The WSJ responds to critics of universal idealism—including Francis Fukuyama’s recent highly publicized backslide into Bush I-era foreign policy realism—and nicely articulates the philosophical divide that I’ve argued will, depending on which path we in the west take, ultimately determine our strategy for combatting Islamism:
In the matter of Middle East elections, the results of which we don’t always like: Anyone out there have a better idea?
We ask amid some recent wringing of hands following elections for the Palestinian legislature, in which the terrorist group Hamas won an outright majority; elections in Iraq, where voters cast their ballots along sectarian lines, and a strong showing by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s parliamentary elections late last year.
“For some, the promotion of democracy promises an easy resolution to the many difficult problems we face,” says Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde. “But I believe that great caution is warranted here.” And from the man who once gave us the “end of history,” we now have the demise of neoconservatism: “Promoting democracy and modernization in the Middle East,” writes Francis Fukuyama in a new book, “is not a solution to the problem of jihadist terrorism; in all likelihood it will make the short-term problem worse.”
The brilliant insight here is that democratic processes don’t always lead to liberal outcomes. Actually, that’s not an insight: The world has had fair warning on this score at least since Adolf Hitler came to power democratically in 1933. We can be thankful, however, that the experience of Nazism did not deter successive generations of Germans from persevering with the democratic experiment.
Still, the underlying argument deserves thoughtful consideration, and it goes something like this: Contrary to the rhetoric of the Bush Administration, the taste for freedom–and the ability to exercise it responsibly–is far from universal. Culture is decisive. Liberal democracies are the product of long-term trends such as the collapse of communal loyalties, urbanization, the separation of church and state and the political empowerment of the bourgeoisie. Absent these things, say the critics, democratic and liberal institutions are built on foundations of sand and are destined to collapse.
You’ll recall that I’ve spent some time recently pointing out that, even as the western establishment press and many of our Humanities department elites push what they call the more nuanced view of global affairs (a view that in my estimation is better described as cautiously “cynical”—or to follow Rorty, “contingent” and “ironic”), the President and his administration have been pushing the liberal view of universal rights, themselves seeded by the Enlightenment turn toward free inquiry and, having passed through Locke and our own founding fathers, reaching its philosophical pinnacle in the primacy of the individual.
In the postmodern view, these “universals”—insofar as they are all assertions of “truths” created by man, are not universal at all, but by nature are instead necessarily only beliefs that, at times, are largely agreed upon by groups and form the basis for social contracts. This is the “solidarity” portion of the postmodern turn—and from a empirical perspective, Rorty is simply describing how humans come to establish and codify belief systems.
But from such observations, many philosophers and political theorists have determined that a simple description of how we come to believe is a prescription for how we must believe—which is to say, they have turned an empirical observation about language into an excuse to give cultural relativism too wide a berth, in the worst cases, declaring each culture’s ideas sacrosanct, or at least, unassailable by those who don’t belong to the culture.
This is a simplistic and dangerous misreading of the linguistic turn (which I’ve discussed before at some length here)—but sadly, it is precisely the way the lessons of pomo philosophy have been internalized by a vast array of opinion and policy makers. Which is how multiculturalism in its most ardent form practically compels the kind of balkanization we’ve seen in Great Britain, where individual cultural/ethnic “identity groups” are allowed to self-describe and, to a great extent, set the parameters for how they are willing to be governed within the larger social contract.
This is the viral meme that springs, in its political form, most notoriously from Edward Said’s Orientalism — and one against which Buscho has been pushing back, obliquely, by promoting the classically liberal meme of “universal” freedom and the rights of the individual. This is the correct strategy, in my estimation—and it matters not whether you believe classical liberalism to be the manifestation of some metaphysical truth or simpy the best possible manifestation of human social contracts.
The mistake made by those who often take themselves to be the most nuanced—the outspoken chainsmoking chin scratchers who’ve culled just enough understanding of how “truths” are established to slip into a soft, sneering quasi-nihilism (which they then, ironically, preach as if it were an immutable truth)—is that, having determined that there are no metaphysical bases (outside of a religious faith in such) upon which to grade various cultural assertions, they conclude (quite lazily) that they either cannot or should not make “judgments” that redound to the Other, because that amounts to imposing one’s own socially constructed worldview on another.
But of course, we do this all the time—and there is nothing wrong with doing so. In fact, postmodernism suggests to me that, in the absense of any metaphysical and immutable truths we can “prove” to be universal, we must necessarily take it upon ourselves to determine what as humans we can and will “allow.” In other words, the absense of universal religious dicta (which some people do believe in as a component of faith) makes it even more essential for us to defend and promote what we believe are the strengths and truths inherent in our own system of western liberalism.
Which is why “tolerance” of the kind that promotes a surrender to the dictates of identity politics—an offshoot of multiculturalist thinking and a philosophical splinter from the kind of relativism that postmodernism describes (but which it does NOT prescribe)—is so very dangerous, and why it is so astounding to hear the Boston Globe, speaking for the majority of the US press who chose not to publish the infamous Mohammed cartoons, describe as the basis for their editorial decision “Englightenment thinking,” which they seem to believe proceeds from the kind of “tolerance” that, insofar as it chills free expression and the competition of ideas, is directly at odds with classical liberalism.
The correct response, from a western liberal standpoint, was to publish the cartoons, to express an understanding as to how many Muslim fundamentalists of a particular stripe could take offense, but to note that with free speech and free expression comes the possibility of giving and taking offense. And resisting the urge to respond with violence is at the very heart of what make pluralism workable. Which has been the response of many conservatives, and, to their credit, the Bush administration itself. I’m sure some self-styled liberal-democrats have had similar reactions, as well—but far more frequently we hear that giving offense to these outraged rioters (who are vying for control of the Muslim identity, and who, once they succeed, will be representatives of Islam against whom the west must compete for memetic ascendency) is itself the greater (or, at least, a coequal) evil, with such prominent representatives of liberal democracy as our own ex-President Bill Clinton suggesting that the editors of the Danish paper who published the cartoons should be prosecuted.
