Comments on: High Noonan in Iraq http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/ The blog of the mystery writer, screenwriter and CEO of Pajamas Media Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:33:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Bostonian http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83059 Bostonian Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:08:35 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83059 Lawrence:"When in reality Bush has many times indicated that his goal is not to defeat the insurgency but to hand the baton to the Iraqis and get out. Saying that Bush is leading us in a war, when he is not, is water carrying." OK, for the hundred thousandth time, the war that Bush is leading is a war of ideas, not a war against Iraq. So yes, of course, he wants to hand the baton to the Iraqis and get out. That has been crystal clear to those of us paying attention. I don't think it's really that hard to understand. Lawrence:”When in reality Bush has many times indicated that his goal is not to defeat the insurgency but to hand the baton to the Iraqis and get out. Saying that Bush is leading us in a war, when he is not, is water carrying.”

OK, for the hundred thousandth time, the war that Bush is leading is a war of ideas, not a war against Iraq.

So yes, of course, he wants to hand the baton to the Iraqis and get out. That has been crystal clear to those of us paying attention.

I don’t think it’s really that hard to understand.

]]> By: Lawrence Auster http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83058 Lawrence Auster Tue, 14 Nov 2006 05:14:30 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83058 Mr. Simon, you kindly posted my second comment, but not the first comment of which the second was a follow-up. The first comment makes a distinct point that needs to be heard. All the pro-war people think we're in a war. But we're not in a war. The pro-war people are in despair that the American people did not have the fiber to "stay the course." But even Mark Steyn, who said to the president the other week that we're not on the offense in Iraq, then turns around and blames the American voters for not having the fiber to stay the course. But the whole point is that Bush has not given the country a course with which to stay. I have been showing for three years at my website and at FrontPage (on the one or two ocasions when David Horowitz permitted me to criticize the Bush policy) that the U.S. in Iraq is not doing any of the things that the Bush supporters imagine we're doing. Remember Rush Limbaugh's explanation of what he meant when he had said that he had been carrying water for Republicans? He meant that there were Republicans who somehow failed to state their true conservative positions, so Rush did it for them. Well, by the same token, the entire pro-war Republican base has been carrying the water for Bush. They think that Bush is waging a war, but that he's failing to _articulate_ it, so his supporters say, "Bush is leading us in in a war, there is no substitute for victory," blah blah, when in reality Bush has many times indicated that his goal is not to defeat the insurgency but to hand the baton to the Iraqis and get out. Saying that Bush is leading us in a war, when he is not, is water carrying. It is making believe that Bush stands for something and is doing something that in reality he does not stand for and is not doing. That was the point of my first comment and I hope you will post it. Mr. Simon, you kindly posted my second comment, but not the first comment of which the second was a follow-up. The first comment makes a distinct point that needs to be heard. All the pro-war people think we’re in a war. But we’re not in a war. The pro-war people are in despair that the American people did not have the fiber to “stay the course.” But even Mark Steyn, who said to the president the other week that we’re not on the offense in Iraq, then turns around and blames the American voters for not having the fiber to stay the course. But the whole point is that Bush has not given the country a course with which to stay. I have been showing for three years at my website and at FrontPage (on the one or two ocasions when David Horowitz permitted me to criticize the Bush policy) that the U.S. in Iraq is not doing any of the things that the Bush supporters imagine we’re doing.

Remember Rush Limbaugh’s explanation of what he meant when he had said that he had been carrying water for Republicans? He meant that there were Republicans who somehow failed to state their true conservative positions, so Rush did it for them. Well, by the same token, the entire pro-war Republican base has been carrying the water for Bush. They think that Bush is waging a war, but that he’s failing to _articulate_ it, so his supporters say, “Bush is leading us in in a war, there is no substitute for victory,” blah blah, when in reality Bush has many times indicated that his goal is not to defeat the insurgency but to hand the baton to the Iraqis and get out. Saying that Bush is leading us in a war, when he is not, is water carrying. It is making believe that Bush stands for something and is doing something that in reality he does not stand for and is not doing. That was the point of my first comment and I hope you will post it.

