there would *prefer* to drive their new car down to Whole Foods were darned good points.
And before someone says that liberals don’t *really* have this completely illiberal mindset, at the very least, those people talking in the gym *do* and are not the least bit cryptic about their belief about those other people over there.
At least conservatives are accused of *crypto* everything. Crypto-racism and *code words* and everything because we’re supposedly smart enough to realize when what we’re saying is racist and so we bother to try to hide it.
These people at the gym talking don’t even *see* it, and since we hear similar things about the brown people living in quaint non-Western cultures with reasonable regularity, I don’t think it was an unrepresentative remark.
Comment by Synova — September 28, 2007 @ 9:31 pm - September 28, 2007
Iraqis don’t want democracy and “aren’t capable of it”, due to their “different culture”.
I think there’s some truth in that statement. Western-style democracy requires certain culture foundations; it’s not a drop-in replacement. Their culture is different.
Being the pessimist I am, I don’t see democracy surviving in the west. Plenty of people in the west are willing to give up these foundations (self-reliance, respect for others, prudence, etc) for “security”. Just look at the number of people in favor of free(?!!) health care.
Having said that, it’s still in our interest to leave Iraq with some sort of stable, benign government that isn’t a danger to our interest and that allows its people to lead relatively free and peaceful lives.
Comment by Robert — September 28, 2007 @ 9:59 pm - September 28, 2007
Gay patriot, you linked some 2003 magazine article to argue that al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war? Your argument is baloney. And here is a Washington Post article detailing why. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html
Comment by wes — September 28, 2007 @ 10:51 pm - September 28, 2007
Hot damn! That put a smile on my face.
Comment by American Elephant — September 28, 2007 @ 10:59 pm - September 28, 2007
and comparing that to Rockefellers previous statements:
And since Rockefeller is the ranking member of the senate select intelligence committee he has 1st hand access to all intelligence himself, so any claims that he was misled by Bush are laughable on their face.
You’d also do well to remember in the face of Rockefellers blantant bald-faced lies, that he was also caught circulating a memo to Democrats telling them precisely how they should politicize intelligence for their political gain.
And THAT, my silly little lib, is how you blow an argument out of the water.
Now I suggest you go back and actually read the article I posted for you instead of further embarrassing yourself. Then you might take a course in English to learn how the press craftily uses precise language to mislead you, and finally you might finish up by reading, “The Connection” by the same man who authored the article you didnt read to begin with. It spells out in even more detail how very extensive the ties, contrary to Democrat propaganda, actually were.
Comment by American Elephant — September 29, 2007 @ 12:21 am - September 29, 2007
Excellent work, American Elephant,
I’m glad you mentioned the Rockefeller memo–damning evidence that the Democrats on that committee disgracefully ignored the indispensable policy of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (which had been honored by Senators in both parties for years)–that it was the one place where political agendas have to be checked at the door because the members are charged with evaluating intelligence that could affect our nation’s very survival. That memo exposed how the Democrats ignored their responsibilities to evaluate the intelligence reports objectively and make recommendations vital to our security in favor of using their access to the classified information to build a political strategy to attack the sitting President and his administration. They were interested only in attacking their political enemies and used a sickening subterfuge of pretending to protect the U.S. from its foreign enemies.
Sean Hannity wrote extensively about this scandal and Rockefeller’s actions (and those of his fellow Democrat committee members) in his book “Deliver Us From Evil” and reading the facts about what the Democrat members of the SSCI had done made me nauseous. And when he was exposed, did Rockefeller apologize? Resign in shameful disgrace? Apologize for selling out the American people in the memo which was directly from his office? Of course not. He called for a congressional investigation into Republicans spying on Democrats and acquiring their secret documents. Un-effing-believable.
