Back in the early Paleolithic Age, when I was a Yale Drama student, I played the role of Quentin – the Arthur Miller surrogate – in some scenes from Miller’s After the Fall. I had a line – “How few the days are that hold the mind in place” – that I could never handle well. I thought it was the awkward syntax, but in retrospect I realize it was because I was too young to understand the meaning, at least in a visceral sense. Now I do – and how.
But today was one of those rare positive “mind in place” days, a part of it anyway, because Tim Rutten’s article in the Los Angeles Times – “Where is the West’s outcry?” – made me proud to be part of Pajamas Media. Rutten’s piece is about the lack of response in Western media to the Islamic worlds’ outrage at the knighting of Salman Rushdie. The exception Rutten cites is Flemming Rose’s article in Pajamas Media.
I am pleased to say I commissioned that article because I thought there was no one better than Flemming – the instigator of the Danish cartoons – to comment on the new campaign against Rushdie. But before you accuse me of bragging, let me go on to say that what I did, in normal circumstances, was painfully obvious. Many should have done that. And let me also reassure you that the good mood I referred to above didn’t last long. Thought instant to thought instant, Heaven to Hell, as the Zen Buddhists say.
The cause of my mood swing was my friend Glenn Reynolds. He also linked to the Rutten article with the following comment:
“Frankly, I think the best argument for electing a Democrat as President is that as long as a Republican is in office the media powers-that-be will refuse to condemn even the worst atrocities on the part of Islamists, for fear of helping the real enemy in the White House.”
How true and how pathetic.
And what a terrible pass that puts us in.
As one who is fundamentally disinterested in whether one is a Democrat or a Republican – or even a liberal or a conservative, since those terms have been reduced to intellectual rubble – I found what Glenn wrote terrifyingly dark. Because even though I don’t much care any longer for political parties – they come and go and rename themselves, etc. – I care passionately about the Enlightenment, free speech, separation of church and state, freedom of assembly and the rest of that short but delicate list that makes life decent in the West.
Therefore, I truly and deeply support Salman Rushdie as a fellow writer and as a citizen of the world.
But that’s the easy part. And I imagine many of the media-types who regularly read Rutten’s column will respond “Oh, yes, Tim’s right. We forgot… Go, Salman!”
Unfortunately, however, the curious absence of response to Islamic religious totalitarianism in our media is far more serious than the Rushdie Affair, as serious as that may be…
So I want to take this a little further. The partisanship of our society has struck us blind. Iraq, as everyone knows, has driven us apart. But looking back on it – it could not have been otherwise. We were doomed. In a society with a supposedly-free (though often reified) press, it becomes almost impossible to win an assymetrical war. The same prejudices that Rutten describes in his Rushdie article are the ones that have seriously undermined the possibility of victory for democracy in Iraq. A media that could call obvious fascists and religious fascists “insurgents” (a term once reserved for Pancho Villa) in the interest of “objectivity” encouraged a specious atmosphere of moral equivalence to democracy from the start. Whether this was conscious or unconscious is beside the point. Whatever it was, our enemies, the enemies of the Enlightenment, seized on it for propaganda purposes and continue to do so. (Note that in the new Daniel Pearl movie, Pearl’s beheading is not even shown – that was praised as tasteful by Roger Ebert.) And, as everyone knows, the playing field of assymetrical war is the media, far more than the battlefield. Only in the world of public opinion can we be defeated.
Now I am not accusing anyone here of lack of patriotism. This was partisanship and bias in action. But it was blind and it was stupid. And Bush and company weren’t too bright either. They walked right into it, having played the partisanship game themselves for too long. Now there is no question we are in the very heart of darkness. I am not sure how we will get out.
Russert? Anyway, I found Reynolds’s comment appalling in that it suggests the Democrats’ enablers in the media should be rewarded for their failings.
I think it was the Mo-Toons debacle that made it crystal-clear to me how absolutely supine the MSM were going to be in this conflict. Trying to throw the election to Kerry with a transparent bit of fraud, coloring the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as Vietnam Part Deux; I could write that all off to partisanship. Disgusting but understandible.
After decades of loudly trumpeting “freedom of the press” and the “public’s right to know!”… just about every print and broadcast outlet caved in the face of Moslem threats. They caved on one of their supposed core values in a particularly gutless fashion. Now I wonder how easily other key segments of our Western society would do the same, and cheerfully rationalize away their surrender.
“Frankly, I think the best argument for electing a Democrat as President is that as long as a Republican is in office the media powers-that-be will refuse to condemn even the worst atrocities on the part of Islamists, for fear of helping the real enemy in the White House.”