A similar situation (made more problematic by the failure of the administration to prepare the ground for its unveiling) was the Dubai port deal, which—understandably, but ultimately to our discredit—evoked our underlying surrender to identity politics, though critics of the deal are able to cite many common sense reasons for their distrust of the UAE and the Arab world in general [for more on the port story, see YARGB and AJ Strata]
Still, the proper response is to reward our allies, to trust but verify, and to show the Muslim world that we are open to the kind of pluralism we preach by accepting as partners those whose cultures bin Laden and his ilk insist are incapatible with our own. Conservatives and Democrats both, in many cases, were quick to condemn the deal—and in doing so, to show an unwillingness to push the universalist meme that is so important to winning the viral war. In some cases, we’ve seen subsequent reconsiderations of the initial knee-jerk reaction; in other instances, we’ve seen a fortification of those initial misgivings, sometimes out of real fear, other times out of what smacks of base political opportunism (and here, I single out Hillary Clinton, who—in her rush to look tougher on security than the Bushies—is tying herself in knots, having previously accused the Bushies of scaremongering, even as she now sees the port deal as a surrender to the machinations of an enemy whose actual threat has been overhyped.
Again and again of late, I’ve argued that the most important battle against our enemies must be fought and won within western liberalism itself. And by that I mean those of us who adhere that particular philosophical sytem must decide whether to follow its classical liberal roots (the primacy of the individual and individual rights), or else surrender to the collectivist and relativistic thought that grows out of the lazy reading of certain philosophical observations—and the faulty linguistic premises that reinforce such intellectual shortsightedness—both of which, once successfully and fully integrated into the system, conspire to undermine it from within.
Ironically, the idiot cowboy and his band of evil hegemons seem to recognize this; while most in our educated media—and many in the public policy and academic elite—do not, often going to great lengths to rationalize away their own recalcitrance.
Notes the WSJ:
[…] simply because it took centuries to establish a liberal-democratic order in Europe, it does not follow that it must take centuries more to establish one in the Middle East. Japan took about 100 years to transform itself (and be transformed) from a feudal society into a modern industrial democracy. South Korea made a similar leap in about 40 years; Thailand went from quasi-military dictatorships to a genuine constitutional monarchy in about 20. As the practice of liberal democracy has spread, the time it takes nondemocratic societies to acquire that practice has diminished.
But, say the critics, Islamic and particularly Arab countries are uniquely resistant to change. Between 1981 and 2001 the number of non-Islamic countries rated “free”–that is to say, both democratic and liberal–increased by 34, according to Freedom House. By contrast the number of free Islamic countries remained constant at one, in the form of landlocked Mali. During the same period, the number of Islamic countries ranked “not free” increased by 10.
No doubt deep-seated cultural factors go some way toward explaining these statistics. But why seek abstruse explanations? In the same period when the U.S. was encouraging democratic openings in Eastern Europe, East Asia and Latin America–areas previously thought impervious to liberty, often for “cultural” reasons–it was supporting or tolerating undemocratic and illiberal regimes in the Middle East.
That period also coincided with the rise of al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole, the outbreak of the terrorist intifada in Israel, and September 11. Mr. Fukuyama may or may not be right that promoting democracy does not resolve the problem of terrorism in the short-term. What we know for sure is that tolerating dictatorship not only doesn’t resolve the terrorist problem but actively nurtures it.
Which brings us back to the question of what American policy should be. One answer is to retreat completely in the hopes of being left alone. This is the formula recently suggested by Osama bin Laden; those who would credit it must also entrust themselves to him.
Another answer is to encourage friendly autocrats to “modernize” their countries without necessarily creating the kinds of democratic openings through which Islamic fundamentalists could come to power. This is what the U.S. has been attempting in Egypt for the past three decades, without success. A related idea is to promote liberal democratic ideals by means of “soft power”–McDonald’s, Oprah, USAID, Voice of America, Britney Spears. Soft power has much to recommend it, though generally only as a complement to hard power. Absent the latter, it is powerless to defend the very people it inspires, especially when the tanks are rolling.Then there is the supposedly failed policy of the Bush Administration. In five years, it has brought four democratic governments to power in the Middle East: by force of arms in Afghanistan and Iraq, and through highly assertive diplomacy in Lebanon and Palestine. Mr. Fukuyama tells us that “by definition, outsiders can’t ‘impose’ democracy on a country that doesn’t want it.”
Leaving aside the niggling examples of Japan and Germany, exactly how are we to know that country X does not want democracy, except democratically? Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese have all made their democratic preferences plain in successive recent elections. And with the arguable exception of the Palestinians (arguable because Fatah was as undemocratic as Hamas), they have voted to establish considerably more liberal regimes than what existed previously.
This is not to say democracy is a cure-all. It is also not to say that the peril these democracies face, from terrorist insurrection or ethnic or religious feuding, isn’t grave. Nor, finally, is it to say that the “Hitler scenario” can be excluded in a democratizing Middle East; that possibility is always present, especially among nascent democracies.
But democracy also offers the possibility of greater liberalism and greater moderation, possibilities that have been opened with the courageously pro-American governments of Hamid Karzai, Jalal Talabani and Saad Hariri. And as we stand with them, it seems to us that America’s bets are better placed promoting democracies–even if some of them succumb to illiberal temptations–than acceding to dictatorships, which already have.
Or does someone have a better idea? [My emphases]
And that last is really the question, isn’t it? The list of alternatives on the table: which one brings most hope for a world that is ultimately less susceptible to the violence and real imperial designs, rather than the hyperbolic suggestions of imperialism that seem to eminate most frequently from those who are resting comfortably in the bosom of freedom?
From the perspective of many of the foreign policy neocons (and the old school Democrats), the promotion of the idea of liberal democracy and the rule of law, of constitutional protections and individual freedoms that are inalienable, is the precise way to do battle against totalitarianism and autocracy.
That is, we must win the memetic battle, regardless of whether we believe our way of life superior by virtue of metaphysical universals, or contingent variables that, once aligned, provide the best possible means of governance.
Winston Churchill famously remarked, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
Many of us in the west believe him, and so we fight for the underlying philosophical assumptions that ground liberal democratic principles. Unfortunately—and they I have no doubt others in the west believe him as well—they adhere to and promote, often without examination, philosophical assertions that run antithetical to those very principles they claim to espouse.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
There are ever growing numbers of young people in the ME, who want freedom and democracy. Undeniably, their voices are clamped down by the iron grips of the dictatorships that rule them. But through the wonders of modern technology, their voices are increasingly being heard.
Nobody ever thought this would be easy. But, the easy way out not only dooms the future of these young people, but will ultimately doom ours.
Freedom and hope for a prosperous future is not owned by us. I believe that it is a gift that is meant to be shared. However that may need to come about.
We must all remember the virtue of compassion for those who suffer. For if we don’t, we may end up being the one’s suffering.