The only other observation I have is–taking a step back from the facts and intelligence itself, what I find most troubling about the commonplace, virulent outrage exhibited by wes and his ilk is that they are rarely called on the carpet for what they are seeking to accomplish by screaming from the mountain-tops that there was no Al-Qaeda or other terrorist connection to Iraq before 9/11. I’m fascinated by how committed they are to proving Hussein’s innocence and condemning Bush as an evil, corrupt, war-mongering liar. They are violently passionate about this issue and we’ve all seen them ruin social gatherings in their outrage whenever they hear anyone even suggest that there might have been an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before 9/11. They are as ruthlessly committed to that particular issue now as they were in the days before we invaded. Back then, my response was typically to say something like this:
“Look, I’m not in the CIA. I haven’t done any espionage in Iraq. I haven’t read the intelligence reports myself because they are classified. I’ve never even been to Iraq. But what I do know is that our President has said that there are WMDs and an Al-Qaeda connection. Saddam Hussein has denied both. Why on Earth are you so committed to giving a mass-murdering, psychopath the benefit of the doubt over our President? Why do you trust Hussein more than your own President?”
Of course the facts are important and I have seen more than enough evidence (both before and since the invasion) that not only proves there were unaccounted-for WMDs that got up and walked away in violation of UN sanctions, but also that Hussein was perfectly fine with permitting terrorist groups to operate in his country with impunity. It was important to investigate the question: did Saddam have connections to Al Qaeda and did he hide WMDs? But to me, it was also important to pose the question: WHY THE FU*K WOULDN’T HE HAVE TERRORIST CONNECTIONS AND HIDDEN WMDS?! Why is the idea of Saddam Hussein being a filthy lying despot so unbelievable to liberals? Why do they go to the mat to defend Hussein’s honor at every opportunity?
I have just always found it so bizarre that liberals approach this issue and any evidence cited to suggest Hussein’s guilt like highly-paid, mean-as-junkyard-dogs criminal defense attorneys doing everything within their power to help their client beat the rap. It’s like their life’s work is to somehow, someway, someday restore Hussein’s good name. I just don’t see any nobility in that pursuit.
Comment by Sean A — September 29, 2007 @ 2:02 am - September 29, 2007
Hey Ian, why don’t you choke on this instead of Soros’s c*ck?
Fake veteran gets 5-month sentence
You’ll note that the date is 9/21, FOUR DAYS before Rush even mentioned the story.
Seems to me that if Edwards can get his wife to tear herself away from exploiting her cancer for political gain, AGAIN, he’ll have to send her out to apologize to Rush. He and that Vagisil Dodd.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 29, 2007 @ 5:12 am - September 29, 2007
Furhtermore, just accept the fact that a liberal LIED to you and get over it. The rest of us realize what worthless, lying sacks of crap libs are, why don’t you?
You’ve been lied to by, at the least, MacBeth, Media Morons and George Soros. The facts are not in their favor and you ain’t got a leg to stand on. Frankly, I can’t imagine such sorry people as you and gillie who, when faced with the truth, plug your ears and scream loudly. Hell, Dan Rather has more dignity than you two and that ain’t sayin’ a whole hell of a lot.
Please. Just stop before you become the biggest a$$ in the country.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 29, 2007 @ 5:19 am - September 29, 2007
And another thing, a thought occurs:
I don’t venture out into the blogosphere as much as y’all do. I wonder, if Iraq and the surge is such a miserable failure, surely there’s legions of liberal bloggers over there documenting it all? I mean, if who else is going to deliver the “truth” to counter the “propaganda from Bush and ‘betray-us’”?
Surely Err America could shake down another yout organization for the cash to send over a correspondant to deliver the “truth” to both of their listeners, right?
To sum up for the idiots (Ian followers), are there liberal bloggers/radio personalities over there documenting “what’s really going on”, or are they just sitting behind their keyboards and MorOn.org and bitching about it?
Oh and Katie Couric doesn’t count, for obvious reasons.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 29, 2007 @ 5:47 am - September 29, 2007
It’d be nice to go somewhere without running into crazed lefty loonies.”
You could always move to Texas. Then again, you’d be in Texas.
The point is, if you don’t want to be around “crazed lefty loonies” then move. Most of the USA is flyover country anyway, so just move just about anywhere else and you’ll be right at home with like-minded righties.
Comment by fnln — September 29, 2007 @ 6:46 am - September 29, 2007
Wild guess: You live in Boston or possibly San Francisco?
Aging hippies can’t survive outside their natural habitats and the constraints of this geographic mind control leads to some very strange behavior.