We should never forget that many fools thought that Adolph Hitler would become a prudent political leader if elected to office. That didn’t work out very well, did it? The crazies have taken over the heart and soul of the Democratic Party and adamantly refuse to surrender power.
The country is doomed if a Democrat is elected president in 2008. Any presidential candidate who survives the Democratic Party leftist gauntlet will have to be a groveling fool. Our nihilistic Islamic foes will rightfully celebrate their good fortune. The Democrat political leaders will most assuredly do their best imitation of Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain. We should never forget that Senator Joseph Lieberman is now a registered Independent. There is no room for him within the Democratic Party.
I don’t think having a Democratic President would help this situation in any way. On the contrary, it would ensure that in addition to these threats and atrocities not being condemned by the MSM, they would also not be condemned by the U.S. government.
The motivations for appeasement go far beyond partisan politics. I think we have a large number of people–particularly in the universities and in the entertainment industry–who desperately want to be thought of as courageous but are in fact not risk-taker—indeed, are often outright cowards. Thus, they do things that will offend harmless church ladies in Iowa and congratulate themselves on their boldness–but are very, very careful not to offend anyone who might actually be dangerous–either dangerous to their careers, or physcially dangerous.
What photoncourier said. They’ll talk the talk… but not put a single toe into walking the walk.
Be careful not to misread Reynolds. He said “the best argument for”.
He didn’t say “a good argument for”.
Everything has a best argument. ‘Best’ is merely better than worst–it sure doesn’t mean “good”.
the best thing about pond scum is you don’t have to drink it
What Buddy LArsen said.
Some of you are misreading Reynolds. Careful.
Roger,
Superb post!
As it happens I was talking yesterday with a dear friend, a poet in Berkeley, who is adamantly anti-war but is not at all (as so many anti-war people are) down on the military. She is very intelligent, and thoughtful, and is in no way a moonbat. But she is a believer, sadly, in every MSM talking point against the war (wrong war, should have stayed in Afghanistan, Bush deceived us, and so on). These things have become so much a part of the air we breathe, or rather suffocate on, that I think the situation is quite hopeless.
OT:
(Yo, Buddy!)
Jamie Irons
“the best thing about pond scum is you don’t have to drink it”
…except if you’re living in a socialist Great Leap Forward.
“Note that in the new Daniel Pearl movie…that was praised as tasteful by Roger Ebert.”
Did you notice how, in that review Roger Ebert tried to equate critics of MSM news bias with terrorists who murder journalists? Ebert may know something about movies but he is inexcusably foolish and biased about politics.
I was staggered by Reynolds’ remark. If he is right, and he may be, then we are fated to “… a new dark age,” as Churchill said, “… made more sinister… by the lights of perverted science.” That Pelosi’s and Reid’s hatred for the president forestalls the needed resolve to face down and if necessary smash in the teeth of Ahmedinajad and his puppets is risk-taking behavior elevated to the geopolitical level. Risks the Congress seems willing to take on our behalf. I recently watched Al-Jazeera from my hotel room in Budapest and to see the baying of Leahy and Dorgan with their requisite Arabic translation was shocking. Absolutely shocking to see how instantaneously our “loyal opposition” is rendered into sustenance for our enemies. If these are the faces that will support a next, Democrat president of the US, then we will experience what all appeasers must eventually experience: full-scale disaster. That the role of president has been degraded to such an extent — to where a distaste for a personality trumps our very self-interest, that petty jealousy and a desire to get even is ascendent, is the hallmark of our very selfish times. A selfishness made self-perpetuating by CFR, the watering-down of our citizenship through amnesty, the “Fairness Doctrine” and pork-barrel politics. Despite all their efforts to ensure their perpetual aristocracy, however, events themselves may upbraid these rascals.
With postmodern progressives it’s all about “control of the narrative”. Keep up out own enlightened narrative and they will eventually go away. They are only producing one child per union after all.
Some conservatives believed the best way to get rid of pork was to get rid of the Republicans in 2006.
If you want to see how a Democratic administration is like: look at Europe, the example of enlightened governance that the Dems aspire to. Remember how Kerry wanted to “ask permission” to react to our national security threats? Remember how the MSM ridiculed the cowboy, and Reagan before him, for being so unsophisticated? No, electing a Dem will not solve the problem. They will just emulate the Euros. Remember further: Clinton authorized Loral to do business with China for Charlie Trie’s campaign contributions. Loral gave them the technology to successfully launch rockets to space, and improved their inter-continental missiles capabilities. Loral folded because of the scandal, but Clinton was scoth-free. Clinton’s Secretary of State Albright has famously questioned why should the US be the only super power.