Well, I haven’t been called a willful liar yet today, so I’ll bite. You keep pretending that your quarrel is with those who deny the value of internationalizing norms, rather than with their (ahem) execution. I’ll just say it again: It is possible to agree with the desirability of spreading freedom, but to have a quibble with Bush doing it so badly.
Otherwise, nice demolition of a straw man in Stan Fish’s suit. Care to respond to those who don’t think imposing democracy is a bad thing, but think it’s ineffective in countries that don’t have extra-governmental institutions (like non-state religions and capitalist businesses) that are necessary antecedents of democratization?
But do they want it to grant freedom and democracy to everyone, or so they can impose a religious tyranny?
Anyone who thinks that Prussian militarism or oriental fatalism can be overcome such that Germany and Japan would renounce military conquest and become liberal democracies is a fool.
What should America’s policy be?
How about “Write out your will before you come and fuck with us.”
I’ve had enough tolerance of maniac philosophies. Start stooting the bastards, and stop whan they do.
Many of the young people in the ME want nothing to do with religious tyranny. An example is Iran. There is more and more information managing to somehow get out from there. Groups of young Iranians who absolutely hate the Mullahs and the Theocracy.
Unfortunately, the messages that a lot of us get on a regular basis does not support this. But, they are there.
Somehow the iron grip needs to be released. Threats of inprisonment and death are a very good silencer. But, the young people are growing tired and weary of it and they are beginning to stir.
Jack: Your first point, that one can support the spread of democracy but object to Bush’s many mistakes, is pretty safe–and it’s the position of many on the right.
BUT, many on the right also realize that it’s not enough to point out the faults of the plan that’s being executed. To have a meaningful objection, one must also present an alternative. The day the left learns that is the day our democracy will become stronger and the debate over Bush’s failings more worth having.
As for your second paragraph, maybe. Or maybe not. Who says they’re necessary antecedent’s? Or that democracy isn’t the necessary antecedent of them?
Care to respond to those who don’t think imposing democracy is a bad thing, but think it’s ineffective in countries that don’t have extra-governmental institutions (like non-state religions and capitalist businesses) that are necessary antecedents of democratization?
Eastern Europe. They didn’t have a lot of “capitalist businesses” under Communism.
Free speech is an essential component for the diverse People to live together without a King.
The wood for a house does not make it a home but the inner space does. The clay that makes a pot is not important but its emptiness holds what we desire.
Free speech does not make a civilization; rather it is what civilization the People create with the ability to speak freely.
If the freedom of speech is flawed then the civilization becomes flawed, just as if there was a hole in the pot or the house-wood was rotted.
From Jack Roy
Many questions, very sorry.
What list of extra-governmental institutions comprise the “necessary antecedents” ? Is merely the presense or absense of one of the institions enough or is there some known magnitude that must be reached?
Is this list knowable in advance of how it applies to a specific country?
If a country does not meet the list requirments for freedom, are you suggusting that outsiders support some Strong King to prevent Choas?
If so, when & how do the outsiders influence the change to freedom? What if there is a serious threat from the Unfree area(s) before the outsiders are able to free them?
If freeing them is off the table because they are not ready and if they are a honest threat, are the outsiders justified in destroying them all….for everyone’s good?
It is possible to agree with the desirability of spreading freedom, but to have a quibble with Bush doing it so badly.
Yeah, and WW II was an abysmal failure thanks to FDR (the initial aim of the war, remember, was to reclaim Poland’s republic; instead, we provoked (through an oil embargo on a country that had no oil) a surprise attack that decimated our Pacific fleet due to a massive intelligence failure, invaded three countries that had not attacked us, and still lost all of Eastern Europe to dictatorship for fifty years), and the rebuilding of Western Europe was a horrible mess too. Oh, and after giving massive military aid to our new enemies in Russia, we also gave the Soviets the nuclear bomb thanks to another massive intelligence failure. All in all, a miserable failure.
See how interchangeable perceptions of competence and incompetence can be?
I’ve spoken plenty about what I believe are necessary preconditions to democracy. And this essay is less about spreading democracy per se as it is about spreading those preconditions—a portion of which is the underlying philosophy that encourages liberalism.
The point of this piece is that we need to wrestle with that problem here at home.
Jack Roy knows this—and so decides to address things the essay was NOT about, such as the problem of non-state religions (I have dealt with this elsewhere, and even do so obliquely here; the cartoon kerfuffle was a chance to show how religious pluralism is preferable to the intolerance of theorcracies) or no free markets, etc. (Tall Dave takes care of that).
But so you know, the reason why I’ve decided as a rule to stop responding, for the most part, to the contrarians here is that I believe that they are arguing in bad faith—that they are looking to win rhetorical points (often by shifting the focus of the subject at hand), not engage in any kind of fruitful conversation.
And I don’t have the time constitution for it anymore, frankly.
Having a “quibble” about a policy is one thing, actively working against a policy is quite another.
I’m currently reading about England in the time of Charles I up through Cromwell and into the time of the Georges. It’s interesting to see the English peoples evolution in political thought as it relates to the importance of having a strong King vs the will of other interests as expressed through parliement. England’s first experiment with forming a republic was a failure by all counts. France’s was even worse. The primary advantage that modern arabs have going for them now, that the Europeans lacked 350 years ago, is a successful model to follow if they wish. And a largely benevolent intervention on their behalf.
Or, in other words, I agree with my perfect war, but not your utterly mangled one. Because you mangled it. And I support the troops, because I would never call them incompetent, its Washington that is incompetent, 100%. Because you mangled the war.
Because, geez, don’t you know how to fight a war, like the perfect hill seizures of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, or the Mexican War, Civil War, Banana Wars, and all, where American soldiers showed up like Rambo, and single-handedly wiped out enemy divisions. Or something I saw on the movies once.
Your quibble is a willful lie! Because your support of a desire, lord have mercy get actus away from Mandingo, will suffer absolutely no mistakes. So you will accomplish very little by your agenda, because you will do nothing but talk, and debate, and whine, and mewl, for fear of making a mistake.
This is the beginning and ending sentence in the WSJ essay, and for good reason. It’s the crux of what’s wrong with the position the ankle-biters on the left have – NO position; just an anti-position.
The gauntlet has been been thrown, Jack Roy. Having “quibbles” is one thing, but do YOU have a better idea?