As Vera has never been formally hired as the political hall monitor for other people’s opinions, she’s loath to stifle free speech, but etiquette does dictate personal behavior in public space. Any one interested in your opinion will ask for it, otherwise it’s best to refrain from saddling your gym mates with your incoherent and incorrect rantings.
It’s bad enough to be subjected to the disturbing outfits most people wear to the gym.
FYI: Vera gave up her gym membership when they banned smoking and hasn’t gone back since…..
Cheers.
Comment by Vera Charles — September 29, 2007 @ 7:55 am - September 29, 2007
I am not sure about crazy left loonies, but righties are everywhere…even in liberal bastions. However, you’d probably be more comfortable in the South, or Texas, anywhere south and west of Pennsylvania with possible exceptions of northern California, parts of Oregon, parts of Washington, and a very small part of Florida. Most of the country belongs to the righties. There’s always Colorado Springs for a truly right-wing religious experience. Assuming that you do, you clearly chose to live in a “liberal area” for a reason. I left the midwest to get away from the extreme right, but righties are still everywhere. I live next to righties (literally on both sides) even though I live in a relatively liberal county of a red state. It is practically impossible to get away from people you don’t want to be around. You have to adapt and live with it…or move.
Comment by fnln — September 29, 2007 @ 8:52 am - September 29, 2007
“I wonder, if Iraq and the surge is such a miserable failure, surely there’s legions of liberal bloggers over there documenting it all? I mean, if who else is going to deliver the ‘truth’ to counter the ‘propaganda’ from Bush and ‘betray-us’?”
That would be a waste of time and money. The Iraq war is now officially a failure. There is no need to counter President Bush’s propaganda : nobody is listening to it anymore. Who cares about a lame-duck president? The only ones who have an interest in keeping him alive are the Democrats so they can use him as a foil.
Maybe one day historians will applaud President Bush’s resolve and will declare him the most courageous war president ever. But we will all be dead by then.
Comment by Thomas Horsville — September 29, 2007 @ 9:24 am - September 29, 2007
#54: If the Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq just testified before Congress that the troop surge has resulted in progress and greater stability in Iraq, how is it that the war is “officially a failure”?
Comment by Sean A — September 29, 2007 @ 10:20 am - September 29, 2007
#19:
Clear? Hardly. Until that point in nthe show, Limbaugh had not mentioned McBeth nor had there been any discussion about “fake” soldiers. Furthermore, Limbaugh has a long history of disparaging those who have served in the military if they disagree with his political views: e.g Sen. Hagel whom he called “Senator Betrayus”, John Kerry, Paul Hackett, and John McCain. Now add to the list Jack Murtha.
Comment by Ian S — September 29, 2007 @ 11:44 am - September 29, 2007
“If the Commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq just testified before Congress that the troop surge has resulted in progress and greater stability in Iraq, how is it that the war is ‘officially a failure’?”
The consensus about the war was made long before General Petraeus’s speech. Of course, it’s difficult and subjective to pinpoint the exact moment when it occurred. But, if I had to pick a symbolic date, I would choose November 6, 2006. That’s when Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist refused at the last minute to appear with President Bush at a rally in Pensacola, Florida. It was a clear sign that President Bush’s market value had fallen very low, even within his own camp, mostly because of the failed Iraq war.
Comment by Thomas Horsville — September 29, 2007 @ 12:23 pm - September 29, 2007
The *consensus* about failure in Iraq happened long *long* before 2006. If I had to pick a date I’d say it was about the time of the first election in Iraq. It was supposed to be *over* and it wasn’t. Because, I suppose, it’s intelligent to believe that this would take only a few months to complete, once it was so shockingly apparent (and utterly unexpected by the usual suspects) that we’d make the center of Baghdad at about the top speed of a Bradly fighting vehicle. And then all the *intelligent* sorts started crying that it was Bush who told them it would be fast and easy… they never bothered to think about it themselves… and the lack of fast and easy was *failure*. Everything was failure.
I’d say that the “symbolic date” for a “consensus of failure” was sometime during the 2004 presidential race.