No, getting a Dem into the White House, especially another Clinton, will be a grave mistake.
Their enemy is not only Bush, their enemy is us. They despise us for being uncouth, un-nuanced. They are sophisticates, the world is not “black and white”, they believe it is chic to carry a Mao bag, to wear a Che Guevara t-shirt. They believe we should “play nice”. Such as pay homage to the Syrian creep. Whatever the UN decide is what we should carry out. No matter that the UN is a front for dictators and kleptocrats.
Remember Carter, their statesman who was honored in their Convention? This time, we won’t be so lucky to have a Reagan to get us out of the mess.
Alexistan’s “…events themselves may upbraid these rascals” is at least something of an answer to Jamie’s “…I think the situation is quite hopeless”.
Great posts, Roger & Alexistan–and Jamie, only hopeless if you quit badgering her to think !
Take heart.
This medium self-selects for readers and thinkers. Many are too busy to do other than read and move on, browsing for facts and ideas to better their and their loved ones’ lives today and tomorrow. And the truth will come out, maybe not in our lifetimes, but eventually. People respect the old virtues even if we don’t practice them. The current administration will go out holding its head high, and it will be a challenge for any following to do better. Eventually the bullies will be shamed, even if they are blind to how they appear to others. One small example, Mr. Nifong (and the 88) and Mr. Fitzgerald, common sense and PC run amok – who needs to use their intellect or adult judgment when we have process and regulation to inform us?
Every age has its challenge. The president (of any era) has a full-time job to do, the last thing he needs to do is treat his peer citizens as children, unable to evaluate the facts and come to a number of choices, and then respect the fact whomever is in that position has to choose one. To blame the president for not doing more than stating the facts as best he knows them and the rationale behind his decisions is insulting (to the citizens).
The MSM plays its part, but it’s no more to blame than the president. They are no better or worse than the average citizen, who has to decide every (as an adult) what facts are in evidence, what are wishes, and what are lies and lies twisted into truth. Anything less assumes the America was founded on a lie, that citizens are NOT independent, responsible actors, that have (only) granted their government a license to act in their interest.
What would be worse is if there were not this angst, and the lines between the arguments less clear. The left will keep on pushing giving the lack-of-large-scale reaction (even when their ideas are in the clear minority when big issues are polled). Perhaps next they’ll find a reason to put Salman in jail (or deny him the ability to practice his craft), for “national security” reasons.
My sense is the MSM silence in this matter is worse than any intrusion in my life by law enforcement or “the terrorist surveillance program.” (“are you telling me I have to be afraid if I say something non-PC?” and “words matter more than actions in this country?”) We’ll see if my fellow citizens agree, assuming some candidate can crystallize this as an issue.
I too was apalled by Reynold’s remark, but only at the sad truth of it – I believe he wrote it with the intention of shocking us.
For some time now it has been obvious that the MSM is actively trying to demoralize the American public, in order to create the demand for a “change” – to a Democrat President. If and when that happens, the clouds will part and the sun will shine warmly, just you watch. Unfortunately, the malaise may have become permanent by then.
Remember the old joke about the boss who posted the a notice that “The beatings will continue until morale improves!” It’s not funny anymore. We have a just such a “boss” – the leftist news media, academia and entertainment industry. The beatings will continue until we rubes smarten up and vote for the right kind of people. Our betters are going to make us better even if it ends up killing us.
There is only one legal thing that can be done, and that is to boycott any news or entertainment outlet that serves in the information war on America. They can only be stopped by starving them to death. My TV never goes to CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS. My radio never goes to NPR. I would cancel my newspaper if it were not for others in my home who are addicted to being told half of every story. I will not attend any movie that pretends America is a force for evil, which is most of them, or that western society is decadent, which is nearly all of them.
Boycott the MSM now! If we don’t put a stop to the moral destruction of America, there can only be two outcomes: the collapse of our society and its overthrow by whoever or whatever is the most ruthless (see Germany, 1930′s, only with beheadings), or a civil war. I don’t want either.
May I posit an alternative reality to a 2008′ democratic presidency? After flapping its left wing for the first 1-1/2 years, it gets its ass handed to it in the congressional races (like Clinton in 94′) it will look less like the craven, islamic Quislings we fear it will be. It will be a costly waste of american lives while they figure out there really is a war, but they will learn belatedly. The only bright spot in all this is the terrorists only reliable weapon is the media and that is losing its credibility every passing day.