TV (Harry)
Ideas about what constitutes a free democratic society will differ even within that society. Our start, speaking of the earliest of days in US history, saw some of that debate handled with force, or the threat of force. I would imagine the same sort of slack must be cut for every new democracy.
Although, the idea of using whiskey as currency has great appeal to me, so perahps Washington was a bit of a bastard.
This is a solid essay Jeff. I used to introspect about the validity of the values you define as western liberalism and whether they are in tune with some kind of universal harmonic truth, circumstantially appropriate for our stage of civilization, or simply a different viewpoint with no objective validity beyond any other that only seems good because of my limited perspective. At that point its step away from nihilism and fortunately it’s become intuitively obvious to me that whatever the case, western liberalism is the best for humanity because it allows people to move through the world without having their will restricted so long as their machinations don’t interfere with the ability of others to do the same. Kind of Kantian, but I believe this attitude funnels humanity towards a gradual stable progress. I don’t think it’s right to press this on others, but I don’t see the current policy of the US as being aggressors, but proactive defenders, pushing back against the pressures of foreign actors that no longer or never did care for these values. It’s a shame so many seem so willing to abandon such values.
Long story short: we’re in agreement, but you said it better.
This is the big thing.
But seriously, don’t ask yourself why they’ve done this. Don’t start filling in those dots with reasons. You’ll wind up sounding as crazy as I do. Or probably slightly less so, since you weren’t Raised By
Wolves!commies. But still crazy. “Gaze long into the abyss…” etc.Good work.
The gauntlet has been been thrown, Jack Roy. Having “quibbles†is one thing, but do YOU have a better idea?
Beat me to it, IC.
This is just about the most salient question of our time and, unfortunately, a way too large a percentage of Western Civilization can’t or won’t answer it. All they can muster is carping, nagging, complaining, ankle-biting and outright hostility. But no alternatives.
Post-modernism and multiculturalism portend the death of the West.
Jeff G:
Sorry, but in my haste perhaps I wasn’t able to decypher accurately what your essay was about. Yet I return and between Said’s Orientallism and Churchill’s quip about democracy, I still can’t find anything else. It’s about post-modernism’s rejection of the moral authority necessary for hegemons to prescribe a form of society for the post-colony, yes? And the necessity to struggle against that nihilism? Forgive me if I’ve been too thick to grasp your point.
But in any event, sorry to make you feel so tired. But as I mentioned, all I really came here for was to be called an intentional liar, so thanks for indulging me.
Tim MacGuire:
No one “says.” It’s just been the ordinary lesson of history. And it was kind of a rhetorical question. But if you would like to make the case that democracy is a necessary antecedent for liberal institutions, I invite you to make it. It would be novel, to say the least.
TallDave:
I refer you to the sad case of Vladimir Putin. As for the interchangeability of success and failure, show me a guy who thinks WWII was a failure and Iraq has been a success, and I’ll show you a member of the Aryan movement. Those judgments aren’t nearly so malleable; that’s why everyone thinks WWII was the good war and Iraq is a cluster… something.
BM:
Not only is the list knowable, it consists entirely of green paper money and a good reality TV show. Are these questions serious?
BMoe:
I agree. Which am I guilty of, exactly?
Verc:
Again, the willful liar stuff really gets me off, so thanks. But as for the rest, I’m afraid I left my missing-predicate decoder ring at home. What on earth are you talking about?
Oh, I don’t know. If it had been up to me, I would have tried to find Osama and obliterate al Qaeda instead of getting a hardon over shooting up Uday and Qusay. Maybe do my nation-building in Afghanistan rather than Iraq, and expand the mission only when international alliances (especially with Muslim nations) were available that would have eliminated the perception of illegitimacy. That sort of thing.
Jack Roy
Perhaps you should be looking for someone who thought WW2 was a failure while it was being fought. I bet you have better luck.
Isn’t it fantastic that Jack thinks those are suggestions and not further criticisms. Do you own a dictionary Jack?
Jack…translating….Hes saying what a lot of us on the right have mentioned ourselves hoarse over. The left wants to “quibble”, an obviously herculean understatement if ever there was one, with things, but carefully tiptoe along never espousing a recognizable coguent position/alternative.
Personally, I chalk it up as just another manifistation of resposibility avoidance, which is a bastardization of classical liberalism that has become clitch’ avant garde these days.
– I hardly recognize the party I used to belong too.
Sounds a lot like what W is doing, Jack, just with a tad less glibness. BTW, how do you “obliterate” Al Qaeda? Bomb their convention at the Marriott?
Defense Guy:
Everything‘s a criticism to you people, isn’t it? Quit being so touchy. And accusing me of not knowing the meaning of words… bravo.
BBH:
See, this is where you just gotta recognize that you’re just bitching about everything liberals say because you like bitching. Liberals haven’t counseled any alternative to going to Iraq? How about “not going to Iraq”! Pretending you’ve never heard a liberal with any positive plan of action flies on talk radio, but it ought to stay there.
Jack Roy and other leftist trolls don’t give out alternatives because they don’t have any. “Get Osama” sez he but never how. No clue what “he” would do different in Afghanistan. I don’t argue with trolls for exactly the reason Jeff gave. They are not interested in an honest argument.
I don’t mind ridiculing them though. That’s kind of fun.
Jack Roy was a stupid boy,
a stupid boy was he.
He went to the park and he found it was dark.
And the gang bangers said Wowee!
tw: given
So you’re saying that you’ll support our efforts in Iraq when they are successful? Isn’t that putting the cart before the horse? We need support to make the efforts in Iraq successful. One of the many reasons the insurgency has been so stubbornly persistant is that the vocal anti-war movement gives them the hope that just a little more effort will drive the Americans out, bloody and beaten.
If we give it our all in Iraq and still fail, I’ll accept your scathing criticism. But at the moment we’re not giving it our all, and that is only partly the fault of administration waffling.
– Thats not an option, even with the loud angry chants from the pacifist small minority in the extreme left, and just a general extention of the whole “hell no we won’t go” crowds position on things.
You know Jack. I hate to say this, but refusing to join in the general effort to make a success of things and trying to stay stuck on pre-Iraq is really classic head in the sand immaturity. Iraq is a fact Jack. Done deal. But your side can’t get over itself, in much the same way as you view elections, long after the votes are tallied, investigations into “voter irregularities” have cost you even more votes, you still go on yammering into the sunset. There are still people on the left claiming 2000 was stolen from the Dems. How the hell do you expect to be taken seriously when you engage in that sort of juvenile nattering.