Comment by Synova — September 29, 2007 @ 1:03 pm - September 29, 2007
In other words… there is no consensus and there never was. What there was was political benefit to portray the war in Iraq as badly as possible and that happened toward the *beginning* of 2004.
For obvious reasons.
Comment by Synova — September 29, 2007 @ 1:05 pm - September 29, 2007
So, in your view, whether a war is won or lost is a matter of public “consensus” and Presidential “market value” in the U.S., i.e., if Bush’s approval rating is in the mid to low 30s and his own colleagues are distancing themselves, then the U.S. has been defeated in Iraq? Does what’s actually happening on the ground in Iraq play no part in your analysis? And one more question: Considering that the major Democratic candidates for President (Hillary, Edwards, Obama) would not commit to having all soldiers out of Iraq by the end of their first term (2013), it looks like regardless of who wins the election, we are going to have a military presence in Iraq for a long time to come. Since that is clearly the case, is it possible that the war can still be won in the future? Or does your statement that the war was “lost” as of November 6, 2006 mean “irrevocably lost”?
Comment by Sean A — September 29, 2007 @ 1:20 pm - September 29, 2007
Actually, Sean A, the funny part will be watching Ian, Chase and the rest of the surrender monkeys spin 180 degrees on Iraq once Hilldog takes office.
Comment by V the K — September 29, 2007 @ 1:53 pm - September 29, 2007
You’re right V the K. First she votes for it. Then she says she’s against it. Then she says it’s lost and essentially calls Petraeus a liar to his face. Then she takes office and wins it. That sounds about right. I’m already about to barf just thinking about the sycophantic articles in Vogue and Cosmo about how it took a woman’s approach to turn things around and “finally win the war that Bush couldn’t.”
Of course, I’m speaking hypothetically because there is no way that profoundly corrupt, elitist shrew is EVER getting back into the White House!
Comment by Sean A — September 29, 2007 @ 2:50 pm - September 29, 2007
You’re so right, Synova. The idea that war is either won or lost based upon polls, focus groups or the whims of a useless political party that had lost its grip on the Presidency, the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court, just proves (for the billionth time) that Democrats hate the military, don’t understand its purpose and regard national security as an inconsequential game of Risk that they can play with whenever there is a political point to be scored. It’s effing sick!
Saddam is burning in hell. We have killed or captured thousands of worthless, evil mother fuc*ing psychopaths. Millions of Iraqis have now voted in free elections to establish a representative government. There hasn’t been a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. Thousands of our soldiers are still in harm’s way. The Commander of the entire operation (with an unimpeachable reputation) testified before Congress that the surge is working. And these idiots have the nerve to declare publicly at every opportunity (as our enemies watch and laugh their evil heads off) that the “consensus” is that the war is lost?! If it weren’t so calculated and immoral it would be obtuse. They voted for the war and then when Iraq didn’t magically turn into a peace-loving democracy overnight, they launched their political campaign to condemn it. I don’t understand how these people sleep at night or how anyone could support them. (Oh yeah, I guess if you go to the Congressional Black Caucus and pledge to hand out 5k jackpots for getting knocked up, that’s a good start.)
Comment by Sean A — September 29, 2007 @ 3:22 pm - September 29, 2007
I disagree Sean, I think Hilldog probably will win the election. And based on what we’ve seen, her administration will combine Jimmy Carter’s policies with her husband’s corruption and Richard Nixon’s paranoia. Does that sound like a recipe for success to you?
The best thing Giuliani or whoever the GOP nominee could do is make the case for divided government. I’d rather see the GOP come up with a compelling alternative platform, but I think the GOP is too braindead.
Comment by V the K — September 29, 2007 @ 4:19 pm - September 29, 2007
I left the midwest to get away from the extreme right,
You let politics dictate where you live? How f*cking sad your life must be?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 29, 2007 @ 4:21 pm - September 29, 2007
“So, in your view, whether a war is won or lost is a matter of public ‘consensus’ and Presidential ‘market value’ in the U.S., i.e., if Bush’s approval rating is in the mid to low 30s and his own colleagues are distancing themselves, then the U.S. has been defeated in Iraq? Does what’s actually happening on the ground in Iraq play no part in your analysis?”