Oh, we’ll get out of these dark days, Roger, just as we got out of that “low, dishonest decade” (as some poet put it) of the 1930s. What should really alarm folks is that the ’30s were followed by the ’40s and the events of August 1945.
It’s just too bad that members of the lame-stream media don’t understand that we have to win the war against Islamofascism, or we’ll have to consign the entirety of the Muslim world, innocent and guilty alike, to the nuclear furnace.
The Three Conjectures
I don’t want the blood of a billion souls on my head, but if the Dhimmicrats have their way, we ultimately will have no choice.
Given that many of the hard left wanted to bring down the American Government by any means possible, including violent methods, exactly why do we assume that they are NOW on our side?
The left has proven again and again from country to country to be amazingly capable of marching to their deaths. If you don’t believe that to be so then read about the results of the Russian Revolution and about Communism in China. So why do we assume that at some point in this war against the worst existential threat we have ever faced they will wake up and love life?
I think that is a very dangerous assumption. All the more reason to hate the results of this Bush administration…their incompetence has enabled the unthinkable. The rise of the hard left in this country. I not only question their patriotism I question their very ability to love life.
“I was staggered by Reynolds’ remark. If he is right, and he may be, then we are fated to ‘…a new dark age,’ as Churchill said”
Yes, it’s more than the MSM. I have spent a great deal of time around “progressives”, most of whom have one or more university degrees. It was profoundly disturbing to notice how “understanding” they were of communist thugs and islamic terrorists, while full of frothing-at-the-mouth hatred for anybody to the right of Hillary Clinton. These are badly screwed up minds.
I just read this somewhere a few days ago, and it is right on the money:
“Liberals don’t really want to lose the war on terror… they just want BUSH to lose the war on terror!”
I am not interested in being led by people who will put their country’s interests and their countrymens’ lives at risk in order to hurt a political rival. That is exactly what the Democrats are doing now, and have been doing for several years, which is why I will never again vote for a Democrat!
Some Republican candidate needs to say it out loud…. Until the Democrats are cleansed of the tendency to put party before country, they are unfit govern this country. That is THE fundamental difference between the parties: give a Democrat the choice between doing what is right for his party and what is right for his country, and his country will come in second every time.
Think I exaggerate? How plain can the conflict of interest get between the political fortunes of the Democrats, and the military success of our war against islamic facism?
Republican nightmare: US losing in Irag.
Democrat mightmare: US winning in Iraq.
There is nothing more that can be said about the unfitness of such a party to lead the nation.
Color me naive, but I think Fred Thompson “gets it,” and will not be a pushover if he gets to the White House.
The disgust I feel (not to mention my moments of angst) towards the MSM and liberal left as they betray the very things which allow them voice is profound.
I just can’t figure how they can be that stupid. Could it be that they are smoking some mind altering substance?
Russert?
I think Pierre Legrand is a little too hard on the administration. The last 30 years of the entertainment and the education industries’ political indoctrination has merely reached a tipping point, and the hard left–I mean the Marxist left (whether it knows it or not)–was due to rampage regardless of what the admin did or didn’t do.
Proof is the coming war on private property. Listen closely to the Dem candidates discuss the economy. This is new–even post-Bill Clinton.
The truth is, property liberates individuals, and this is bad for the Dem party, which requires that voters be dependant on government.
So, just as the party inexplicably encourages the enemy in the war, it likewise inexplicably discourages the national economy.
In fact, Wall Street is already having some bad days recently, due in some measure (I think, ‘large’ measure, due to the criticality of confidence & spirit) to the anti-business rhetoric & initiative already in congressional play.
If the trouble we are in could be described in one simple, general sentence, that sentence would be “The Democrats are lying to the people”.
Lucky for the Dems, they have only the foot-in-mouth Pubs as opponents.
I have been transfixed by the Nifong hearings, through ‘durham in wonderland’ blog. You can see a lot of the film clips taken at the time.
Note the astonished looks on the Lacrosse players, as Nifong explains his approach to their case (which, without $$$$ and power and brains, would have ended with their lives ruined). You see, they had no idea that they – young men in University – are HATED by Nifong and the university intellectuals. And the media. A perfect illustration of our elite’s craziness. And I use “craziness” advisedly. Because their ideas are completely disconnected from Reality. Empirical Reality.
And this, I am convinced, is because these class of people has never ever been faced with a light switch that did not turn on the electric lights. They are consumed with a kind of ignorant oblivious Pride.