I can’t say for sure but I doubt you would gotten much more than tossed out on your collectives asses if you’d have preposed that we just “forget Hussein”. But at the time thats exactly what your proposals boiled down to.
Even Afghanistan. the left seems to suffer from “sliding amnesia”. I remember all the caterwalling of doom and gloom from Liberals just before we went in. Now we hear we didn’t do enough, and that Afghan was the right fight.
Personally I have more trouble with your constantly shifting sands of political position more than your ideas actually.
Jack
You are correct, it was a mistake of me to even address someone who’s attempts at offering alternatives hinge on the creation of a time machine. Bravo sir, bravo!
WW2 is viewed as a “good” war because it’s been over for 50+ years and the outcome is well-known.
It was not a perfect war, and if certain people would bother to study even a bit of history they would know that. Hedgerow Hell, Kasserine Pass, Savo Island, Ardennes Counteroffensive, Bloody Tarawa, lack of fighter escort for our bombers until later in the war, oh and the Ronsons. Plenty of cluster… somethings.
Hm. SNAFU. Gosh, I wonder when that little acronym was first coined and why.
…but hey, we won so it worked out.
Some people’s fixation on Bin Laden being dead or captured as a requirement to “prove” we won makes me wonder if they think we should have asked for a peace treaty with Japan after Admiral Yamamoto was killed.
Defense Guy:
My bad; I misunderstood what you were asking for. However, I hardly understand the salience of a conservative complaining that a liberal has no idea how to unshit the bed in Iraq, now that the bed has been thoroughly shitted. How is that supposed to be my fault?
Civilis:
Sweet. I thought being called a willful liar was gratitude; I never dreamed how much better it would be for a right-wing nutcase to blame the failure of our war in Iraq on my insufficient jingoism! Oh, this is really awesome; my sincere thanks.
Patrick Chester:
Interesting theory, yet we don’t think of the Mexican war as a great triumph for humanity just because the U.S. achieved its military goals. Wars are “good” because they’re fought for good reasons, and that’s never going to be said about the Iraq war.
Big Bang Hunter:
You may in fact be the dumbest munchkin in this entire special ed class. You say you would have tossed us out on our asses for saying forget Hussein? How is that our problem, exactly? If we’d done that we wouldn’t be in this mess; pointing out the limitlessness of your bad judgment doesn’t change that.
And 90% of the liberals I know were totally gung-ho about Afghanistan at the time; check your story again. Sheesh. And you people accuse me of being a willful liar. (Thanks again, btw!)
I like Defense Guy’s argument. “The Administration may have shit the bed, but you’re not allowed to complain about the smell until you can tell us how to clean it up.”
– Tsk tsk tsk. Jack Jack Jack…. Slipping into the adhominems so quickly. Weak sparky.
– Tell us again how “racist” profiling at the airports would be, but how “prudent” it is when its shipping ports?
– 39 front page runs of Abu Graibe is “freedom” of speech, but running a cartoon is insensitive.
– Abort your baby bitch or I’ll dump your ass, and don’t be late for Tookies candle night service.
– Saddam moved the shit to Syria, so obviously he didn’t have any.
– There was no al Qaeda in Iraq…. the training camps were sand dune life studies, besides most of Saddams checks didn’t make it to the “freedom fighter bombers”…
– Heh…..you guys are so full of shit….
Question, Jack.
Were you born this sanctimonious or was it an aquired thing?
Typical “progressive.” So quick to let everyone know how smart they are. So certain in their own judgment. So detached in their erudition.
Must be a real burden to carry that much perspicacity around.
Whoa, Kelly, I never claimed to be smart. I claimed Big Bang Hunter was stupid. There’s a difference. For one thing, if I were arguing that I were smart, BBH wouldn’t be so kind as to make my argument for me (see above). It doesn’t take sanctimony to recognize that
… is the intellectual equivalent of crib death. But if you’re curious, try carrying on a conversation with this maroons for long enough; it’ll make you grumpy, too.
But seriously, Kelly, what’s the point of resenting people who you perceive as thinking they’re smart? When did this country stop being a place where going to school and learning and thinking were bad things? We’re talking about complicated issues; what is the point of resenting people who try to apply intellect and reason to them, simply for the reason that your friends BigBang and 6Gun can’t share along?
When the hell did you learn to look down your nose at the educated, or the thoughtful, for the very fact of their book learning, and why the hell aren’t you ashamed of it?
You want to make an argument, make one. I’ve said plenty; if you think something I have said is in error, I welcome the debate. You want to call me a nerd or bookworm, on the other hand, then I’m sorry not to have the time of day.
– Oh dear… Jacks irony alarm is on overload so time to switch to the coy ploy…
– I don’t blame you Sparky… I’d hate to try to reconcile some of that shit myself….
– For “touchy feely” politico’s you guys can sure exit fast when the truth is layed out under your noses….
– The Liberalcrats started out as a confused mess and evolved into a political trainwreck…
– Witness the intercinal ankle biting of the MSM today, where various Liberal lap dog editors are in direct opposition on things. Apparently they didn’t all get the DNC talking points memo on time, so some were forced to “wing it” for a change, and common sense rears its ugly head…. ….Hilarious
I suspect that’s because it’s hard to think of solutions that work in the real world, especially solutions that don’t cause more problems than they solve. In the real world, a good solution to a problem now may be preferrable to a better solution down the road.
I feel compelled to enter the fray not to address the trolls, but because some arguments need to be put on paper (or screen, as it were) for the lurkers. I don’t care if Jack can’t understand my arguments or merely uses them as a stepping stone for a completely transparent straw man. He’s not my target audience. He merely happened to use an argument that I’d heard before, and one that deserved to be countered. Hopefully, some reader may hear it and know that there is a glaring logic error and how to counter the argument.
As I mentioned, although I support our goal of liberating Iraq and eventually the Middle East, I do have my qualms about the way the administration is handling the war. But that doesn’t mean I don’t believe the willfully ignorant and morally obtuse shouldn’t get a free pass.
– As we’ve tried to discuss before Civilis, a lot of us “eeeevilll” neocons have issues, but with all the nattering overreach polemic from the left flying around all over the place and stinking up the discourse, who the hell can ever get to it. Its hard to concentrate when the chuckleheads stream out of their clowncar party box and breathlessly declare the latest BDS screed/conspiracy theory, or do their olive oil act, proudly proclaiming the exact opposite of what they were saying a week before.