Absolutely none. Nobody knows what is actually happening on the ground and it doesn’t really matter anyway. What matters is perception. The only measure of success is public support. This war could be a success even with thousands of victims every day, and it could become a failure overnight with a single isolated incident, say a video of an American soldier impaling an Iraqi baby on his bayonet with General Petraeus laughing in the background.
“Since that is clearly the case, is it possible that the war can still be won in the future?”
The war cannot be won, at least not like World War II was won. But it can be turned into something else, for instance some kind of peacekeeping mission with broad international support. Of course, there would be no real peace to keep since the situation on the ground would remain basically the same, i.e. a mess, but it doesn’t matter because there would be nobody to point it out, whether in the United States or abroad. One day, we will proclaim the situation in Iraq normalized and our troops will be able to leave the country honorably. Mission accomplished.
Of course, President Bush cannot achieve such a feat because he is a warmonger. President Clinton can because she is a woman. At least, as an other poster pointed out, that’s what you will read in your favorite magazines.
Comment by Thomas Horsville — September 29, 2007 @ 4:41 pm - September 29, 2007
“Nobody knows what is actually happening on the ground and it doesn’t really matter anyway. What matters is perception. The only measure of success is public support.”
I disagree that what is happening on the ground doesn’t matter *at all*, it does, but I agree with the rest of this statement. It is essentially what I and many others have been saying and saying and saying. Dem leaders and others declare the war lost because they *want* to lose and the declaration really does work to ensure that we lose. It MATTERS that idiots in DC make statements supporting failure.
Sun-tzu would call it the Tao… “Which ruler has the Tao?” and “The Tao causes the people to be fully in accord with the ruler.” The side with the Tao *wins*. The problem is that the Democrats want the Tao. If they get the Tao they win. But if they work to remove the Tao from our “ruler” (or in the case of a democracy like ours it isn’t Bush, personally, but his cause and the war he is trying to fight) then WE lose.
This is why so many of us have been saying for SO long that the “opposition” should be SUPPORTING the mission. That when we’re trying to win a war the dissent should stop at our borders and we should present a united effort. Because it matters to our eventual success.
Other things matter as well, and I think that we will ultimately succeed but that success will be more costly in all ways and take longer because of the idea that moronic statements by the opposition party, including it’s leaders, *don’t hurt us.*
Comment by Synova — September 29, 2007 @ 8:52 pm - September 29, 2007
I left the midwest to get away from the extreme right,
You let politics dictate where you live? How f*cking sad your life must be?
If you say so.
I thought you righties and homosexual conservatives, particularly those from Podunk such as yourself, believed in free will?
Comment by fnln — September 30, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - September 30, 2007
We do believe in free will. But if you otherwise enjoyed living in the Midwest and the only reason you left was because of other people’s political beliefs, that would actually be the OPPOSITE of free will. Free will would be staying where you want to live despite the contrary beliefs held by your neighbors.
Comment by Sean A — September 30, 2007 @ 12:50 pm - September 30, 2007
I thought you righties and homosexual conservatives, particularly those from Podunk such as yourself, believed in free will?
I live in Lakeland myself and don’t besmirch people just for where they live, but then I’m not as arrogant and elitist as you are. I wouldn’t call a city of about 100,000 half way between Tampa and Orlando “Podunk”.
Further, I believe in Predestination or Calvinism, if you will.
Oh BTW, does “Podunk” attract the Trans Siberian Orchestra, the Moscow Ballet, Elton John, Elvis, Gloria Estefan, Cheryl Crow, Ricky Martin, The Temptaions etc.? We’re also the starting point for Ringling Bros. and the Disney on Ice shows each season. Plus we have the 2005 & 2006 National Champion Lakeland Dreadnaughts.
I could go on.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 30, 2007 @ 6:03 pm - September 30, 2007
U.S. and Iraqi forces on Sunday reported killing more than 60 insurgent and militia fighters in intense battles over the weekend mainly in the north of the country, with most of the casualties believed to have been Al Qaeda fighters.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298664,00.html
But as we have been told on this thread, what actually happens on the ground is unknowable and inconsequential, so if the Liberals ignore it in favor of continuing to foster the “perception” that the U.S, has lost (and that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until after we got there), well then I guess it’s still lost. That is, until (and if) Hillary is elected President. Then there will be a glorious and dramatic turn-around that only she could have accomplished.