Roger and Ledeen and Lieberman belong to this class of people but.. BUT… they are very aware of anti semitism, and know that it has great power in driving Islamism. So they know that sometimes when you flip the light switch, the light will NOT go on…
Me? I know about it because at several times in my life I have had to haul water from a well, in order to wash the dishes and have a (sponge) bath…
I wish I were being too hard on the administration…but I don’t think I am. Simply look around and ask yourself whether Islamism is getting better or getting worse. Are we closer to peace or further away around the world. Is Europe less likely to be under sharia in 10 years or less.
Had we named the enemy plainly and taken the war directly to them in every arena we might be able to be optimistic. In the weeks that followed 9/11 we should have spoken plainly and declared that Radical Islam was not some minor threat being followed by a few players around the world but a growing movement that we simply would not tolerate in the same way that we would not tolerate a growing Nazi movement. Instead in the face of polls of “moderate” Indonesia where 56% of the “moderate” population thought Bin Laden was a hero we had a clown President running around with the terrorists from CAIR declaring that a religion that made war against the west for 1400 years was the “religion of peace”. We reap what we sow.
We should have stepped firmly and resolutely onto the throats of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Iran and whomever else thought it prudent to harbor those who would make war against us. We should not have been concerned with making democracies but merely making rubble bounce…wars are not won by making democracies, the highest achivement of mankind so far, but by breaking the will of those who would make war. One does not achieve that by being nice.
Coulter had the right of it. No one else did. It sucks but war is never very pleasant. And there is absolutely no way we will ever make it so. Our trying to may have us enslaved before too long.
This is my best argument against the Bush administration…I have seen none better. Modest as well…hehe.
Candidate Bush on Nation Building and Can Islam and Freedom survive one another?
This phenomenon is, unfortunately, not new. The Copperhead press that plagued Lincoln were every bit as virulent and treasonous.
Our modern Copperheads, though, are more dangerous. First, there’s no Abraham Lincoln on the horizon. Lincoln called them plainly what they were–traitors–and jailed them when necessary. And Lincoln used the bully pulpit with consummate skill. He crafted a powerful pro Union majority that swept the Republicans to victory in 1864. Our current crop of political leaders are pygmies by comparison, and my apologies in advance to pygmies everywhere.
There’s another dangerous difference. Information technology allows propaganda to be broadcast worldwide in an instant.
But I have a glimmering faith in the common sense of the American people. Chris Matthews may have a megaphone, but I’m not sure that very many people believe a word that he says. Who would believe an insulated, molly coddled, poorly educated blabber mouth like him. I think most recognize that the Juan Coles and Noam Chomskys of the world are full of crap. We’ll see.
Americans are slow to anger, but hell to beat in a fair fight.
This may be my first comment here Roger, but I think you’ve nailed it as to why certain of us blog: talented, visited, or no. It’s the darkness, and you’ve put it well. It’s big, and I as well don’t know how we’ll get out of it.
Now back to pretending there is something else important in the world, and a post about how the ‘new war’ in Palestine gives me hope. Guy’s gotta have a hobby.
“Be careful not to misread Reynolds. He said “the best argument for”.
He didn’t say “a good argument for”.
Everything has a best argument. ‘Best’ is merely better than worst–it sure doesn’t mean “good”.”
True, but ‘best’ does have some sort of implication of ‘good’. Reynolds could have said ‘one’ instead of ‘best’, or simply ‘an’ or rephrased the whole sentence to make it clear that he didn’t want the msm to be rewarded for its dishonest, destructive behavior.
And it’s the lack of criticism of the msm in Reynolds’ post that is so troubling. As the 1st comment in this thread said – The msm should not be rewarded for its conduct. I would add that loyalty conditioned on your team being in charge is not loyalty at all, and should be punished, not rewarded.
The thought of a Democrat in the Oval office in January 2009 both horrifies me and fills me with hope. Horrifies in the cases of Edwards, Obama and kooks like Kucinich; the converse with someone like Hillary Clinton.
Edwards and Obama simply do not ‘get it,’ and would pursue policies that would result in another terror attack that would make us dream of the death totals of 9/11, with an almost certain response that would be wrong-headed and anaemic. Theirs would be administrations of Carter writ large.
Hillary, OTOH, does get it (IMHO). She sees where her hubby slipped with Osama and, I believe, would respond with a ruthlessness that would make ‘Jengis’ Khan blanch. She would be well aware that every Republican in Congress (and America) would be foursquare behind her, plus the sane wing of the Democratic Party, still (I hope) the majority of that body.
Then there’s Fred, of course.
Hillary Clinton is a liar…and a bald faced one at that…making her the most dangerous person in recent history to run for President. She is farther to the left than everyone except Kucinich, but she lusts for power so terribly bad that she is trying to hide it behind a veil of moderation.