Yes, yes, no worries my good man. You will not be blamed for any bad that comes of it. Have a nice cup of tea and don’t worry your pretty little head about it. I see you have followers now. Your mother must be so proud.
You see the idea that we should in any way stand together is absolute hogwash. Why would you even contemplate helping those dirty evil republicans. Good heavens.
Josh
You resemble a shitstain and since you cannot even be bothered to pay attention to the WHOLE conversation, I don’t really feel any need to say anything else to you.
Remember, your ego is the most important thing in the world. Stroke it like a good monkey. There’s a boy!
Oh, fercryinoutloud, Jack, I’m not anti-intellectual nor an uneducated man myself. You just drop into Jeff’s place dripping with disdain and brandishing preconceived notions that, among other superiorities, you’re presumptively dealing with your mental inferiors. In person, it would be known as boorish behavior.
To say nothing of your tone that fairly shouts, ”my assertions are foregone, let us not muddy debate with what I have deemed a settled opinion.”
Either you’re a neophyte to this blog commenting thing or your pathologically obtuse. Tell us which.
Nobody ever thought this would be easy. But, the easy way out not only dooms the future of these young people, but will ultimately doom ours.
No worries there, I shouldn’t think. I doubt that anyone would take the view that three years of war, insurgency, and foreign occupation; added to 12 years of brutal rule by Saddam Hussein plus brutal sanctions by the U.S. and U.N.; added to a brief but extremely deadly war (for Iraqis) before the sanctions (Persian Gulf war); added to about a dozen years before that of brutal rule by Saddam Hussein supported by the U.S.; is “the easy way,” no matter what happens going forward.
Freedom and hope for a prosperous future is not owned by us. I believe that it is a gift that is meant to be shared. However that may need to come about.
Unfortunately, when that “gift” is unwrapped by the recipients, out come war, military occupation, tens of thousands of civilian casualties, uncontrolled sectarian violence, torture, death squads, and atrocities like people being kneecapped with electric drills, among other delights. If I were Iraqi, I’d say thanks for the thought, but no thanks.
We must all remember the virtue of compassion for those who suffer. For if we don’t, we may end up being the one’s suffering.
Does that virtue include compassion for those who suffer either at our hands or as a result of our actions?
… No doubt Kathy it was mush better under Husseins benevolent leadership…. at least you knew after your finger nails were gone and your teeth all drilled out you’d be shot and burried properly….How much more reassuring
Nothing like taking out your chrystal ball and writing the history books right fucking now.
If in 2025 Iraq is a prosperous democratic republic, with a free market economy and a govt that abides by the rule of law, with formerly murderous neighbors who’ve had to clean up their act a little bit, quite possibly 51% of Americans will feel like the war effort was justified. I suspect you’ll be in the other 49% though. The 49% that can only find value in a war when it doesn’t promote our national interests. Blue hat wars.
– Paint it black Kos Kiddies…. Paint it black…. that way if things turn out for the better you’ll have yet one more thing to toss on your “self loathing” log pile…..
Brutal enough to enrich hundreds of UN bureaucrats and assorted Euro/Russian businessmen and politicians on the take. That bother you at all, Kathy?
Thought not. But I’m sure you’re outraged about Enron.
TW:are. Some people are very selective in their outrage.
If in 2025 Iraq is a prosperous democratic republic, with a free market economy and a govt that abides by the rule of law, with formerly murderous neighbors who’ve had to clean up their act a little bit, quite possibly 51% of Americans will feel like the war effort was justified.
51% of Americans? What about Iraqis? I don’t think it’s the place of Americans to decide that “the war effort” was “justified.” America isn’t the country that paid the highest price. In fact, the only Americans who’ve sacrificed anything are the Americans fighting over there and their families. No one here has had to worry for the past three years about paramilitary death squads or Shock and Awe bombing campaigns or being forced to leave your home and your friends and family with nothing but the clothes on your back because a foreign army is sacking the city you live in. When was the last time you returned to your home town to find everything you knew there destroyed and rotting corpses all over the street, many burned down to the skeleton by white phosphorus?
Americans don’t have the right to “approve” or “disapprove” of anything for others when it’s those others who will pay the price.
I’d say that you’d probably find if we ever had an attack on our shores Kathy ,its a pretty sure bet our troops wouldn’t run and hide among the women and children and use them as shields….. you think?
So you think life in Iraq was…better under Saddam, Kathy? Seriously. All those purple-fingered men and women who voted for the first time in their lives…big joke? Staged event?
What have you been doing this whole thread, dipshit?
Oh? The war set the country up for the Civil War, and the end to slavery in North America. The usual suspects might hue and cry over over US imperialism, or some such tripe, but Mexico still is hardly a liberal society even today, and it certainly wasn’t one then. The Mexican defeat was a defeat for military hunta rule, and the best thing to happen to the American West. The usual suspects are wrong, per usual.
And my 12th Imam hidden predicate commentary above merely focused on the obvious: wars do not ever go perfectly, the more ambitious and larger the war, the more things go wrong. A perfect air war in Kosovo accomplishes little for little cost (but does the unlikely, gets a stealth fighter shot down). OIF removed a Stalinist strongman from power, and it hurts.
You do more, you make more mistakes, do less, fewer mistakes. You would have us make fewer mistakes, and do nothing of consequence, an irrascable proposition in these consequential times.
Ok. Those are really good arguments on the merits, and I just hadn’t considered them. Thanks for sharing your insights!
But race-baiting works for both!
Actus once read the National Review. Ergo, he’s a racist! Pass it on!
There are two key Humn Rights requirements for a good democracy:
free speech, as mentioned.
And free religion—the ability to believe as one sees fit.
Iraq’s got the first; plus elections; and is close to the second, but not there yet.
Too bad the USA didn’t enforce democracy building in Kuwait, when we liberated it from Saddam in 91.
But silly Fukayama is too impatient.
I know. I somewhat enjoy the irony of being labeled an evil neocon. And I appreciate people like you for being able to come out and say some of the things I can’t bring myself to type. It’s my curse; I’m condemned to try to be reasonable, even when my opponents don’t deserve it.
And as for Kathy’s badly reasoned screeds, she seems to ignore the fact that it’s the insurgency (those noble minutemen like figures who only strive for an Iraq liberated from us tyrranical Americans) that seems to be causing the vast majority of Iraqi civilian casualties, and that they are doing it deliberately and purposefully, and that their goals are indisputedly evil. Further, the fact that she is working to the same ends they are is doubly ironic. And she even trots out the long-discredited White Phosphorous claims, a textbook example of how the anti-war left’s obviously false claims serve to aid the insurgency.