Comment by Sean A — September 30, 2007 @ 7:06 pm - September 30, 2007
Oh, everything is now cleared up by this post. Thanks. Millions of Americans are now no longer confused by reality.
Comment by sean — October 1, 2007 @ 2:37 am - October 1, 2007
So, it depends on one’s perspective. You think I am sad, arrogant, and elitist and I think you’re hickish, vulgar, and a right-winger. Now that we’ve cleared that up, you may not besmirch people for where they live (and I didn’t either), but you certainly do for their beliefs. How much better you must be. Who’s the arrogant one?
Comment by fnln — October 1, 2007 @ 4:51 am - October 1, 2007
[...] Anti-War Talking Points Spouted At The Gym [...]
Pingback by Queer Fever - Today’s Top Blog Posts on gaylife - Powered by SocialRank — October 1, 2007 @ 8:02 am - October 1, 2007
Good discussion for the most part. JES at #2, I agree. AE, thanks for the great job in answering snarky Wes at #13. It’s revealing, in a bad way, that Wes posits a choice BETWEEN “democracy or peace”, for Iraqis. As if they can only have or deserve one or the other.
As regards the issue of contractors, Wes, you might also want to see my reply at #23. And maybe someday, you will even be able to accept the reality that Zarqawi (of al Qaeda) and other terrorists were in Iraq, before 2003 / “the war”.
Synova, thanks for all your comments. I agree: Left-liberals are actually illiberal in many ways, including their willingness to consign the people of Iraq to dictatorship and/or Islamist oppression.
Mr. Moderate, I’ve said it before and will again: When you mouth those positions of MoveOn.org that are clearly hateful and/or irrational, so merrily such as at #30, trust me: We all know you are not moderate.
Sean A, excellent point:
My theory: Many of today’s anti-US, anti-military (I won’t say “anti-war”) liberals are people who don’t want to face difficult truths. Such as: that there really is evil in the world; that it really is out to get us; and that a military response really is required. They are deeply invested in their own belief in flowers, peace, meditation / Buddhism and in, dare I say it, “driving their BMWs to Whole Foods”. That in turn requires them to blame the present conflicts on the U.S.; to believe that things could and would change, if only we would change and listen to them.
Thomas at #54, “The Iraq war is now officially a failure.” – You mean a failure for al Qaeda, right? We’re almost there; another few months should do it.
Vera: I don’t live in San Francisco, but within 30 miles. I bow to NDT, a resident of SF proper, as the person on this blog with THE biggest claim to being continually surrounded by crazed lefty loonies.
A final point: I must assign Bruce credit for the whole “crazed lefty loonies” remark at the end of #0. My piece originally had no close (dropping off suddenly at point 7). Bruce thought it needed one, and he was right. I might have worded it differently, reflecting our different styles, but what’s done is done. And I am vastly appreciative that Bruce let me post something on his blog. Thanks, Bruce!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 1, 2007 @ 2:15 pm - October 1, 2007
fnln, you contend that you don’t besmirch people for where they live but you offer this left-coast nugget at #51: “You could always move to Texas. Then again, you’d be in Texas. The point is, if you don’t want to be around “crazed lefty loonies” then move. Most of the USA is flyover country anyway, so just move just about anywhere else and you’ll be right at home with like-minded righties.”
Frankly, I like Texas and Texans: they’re usually loyal, steadfast, honorable, community-centered, patriotic and willing to serve others before self –heresy to the GayLeft.
I’m beginning to appreciate why the sneering GayLeft is so uncomfortable with patriotism, support of the military, mainstream American values… when you can dismiss the Midwest, the Upper Plains, the Ohio River Valley and other gems of America with an LeftCoast slam like “flyover country” and not sense you’re smearing most of America… something you say you DONT do out of the right side of your mouth while doing exactly THAT out of the left side of your mouth.