If she gets elected we are less than 4 years away from a bloody war inside of our Country. With those on the right taking back the freedoms that Hillary will rip away in the first 3 years.
Max, I think saying that such a disreputable reason is also the ‘best’ reason, is a double slap–and a pretty hard one at that–across the face of the MSM. I mean, what would be the second-best reason to vote Dem, if the first-best reason is so craven?
Jeffersonian–maybe you’re right about Hillary–but do we need to hope she’s actually “ok”, or can we just say, well, enough of the Clintons, and find ourselves somebody different.
To me, next to her Kucinich looks pretty good. But that’s just me. I remember the Clinton’s first two terms, how it seemed like we were somehow drowning and couldn’t understand why.
Maybe Republicans should look hard at Fred Thompson: given the overweening power of the MSM, what better person to be president than someone who has worked within that world?
Roger -
I’ve been reading your posts for four years now, and this is the finest thing you have ever committed to… what passes for cathedral doors these days, I guess.
Your words here -
“The same prejudices that Russert describes in his Rushdie article are the ones that have seriously undermined the possibility of victory for democracy in Iraq. A media that could call obvious fascists and religious fascists “insurgents” (a term once reserved for Pancho Villa) in the interest of “objectivity” encouraged a specious atmosphere of moral equivalence to democracy from the start. Whether this was conscious or unconscious is beside the point. Whatever it was, our enemies, the enemies of the Enlightenment, seized on it for propaganda purposes and continue to do so.”
- are an elegant and horrifying snapshot of the media/pop culture construct that what is left of Western civ has latched onto in place of reality. In this alternate universe we pursue whims and fantasies ad infinitum before acknowledging (much less confronting) the stated intent and actions of literally millions of barbarians to visit death not only on our persons but on our very civilization. If we aren’t the ones being blown up/decapitated/burned at our desks/splattering on New York sidewalks RIGHT NOW… then the news reports of dozens killed by Islamists daily in countries across the globe don’t merit more than one line on a cable news scroll bar.
Pierre Legrand spoke for me in his post, here:
“Had we named the enemy plainly and taken the war directly to them in every arena we might be able to be optimistic. In the weeks that followed 9/11 we should have spoken plainly and declared that Radical Islam was not some minor threat being followed by a few players around the world but a growing movement that we simply would not tolerate in the same way that we would not tolerate a growing Nazi movement.”
I propose that even while the towers were burning, the primary concern of the American Left was how to avoid scrutiny of the previous administration’s disinclination to confront terror, and second to develop what political advantage it could from the situation. Nothing in the last six years has tempted me to change my opinion on that subject. Expecting that Hillary Clinton might pull the trigger on some terrorists causing her problems isn’t unreasonable. Expecting her to act based in the national interest is.
I thought 9/11 was a Pearl Harbor moment for at least America. It wasn’t even close. We are a sick civilization. Not psychopathic in the manner of Islam… but suicide isn’t very pretty, either, even if the lotus smells nice.
Yeah right Pierre, blame Bush, the default position. Why bother blaming the left when the right can not refrain from eating their own?
In the course of the last three years when the administration could have used support not only from the media but from many on the right we were instead besieged with one ridiculous hissy fit after another from people complaining about everything from Harriet Miers to Dubai to immigration.
In fact now many on the right are angry that Bush is not bombing Iran. I think the Iranians are dangerous myself, but the truth is that while the American people might support a surgical strike against that country at some point, there is no political or popular support for more than that. And even that would be a stretch.
To think that Bush could have gone after Iraq and Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia is absurd, he would never have gotten support for that. Never. It was not and it is not there. Not even after 9/11. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, most sane people do not want to go to war with all of them.
Peggy Noonan councels people to stay home and let the Democrats win in 2006, not to force the Democrats to grow up, but to teach the GOP a lesson. Over and over again I heard that nonsense. And now in regards to the illegal immigration we are hearing ridiculous political conspiracy theories about the GOP leadership not from Rosie and her friends, but from the right. With friends like that the Republican party does not need enemies.
George Bush is far from perfect, but he has taken this fight to the enemy at great political cost to himself and his administration. From the day he used the phrase The Evil Empire he has been compared to Hitler and vilified all over the planet as a war criminal and a religious zealot and God only knows what else.
And now if Hillary does win, she will owe her success to many of the same forces on the right who made it possible for her husband to win with 43% of the vote.
If people want to see a Republican win in 2008 they need to stand behind their party, rather than undermine it at every turn.
I don’t care what they say their excuses are, if seeing a Democrat win in 2008 is really the end of the world, then maybe some folks on the right should start acting more like grownups, because they are losing the center and they can not hope to win without it. Like it or not.