Your welcome. I just figured that you paid so much attention to what came before, that you were just ready for it. You really are the brilliant lad.
Go hang out in the comments at Cole’s place for a week or so, that’ll fix ya.
Well, for NYers, there was this event in Sept., 2001, Kathy. Recall that? Bother you at all?
There are two key Humn Rights requirements for a good democracy:
free speech, as mentioned.
And free religionâ€â€the ability to believe as one sees fit.
Iraq’s got the first; plus elections; and is close to the second, but not there yet.
Can you support your argument that Iraqis have free speech and are close to free religion? I would argue that they do not. Speaking freely gets you disappeared, tortured, and executed in Iraq right now; and the sectarian violence that’s going on is the opposite of freedom of religion. People can BELIEVE whatever they want; it’s the ability to openly express one’s beliefs that spells freedom.
… it’s the insurgency (those noble minutemen like figures who only strive for an Iraq liberated from us tyrranical Americans) that seems to be causing the vast majority of Iraqi civilian casualties, and that they are doing it deliberately and purposefully, and that their goals are indisputedly evil.
Yes, but the insurgency was both a response to the U.S. invasion and a result of the piss poor planning for postwar realities by the Bush administration. We as Americans have to take responsibility for that.
And she even trots out the long-discredited White Phosphorous claims, a textbook example of how the anti-war left’s obviously false claims serve to aid the insurgency.
Can you support your argument that the claims are discredited? Discredited by whom? How?
I wrote: When was the last time you returned to your home town to find everything you knew there destroyed and rotting corpses all over the street, many burned down to the skeleton by white phosphorus?
Kelly responded: Well, for NYers, there was this event in Sept., 2001, Kathy. Recall that? Bother you at all?
What bothers me, Kelly, is people like you still trotting out 9/11 four years after it happened to justify every disastrous action of the Bush administration since then.
One: The Iraq invasion had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan did, but Bush dropped that ball to pursue another shiny object, because Iraq was the one he wanted from the start.
Two: I don’t think that it’s trivializing the horror of 9/11 to say that your analogizing that event to what’s been going on every single day in Iraq for the past three years is has no legitimacy whatsoever. 9/11 was confined to one section of NYC, and within that area the destruction, both human and property, was atrocious. The rest of NYC was unaffected, in terms of damage to human life, infrastructure, essential services, or daily life in general. There is absolutely no comparison between that and conditions in Iraq. At the most conservative estimate, about 30,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since this war began. That’s the equivalent of TEN 9/1l’s. No Iraqi remains unaffected by the war, especially in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. Thousands of Iraqis have been made into refugees; thousands more have died; bombings, torture, disappearances, and terror affect everyone, especially in Baghdad; neighbors inform on each other to the paramilitary death squads; families are afraid to leave their homes; essential infrastructure remains in shambles three years after the war: Baghdadis much if not most of the time have no electricity, no effective water or sewage treatment.
YOU and your friends, family, neighbors, and acquaintances do not have to face those conditions, and you never did have to face those conditions. No one in the United States has to face those conditions. I think it’s obscene to use 9/11 as a parallel to what’s going on in Iraq right now.
– Wait. America has no right to decide for the Iraqui’a, but the “Insurgents” do?. Lets see Zarqawi and his band of merry murdering thugs are there to protect who’s interests again?. His own country Jordan? Is that the sort of “equivalency” that passes for intelligence in your circles Kathy. Kind of pitiful.
– As to the second part, I agree. We do have to take the responsibility of our actions. “Taking responsibility” means staying there after we’ve disposed of Hussein and doing everything we can to give their fledgling Democracy a chance, Rebuilding as much of the infrastructure as we can, and generally trying to keep the peace between the factions until the insurgents are reduced to a level that the Iraquies can handle on thier own. Taking Responsibility does NOT mean cutting and running. Your sides answer to all problems it seems.
– “When the going gets tough, the weak get Liberal” – BBH, 2006
America has no right to decide for the Iraqui’a, but the “Insurgents†do?.
Once again, the U.S. invasion (or, perhaps more accurately, a series of disastrous postwar decisions and the failure of the Bush administration to even imagine, much less plan for, adverse postwar contingencies) caused the insurgency. You’re putting the cart before the horse.
“Taking responsibility†means staying there after we’ve disposed of Hussein and doing everything we can to give their fledgling Democracy a chance, Rebuilding as much of the infrastructure as we can, and generally trying to keep the peace between the factions until the insurgents are reduced to a level that the Iraquies can handle on thier own.
But we’re not doing that. If I thought we were doing that—if we WERE actually doing that—I would support staying. But we’re NOT doing that. U.S. occupying forces are NOT rebuilding the infrastructure. That’s not to say they haven’t tried, but it’s not happening, and it won’t, unless the Bush administration starts a massive Civilian Conservation Corps-type effort, and that would involve a lot more money and personnel, and Bush is not going to do that.
Furthermore, U.S. troops lack the support from the Iraqi population that they would need to effectively rebuild the country. U.S. forces have no credibility in Iraq; they are seen as foreign occupiers there to set up permanent military bases and take Iraq’s oil.
Additionally, Americans are NOT keeping the peace or reducing the insurgency. The insurgency itself has gone way beyond the point of roadside and suicide bombings in marketplaces. Iraq now is a cauldron of uncontrolled terror and violence between warring religious and ethnic factions. No one trusts anyone. Americans just stand by and do nothing to stop the violence—because they CAN’T. The only thing U.S. troops are doing in Iraq now is being a huge provocation to more violence. The country is getting closer to all-out civil war, and the U.S. presence is doing nothing to prevent that civil war: in fact, it’s making it more likely.
And last, there IS no democracy in Iraq, fledgling or otherwise. Elections alone don’t make a country a democracy—especially when they can only happen with the cities sealed off and bristling with U.S. soldiers to prevent violence. The “government” that’s in place in Iraq now is regarded with suspicion and often outright contempt by many Iraqis because it’s seen as hand-picked by the U.S. and compliant with U.S. wishes.
Can you point to any functioning democratic institutions in Iraq that would support your argument that Iraq is a “fledgling democracy”?
– Kathy. The fact that the civil war hasn’t moved along as fast as you on the left may have wanted to “prove” we were wrong all along in the Iraqui campaign is your problem.