That “fly over country” you’re smearing is the home of those “amber waves of grain” and “purple mountain majesties” and other points of interest to anyone still COMFORTABLE with America, her promise, our destiny.
Just because most of the GayLeft would be happier if America more resembled a socialist European state doesn’t mean you have to besmirch 3/4s of America… just stay focused on slamming the FarLeft leadership in the Democrat Party who have failed to give you your utopia.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 1, 2007 @ 2:36 pm - October 1, 2007
I’m afraid you misunderstood what fnln meant. I’m sure he has nothing against wheat fields and granite mountains. As usual, people are the problem. They tend to ruin the landscape.
Comment by Thomas Horsville — October 1, 2007 @ 4:13 pm - October 1, 2007
Mr. Horsville, it can be easily explained why fnln has a “problem” with people.
1500 years of history prove Christians are just as murderous and violent as any other religious zealots.
There is no God. Grow up and get over it already.
Religion is a pointless waste of time, yet people still refuse to acknowledge the total and utter lack of evidence of any God whatsoever.
I have a question for the evangelical protectors. Have you successfully prayed away the gay yet? I thought not. What must your “friends” think about your sexual activities…and trust me, they think about them. Or, are you closeted Repbulican homosexuals who don’t have sex or perhaps open Republican homosexuals that are asexual? Oh yes, I know, your sex life is not your total being and you’re not living a “homosexual lifestyle.” I would like to know how well putting your little ball of homosexuality away in the toy box works too.
What tools!
Most of us don’t really care if people take comfort in the false or want to waste their time wailing, crying, praying, ululating, or yelling to a non-existent god or set of gods as long as they keep religion out of government.
Well, actually there can be no religious test either, but I am all for the ridicule and open hostility towards religion. Religion certainly has done enough damage over time and I repeat, religion deserves all of the ridicule that can possibly be heaped upon it.
Please, by all means, defend your religion, your religious zealot “friends”, and their actions, but don’t expect the rest of us to go along quietly while they actively work to infect everything with their mythological and erroneous beliefs.
And if you’re wondering, start here and work your way down.
Of course, they blame the fact that they’re gay for why people don’t like them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 1, 2007 @ 4:54 pm - October 1, 2007
Some Christians get that way, too. They can’t see the difference between being persecuted for their religion and persecuted for being a jerk.
It’s human nature.
Just like preferring to think the persecution is because he’s gay rather than because he’s obnoxious and judgmental.
Obnoxious Atheists are in every way equal to obnoxious Theists.
Comment by Synova — October 1, 2007 @ 7:04 pm - October 1, 2007
ahhh, nice try there T-Horsville. Nawh, fnln’s comments are uberNYTimes-ish… meant to write off all those inconvenient moderate Americans who populate middleAmerica and don’t subscribe to the farLeft’s anti-American agenda… you know, “fly over country”. Afterall, nothing matters between Boston & SF… maybe NYC & Seattle.
A suggestion: next time you want to run interference for fnln, put on a tinfoil hat and tune in to the LeftCoast’s AllThingsLiberallyConsidered… then you’ll have matching talking points. But now we’re a tad off topic.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 1, 2007 @ 8:02 pm - October 1, 2007
I’m afraid you’re being overly optimistic. Even the great urban metropolises are not uniformly enlightened. There are, at best, a few islets of civilization lost in a sea of barbarism.
Comment by Thomas Horsville — October 1, 2007 @ 9:09 pm - October 1, 2007
81: “I’m afraid you’re being overly optimistic. Even the great urban metropolises are not uniformly enlightened. There are, at best, a few islets of civilization lost in a sea of barbarism.”
Ummmm. Did this comment from Thomas Horsville give anyone else the willies? In a let-them-eat-cake-mein-kampf-stroking-a-persian-cat-legion-of-doom-three-foot-cigarette-holder-and-martini-glass-final-solution and all that sort of way? Uniform enlightenment? Sea of barbarism?
I think Thomas IS George Soros.
Comment by Sean A — October 2, 2007 @ 1:08 am - October 2, 2007
At least in flyover country, we don’t have sick crap like this going on..
Comment by V the K — October 2, 2007 @ 9:14 am - October 2, 2007
More effluent from the fountains of blue city culture.