]]> By: Lawrence Auster http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83057 Lawrence Auster Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:13:17 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83057 To clarify my previous comment, we need to drop the fantasy war against "Muslim radicals" and instead a serious strategy of Western self-defense against Islam as such. This strategy consists of: 1. Speaking the truth about Islam, both to ourselves and to the Muslims. This truth is that Islam is incompatible with the liberty and existence of Western society, and that we must defend ourselves from it by removing it from our midst. 2. Stopping virtually all Muslim immigration into the West while adopting a range of measures that will result in the steady return, both forcible and voluntary, of Muslims to their ancestral lands. Most of it will be voluntary, as they will not want to live in the West when the West ceases to welcome them and starts restricting them in all kinds of ways. 3. Tightly restricting travel of Muslims in the West. 4. Stating that we have no design to destroy Islam as such. If they want to go on practicing Islam in their own countries, we will not interfere. But we must take away from them any ability or opportunity to export Islam to non-Islamic countries. 5. Maintaining forward bases in or near the Mideast from which to launch rapid raids to disrupt or destroy Muslim regimes that threaten us. This does not involve taking over any Muslim countries or reforming them, just destroying and killing any threatening regime. 6. Development of energy resources. If we need in the short term to maintain control over Persian Gulf oil, so be it. 7. The aim is not endless confrontation, but the end of confrontaton by removing Islam from our midest and isolating it. As long as we are "involved" with Muslims, the conflict will be endless. The only way to peace is by the separation of Islam from the West, and from other non-Islamic societies as well. That separation can only happen as the result of concerted Western and non-Islamic action. The strategy I've laid out here is a real strategy of Western self-preservation. An American political leadership that defended the West in the way I've described, instead of engaging in Bush-type futile policing and democratizing activities in Muslim countries, would win electoral majorities over the anti-American left. To clarify my previous comment, we need to drop the fantasy war against “Muslim radicals” and instead a serious strategy of Western self-defense against Islam as such.

This strategy consists of:

1. Speaking the truth about Islam, both to ourselves and to the Muslims. This truth is that Islam is incompatible with the liberty and existence of Western society, and that we must defend ourselves from it by removing it from our midst.

2. Stopping virtually all Muslim immigration into the West while adopting a range of measures that will result in the steady return, both forcible and voluntary, of Muslims to their ancestral lands. Most of it will be voluntary, as they will not want to live in the West when the West ceases to welcome them and starts restricting them in all kinds of ways.

3. Tightly restricting travel of Muslims in the West.

4. Stating that we have no design to destroy Islam as such. If they want to go on practicing Islam in their own countries, we will not interfere. But we must take away from them any ability or opportunity to export Islam to non-Islamic countries.

5. Maintaining forward bases in or near the Mideast from which to launch rapid raids to disrupt or destroy Muslim regimes that threaten us. This does not involve taking over any Muslim countries or reforming them, just destroying and killing any threatening regime.

6. Development of energy resources. If we need in the short term to maintain control over Persian Gulf oil, so be it.

7. The aim is not endless confrontation, but the end of confrontaton by removing Islam from our midest and isolating it. As long as we are “involved” with Muslims, the conflict will be endless. The only way to peace is by the separation of Islam from the West, and from other non-Islamic societies as well. That separation can only happen as the result of concerted Western and non-Islamic action.

The strategy I’ve laid out here is a real strategy of Western self-preservation. An American political leadership that defended the West in the way I’ve described, instead of engaging in Bush-type futile policing and democratizing activities in Muslim countries, would win electoral majorities over the anti-American left.

]]> By: sbw http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83056 sbw Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:53:08 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83056 The length of the war will be so long as it takes us to understand what's worth standing up for and then to learn to explain to others why. The length of the war will be so long as it takes us to understand what’s worth standing up for and then to learn to explain to others why.