– From what you write I take it you are “angry” that we didn’t wait for more attacks here on our soil and fight them in the streets of Chicago. More dead Americans to balance the “issue” in your self proclaimed “elitist” minds. Bush is a bastard because he didn’t give the Islamist extreme a fair chance. To that I say I think you’re fucking nuts. Pure and simple. I don’t think you give a flying fuck about America.I think you love your Marxist ideolology more than you love life, or your fellow Americans, or the subjugated people of the ME for that matter.
– But hey. What else would anyone with a brain in their heads expect from a group of “cultists” that think killing defenseless unborn babies is preferable to giving up your right to privacy and the avoidance of personal responsibility. The “Choice” to fuck any man who you think so little of you wouldn’t dream of having his brat.
– I don’t expect it. Not for a New York second. but I’ll tell you what. If you ever decide you want to get up in front of a crowd of New Yorkers and say:
The rest of NYC was unaffected, in terms of damage to human life, infrastructure, essential services, or daily life in general.
Make sure you warn us so we can arrange a phallanx of National Guard to keep your elitist ass from being strung up from the nearest lamppost.
You bet, a constitution written by an elected body of representitives which was voted on at its completion, and elections for the first new government of Iraq.
If you ever decide you want to get up in front of a crowd of New Yorkers and say:
The rest of NYC was unaffected, in terms of damage to human life, infrastructure, essential services, or daily life in general.
Make sure you warn us so we can arrange a phallanx of National Guard to keep your elitist ass from being strung up from the nearest lamppost.
New Yorkers are pretty smart as a group, and I think YOU would be laughed off the street if you told an audience of New Yorkers that 9/11 is equivalent or comparable to the Iraq war. I don’t know any New Yorkers who would argue that the experience of 9/11 for New York City or for the United States as a whole is equivalent or even comparable to the experience of the invasion of Iraq by the United States, the experience of being occupied by a foreign army, or the experience of violence, terrorism, carnage, and human rights atrocities on a continuing, constant, daily basis for three years and counting.
Would you argue that the destruction of the WTC and the loss of 3,000 lives on one day in NYC was the equivalent of World War II and the Holocaust, which together claimed about 40 million lives worldwide? Would you argue that Pearl Harbor was the same experience for Americans as World War II was for Europe? Are you truly arguing that making a distinction between (1) one act of terrorism on a single day and (2) five years of war and genocide, implies that you don’t take number one seriously enough?
Acknowledging that a war going on over years and years in an entire country or region is a more far-reaching and destructive and traumatic experience for a nation or region as a whole, than is one act of terrorism on one day in one part of one city, is common sense. Something that is sorely lacking in the comments I’ve seen here so far.
I asked: Can you point to any functioning democratic institutions in Iraq that would support your argument that Iraq is a “fledgling democracy�
Defense Guy replied: You bet, a constitution written by an elected body of representitives which was voted on at its completion, and elections for the first new government of Iraq.
First of all, I said, “functioning democratic institutions.” The constitution and elections for the first new government of Iraq are not institutions, and they are not functioning to create such institutions.
Second, the constitution was not written by an elected body of representatives. It was written by a committee of leaders from Iraq’s different factions (Sunni, Shia, Kurdish); but those leaders were not elected by the Iraqi people.
Third, the Iraqi constitution gives the final say to Islamic sharia law on issues of women’s rights and other issues with implications for individual rights and religious freedom. I’m not convinced that a constitution which denies equal rights to Iraqi women is truly democratic.
Fourth, the Iraqi constitution was drafted and approved; and the Iraqi elections took place, in the context of a foreign military occupation that Iraqis have no say in. The “elected” Iraqi leaders are widely viewed by Iraqis as puppets who were selected to run because the Bush admin felt they would be reliably compliant. You may disagree, but that’s what many Iraqis feel, and it’s understandable that they would. I would, in their place. You cannot call a constitution written, or elections put together and conducted, under foreign supervision, truly democratic. If there ever is democracy in Iraq, it will certainly never take root until the U.S. leaves. Foreign occupation is incompatible with democratic government by the people and for the people.
Kathy – you’re engaging in the old “creeping incrementalism” game. You asked a question, you got an answer, so you move the goal posts. Perfection is the enemy of reasonable action. If it isn’t perfect, all wrapped up and dropped in your Liberal laps, you want to bolt for the exit.
– Why don’t you stop all the bloviating bullshit and just say you don’t think anything is worth fighting for. Thats what you really mean under all of the carefully phrased carping.
– In your elitism, and irresponsible ankle biting obstructionism, it never occurs to you just how much you enbolden the enemy. Why do I think things were scaled up more than we thought with the insurgency? Because they see the fucking left over here belching, and whining, and screeching about shit they have no personal experience with and they think…. “Hey…. those guys are so fucking scared they don’t even want to fight for their lives and way of life”. They must sit in their sand dunes and laugh at this shit. God help me if I get so full of myself I think its “elite” to fight against and hurt my own country.
– To be honest you fuckheads just disgust me. I don’t even care to debate you anymore. I see you as sediscist assholes that don’t believe in anything.
What Kathy leaves out is that one of those postwar realities that the Bush administration failed to take into account is the anti-war bias of the American media and the shear gullibility of the American progressive movement. My biggest complaint about the Bush administration is it is absolutely incapable of fighting a PR war.
Another of those postwar realities is that the American military rules of engagement involve bending over backwards to try to avoid offending the sensibilities of the Muslim street and those worried about excessive civilian casualties. So what happens? The insurgents kill Iraqis, and the Americans still get the blame, and the progressives incite the Muslim street anyways.
We spend threads researching and explaining the massive gaping holes in the insurgents’ white phosporous fabrication like the depleated uranium fabrication before it, and the progressives blithely sail along, spreading, repeating and even exaggerating it. (”…rotting corpses all over the street, many burned down to the skeleton…”?)
Pearl Harbor was less than 3,000 Americans killed, but that doesn’t make the rest of the war an atrocity. And our war isn’t just OBL and Al Quaeda, just as World War II wasn’t just Japan. I’m convinced that by the Progressive way of thinking, the only reason F.D.R. isn’t history’s greatest monster is that Hitler and Mussolini were stupid enough to declare war after Pearl Harbor.
HOW CAN YOU WEEVIL NEO-CONS COMPARE 911 TO THE METEOR STRIKE THAT WIPED OUT THE DINOSAURS?
oops, sorry. my caps lock key was stuck.
I feel so, so dirty!