Comment by V the K — October 2, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - October 2, 2007
Slain al Qaeda leader wrote letter of desperation just before his death: click here.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 2, 2007 @ 2:25 pm - October 2, 2007
85: Thank you, ILoveCapitalism for the link. I was really pissed this morning about that stupid Biden resolution that hypothetically chops up Iraq into regions, and the news stories you are sharing are really cheering me up. The news from Iraq just keeps getting better and better (just like Gen. Petraeus said it would). Since all this good news about Al Qaeda being in its death throes in Iraq is not coming from a report prepared by Petraeus, who are the Dems going to say is betraying them now? The Al Qaeda leader who wrote the “suicide” note?
Meanwhile, Biden is probably in the Senate hall telling the press about his victory with the passage of non-binding legislation, and Reid is in his office, angrily scribbling away at that letter, demanding Rush’s employer to reprimand their $285 million superstar. Unbelievable.
Comment by Sean A — October 2, 2007 @ 6:10 pm - October 2, 2007
Iraq is a war for Chrisitianity — and there’s nothing shameful or inaccurate about declaring that.
A quantifiable measure of institutional Christendom in Iraq is not the measure of victory. But thriving Christianity, rooted in Rome and the historically Protestant lands, has a great stake in the outcome over there.
Don’t cede any spiritual turf to smug, ignorant opponents.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — October 3, 2007 @ 5:58 am - October 3, 2007
“Iraq is a war for Christianity” - Evidence, please?
And I’m going to impose a qualifier on you: Keep in mind that the statement only communicates a distinguishable meaning if it means “primarily” for Christianity, or “driven by” Christianity. Iraq is a war for civilization, against jihadist nihilism. Civilization encompasses many things, including apple pie, Christianity, atheism, Judaism, and even BMWs, Whole Foods stores and Buddhism. It is easily allowable that Iraq is a war for all those things. If you mean “Iraq is a war for Christianity along with everything else to do with civilization”, we already agree and needn’t discuss the point.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 9:45 am - October 3, 2007
P.S. I will certainly allow that Iraq is a war *against* Christianity - by the other side. I will certainly allow that the other side - al Qaeda, and also Iran - are fighting a religious war, that is, a war for a specific religion. We are not.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 9:52 am - October 3, 2007
I honestly don’t think secular liberalism can ever defeat Islamic fascism. People who live for cradle-to-grave welfare and sexual permissiveness, are rarely willing to give their lives defending them.
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - October 3, 2007
Can’t tell where you’re going with that, V.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 1:22 pm - October 3, 2007
(I.e., I don’t imagine Iraq is a war for secular liberalism either! I claim, again, that it’s a war for civilization in general, against nihilism. “Civilization” understood to include Christianity, Judaism, any other non-nihilistic religion you can think of, secular liberalism and secular conservatism, the latter a.k.a. capitalism and freedom.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 3, 2007 @ 1:26 pm - October 3, 2007
Secular liberalism is not now and will never be at war with Islamic Fascism. By definition, one cannot defeat that which one appeases.
Comment by Sean A — October 3, 2007 @ 6:28 pm - October 3, 2007
Secular Liberalism has major handicaps when it comes to fighting Islamic fascism. First, modern secular liberalism is so invested in moral relativism it doesn’t see western civilization as being worth preserving. Second, the fight against Islamic Fascism is going to be multi-generational and, oops, secular progressives forgot to breed another generation. Also, you’ve got neurotic fear of being called racist, a pervasive “war is icky” pacifism that leads to appeasement, and a general unwillingness to sacrifice. The Islamist believes he is fighting for Allah and the glory of Islam. Is a sceular progressive willing to fight and possibly die so that someone else can get a welfare check?
Comment by V the K — October 3, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - October 3, 2007
Today’s secular liberalism: yes.
There was a time when it wasn’t so. Remember WW1 - Wilson, WW2 - Roosevelt, up through Kennedy.
Also, one could argue that Russian Communism was an example of the average Russian believing (however wrongly) that he was fighting for the ideals of secular liberalism.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 4, 2007 @ 2:56 pm - October 4, 2007