]]> By: Rhod http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83055 Rhod Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:48:28 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83055 Breaking and Keeping was Powell's remark, I think, as was "Wash, Rinse, Repeat", the second being the destruction of your enemies with no intention of building a new "state". If the Rinse doesn't work, do it again. Continued warfare. In any case, Powell and his kind don't know that peace is achieved, never just maintained. Breaking and Keeping was Powell’s remark, I think, as was “Wash, Rinse, Repeat”, the second being the destruction of your enemies with no intention of building a new “state”. If the Rinse doesn’t work, do it again. Continued warfare. In any case, Powell and his kind don’t know that peace is achieved, never just maintained.

]]> By: Terry Gain http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83054 Terry Gain Mon, 13 Nov 2006 04:12:53 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83054 At current birth rates it will take Muslims no longer than 75 years to prevail. They are unlikely to lose this war unless they nuke an American city. That's not to say they won't. At current birth rates it will take Muslims no longer than 75 years to prevail.

They are unlikely to lose this war unless they nuke an American city.

That’s not to say they won’t.

]]> By: photoncourier.blogspot.com http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83053 photoncourier.blogspot.com Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:45:40 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83053 "You break it, you keep it" was a clueless comment, implying that it (Iraq) wasn't already broken. It seems likely that those fond of this phrase value apparent stability and order above all else, regardless of what is happening beneath the surface. “You break it, you keep it” was a clueless comment, implying that it (Iraq) wasn’t already broken. It seems likely that those fond of this phrase value apparent stability and order above all else, regardless of what is happening beneath the surface.

]]> By: Sandy P http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83052 Sandy P Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:35:47 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83052 Terrye, they want Canada's system because they don't know it doesn't work. Terrye, they want Canada’s system because they don’t know it doesn’t work.

]]> By: ricpic http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83051 ricpic Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:24:30 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83051 wennejunk, I won't argue you point by point. I'll just say that you underestimate the power and fury of an aroused America. I'm talking pickup truck, redneck, flyover America. The people who carry this country and are generally ignored and/or crapped on till the going gets tough. They won't <i>allow</i> a tepid non-response, no matter who sits in power. AFTER THE NUKE When the worst comes (And it will) Maybe Maybe then Mohammed will get What he so richly deserves. If not If We do not respond With a fury ten times Mohammed's <i>IF LIFE DOES NOT BEAT DEATH TO DEATH</i> Then Then we are truly Doomed. wennejunk,

I won’t argue you point by point. I’ll just say that you underestimate the power and fury of an aroused America. I’m talking pickup truck, redneck, flyover America. The people who carry this country and are generally ignored and/or crapped on till the going gets tough. They won’t allow a tepid non-response, no matter who sits in power.

AFTER THE NUKE

When the worst comes
(And it will)
Maybe
Maybe then
Mohammed will get
What he so richly deserves.

If not
If We do not respond
With a fury ten times Mohammed’s
IF LIFE DOES NOT BEAT DEATH TO DEATH
Then
Then we are truly
Doomed.

]]> By: Always right http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83050 Always right Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:27:44 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2006/11/11/high-noonan-in-iraq/#comment-83050 Call it socialism or not, I see we are heading down similar road in the "cradle to grave" european style government. People elect those politicians promising more and subjugate their own personal responsibilities. It is not because intellectually people don't understand the penalties, it is the thinking: Future generation will have to pay for it, but (hopefully) it will not be in my lifetime. Terry, If it starts out with universal healthcare, where does it stop? It won't be "just this one case", there are plenty of other classes of people "also deserving" (whatever, fill in your own blank). Call it socialism or not, I see we are heading down similar road in the “cradle to grave” european style government. People elect those politicians promising more and subjugate their own personal responsibilities.

It is not because intellectually people don’t understand the penalties, it is the thinking: Future generation will have to pay for it, but (hopefully) it will not be in my lifetime.

Terry,
If it starts out with universal healthcare, where does it stop? It won’t be “just this one case”, there are plenty of other classes of people “also deserving” (whatever, fill in your own blank).

]]>