Speaking of the media, something I have been seeing a great deal more lately in women’s magazines are stories about women from countries like Afghanistan and Iran and Iraq and even Saudi Arabia standing up for themselves and fighting patriarchal rule.
This may seem like a small thing, but whenever women start reading more and more about the struggles of other women and the courage they show trying to stand up against extremism, it makes a difference.
“I propose that even while the towers were burning, the primary concern of the American Left was how to avoid scrutiny of the previous administration’s disinclination to confront terror, and second to develop what political advantage it could from the situation. Nothing in the last six years has tempted me to change my opinion on that subject.”
Truer words have never been posted. Everybody knew at the time that the Clinton administration was an absolute disaster when it came to security; books came out on it during the 90s. Then post-9/11 the Donks put Jamie Gorelik on the 9/11 commission and I blame the Repubs for not deep-sixing that; not that the MSM wasn’t complicit for having complete autism regarding the obvious conflict of interest. Once in place, she had operatives like Ben-Veniste in place to cover her fat ass when “The Wall” was mentioned.
That was nothing compared to the revisionism that went on regarding the ABC movie on the runup to 9/11. All of a sudden Fat Boy was portrayed as somebody who would ignore the Constitution to destroy terrorists, not the moron that fretted that somebody might get hurt if he bombed the aspirin factory at the wrong time. That culminated in his totally incoherent interview on Fox that must’ve brought back some very unpleasant memories for Juanita Broddrick, Paula Jones and God knows how many others. To paraphrase a book title by Hitchens: Nobody lies more than Clinton.
Yeah right Pierre, blame Bush, the default position. Why bother blaming the left when the right can not refrain from eating their own?
In the course of the last three years when the administration could have used support not only from the media but from many on the right we were instead besieged with one ridiculous hissy fit after another from people complaining about everything from Harriet Miers to Dubai to immigration.
Having been an amused observer of your “thoughts” for the last few years Terrye can I say that your Bush cheer leading is starting to wear a bit thin. You and AJ are his biggest supporters…right or wrong Bush is the best. Sorry but the real world is not like that…
At one time in the distant past I thought perhaps he might go down as one of the Greatest Presidents of Modern Times. Course I wondered why he was hanging out with CAIR and I wondered why he called the most despicable religion in history the “Religion of Peace” but I put it all down to strategy. I figured that he didn’t really mean that absolute nonsense and that he would live up to his clarion call from the September 20, 2001 speech where he declared:
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Brave words indeed…course Iran and Syria have been killing US Soldiers since then with reckless abandon and there has been no penalty. Yea he has some excuses…the mean press, the terrible left…you know what Terrye when you are the President you aren’t supposed to make excuses you are supposed to defeat this nations enemies.
Perhaps though the truth was right there in front of me in the very same speech where he declared earlier:
The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics — a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists’ directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.
Or here:
They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.
I cannot improve on my response to that inanity:
“Was President Bush being ironic? Ok I shouldn
Roger,
The Soviet Psyops/Disinformation Campaign went almost totally unchallenged for half a century.(Joe McCarthy took a very poor stab at it).
Soviet Psyops US
Yes, there are plenty of dumbasses in the media and congress buying off on the validaty of the AlQueda lifestyle.
People in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon are not.
Post-9-11, Bush did not underestimate Bin Laden. Bush did not underestimate the Taliban. Bush did not underestimate Saddam.
In his naievete, what he underestimated was both the power and the treacherousness of the MSM, and the thirst for power and moral vacuity of the Democrats.
Say what you will about what Bush SHOULD have done, but also ask what he COULD have done. On the same day that the towers fell, the MSM closed ranks to censor the horrific footage of Americans plunging to their deaths, and just as significantly, of Arabs dancing in the streets in celebration of those deaths.
The MSM knew that America’s righteous wrath had to be carefully managed, lest it become too contagious, and too effective.
The United States has been in the throes of a cultural and psychological civil war since that day. Our homegrown insurgents were media-savvy enough to wave the flag for a time, but as soon as there were any reverses to seize upon, they began delivering the gut-punches to the home front that they have sustained ever since.
And their Democrat lapdogs jumped right on board, slavering at the chance to ride the defeat-train to yet another glorious American humiliation, and content to look away for the second time in 50 years from the snuffing out of the lives of millions of innocents.
My credo: Democrats delenda est
The wild card is the beating we’re giving al Qaeda in Iraq.
Notice that the IEDs haven’t been anywhere near as effective in Diyala as they were a few months ago? New (and classified) technology is being used to defeat them.
We also gave the Sunnis GPS devices and sent them out to dial in the coordinates of al Qaeda safe houses, which is what we did in Kabul in 2001. We’re not taking prisoners if we can help it.
I’ve seen photos of strangely long-haired special operations forces accompanying Iraqi Special Forces on missions to capture/kill Madhi Army leaders in Sadr City. Delta Force? Germans? Canadians? Danes? Who knows? They’re not Brits or Poles, that’s all I can tell.
Operation Phantom Thunder is huge, and it just might finish off al Qaeda and the Madhi Army. If so, a lot of what we’re worried about becomes moot.
If Bush does what I think he will and administers a knockout blow to Iran before he leaves office, we also just might be able to survive one term of a Hillary administration.
By that time the electorate will have come to its senses.
Great, great posts by Pierre and DaveR to complement Roger’s. That trio says it all. Thanks.
TomH Operation Phantom Thunder is huge, and it just might finish off al Qaeda and the Madhi Army. If so, a lot of what we’re worried about becomes moot. If Bush does what I think he will and administers a knockout blow to Iran before he leaves office, we also just might be able to survive one term of a Hillary administration.
One can hope…though I happen to believe that the resemblence to Vietnam is uncanny in one aspect. We were unable/unwilling to confront the true sources of the conflict in South Vietnam, the north and its sponsors. Our excuse was we did not believe that South Vietnam was worth a world war so we never embarked on a dedicated bombing campaign of the North. So we preferred to lose 55,000 lives than to actually bring the war to a close by smashing the North.
In much the same way that we killed all of the Vietcong in South Vietnam and still lost we will kill all of the proxies for Syria and Iran in Iraq and still lose. Unless we kill the sources of those troops/arms and training.
Putin has the gall to sneer at the USA’s fighting of the Vietnam War–which his USSR instigated and financed.
Well said, Roger. I always think about Trotsky’s statement to these willfully blind people: you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. Dark times, indeed.
Is there no way to get people to understand? Any way that they can hear or see the truth? It worries me, not because of me, but because of my grandchildren.
Buddy Larsen: I believe Putin is engaging in what the tinfoil hatted leftist loons and the world are engaged in: bagging on America. However, he and they should not forget that between Russia and China they are responsible for over 100,000,000 deaths in the previous century! Now, Iran may be able to take over that distinction if we don’t find a way to prevent it.
The best thing about pond scum is that it is fascinating to study under a microscope, and simple to use for producing microscops slides.
yep–for fun microscope viewing, it’s right up there with boogers
The only problem with Insty’s comment is there’s no evidence the Dems will suddenly fight radical Islam, and there’s significant evidence they’ll allow Islam’s inroads on the public sector and free speech, much more than they allow Christianity. They agree with the rest of the world’s insane leftists that the USA is the most dangerous country.
(Of course, the Dems also wish to hobble us with the social programs that have crippled Europe to, as they might deceptively put it, level the playing field.)
Unless they self-destruct or renounce the radical leftists in their party, we’re doomed. “Heart of darkness” is not an exaggeration.
Earlier today I was reading an article posted by Time Magazine. The author was interviewing an insurgent who was really good at making bombs and killing american troops. The author Bobby Ghosh essentialy writes a a puff piece describing this man who has killed americans in a cool light. He actualy describes this man who is killing Americans as brainy. I understand meeting and talking with people who oppose us, we may even learn about our foes from such things. But to write an article in glowing terms about someone who is killing Americans, then to have it posted by TIME magazine was heartbreaking. I am a veteran of Iraq, I do not begrudge people who wish to bring troops home or who criticise the way the war is being handled. But TIME magazine’s actions have saddened and angered more then anything I have seen since coming home a year ago. Robert Verdi
> If Bush does what I think he will and administers a knockout blow to Iran before he leaves office,
What color is the sky in your world?
> we also just might be able to survive one term of a Hillary administration.
If he did that before the election, there wouldn’t be a Hillary administration.
While it’s absurd to think that being elected will make the democrats become serious about national security, it’s pretty clear that President Hillary would kill Chelsea to get re-elected.
That’s the diference between Hillary and W – she’d fight to save her presidency.
According to my study, after a foreclosed home is bought at a sale, it is common for your borrower to be able to still have the remaining balance on the mortgage loan. There are many financial institutions who try and have all fees and liens cleared by the future buyer. Having said that, depending on specified programs, rules, and state laws there may be some loans that are not easily sorted out through the shift of financial loans. Therefore, the duty still remains on the client that has had his or her property in foreclosure. Thanks for sharing your thinking on this weblog.