Roger L. Simon: "What did you do in the war, daddy?"

I feel sorry for people like David Corn who have put themselves in such a box that they de facto are rooting for failure in Iraq, no matter how much they deny that. This is the fate of the modern fuddy-duddy liberal who was formerly in the "cool" position and now finds himself allied with most reactionary forces on earth just because he loathes George Bush on stylistics. Yes, that's what it seems to come down to. What a brutal historical joke.

Meanwhile, these men on the scene have much more to tell us than the entire Congress and Beltway pundits (Nation or National Review) rolled into one:

I think the worst scenario we can have is a religious She'at domination but this is not likely to happen considering the current facts; the UIA will certainly fail to achieve the number of seats they got last time and their ambitions cannot exceed the 90 seat-ceiling (140 last January).
From what we saw and heard so far, the results of the elections In general will be pretty much similar to what we had expected in this election preview from ten day ago.
It is now a fact that many other parties are willing to show more flexibility and unite their efforts to face the UIA especially because they know now that no one list can confront the UIA alone.
The next couple of weeks are going to be very interesting and full of activity.

Anyway, from taking a look at the history of nations and in a simple comparison between Iraq and experiments in other countries I think Iraqis have the best record in making substantial progress in a short time in a tough environment.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn helps "liberals" to define themselves:

George Clooney, the matinee idol, made an interesting point the other day. He said that "liberal" had become a dirty word and he'd like to change that. Fair enough. So I hope he won't mind if I make a suggestion. The best way to reclaim "liberal" for the angels is to get on the right side of history - the side the Iraqi people are on. The word "liberal" has no meaning if those who wear the label refuse to celebrate the birth of a new democracy after 40 years of tyranny. Yet, if you wandered the Internet on Thursday, you came across far too many "liberals" who watched the election, shrugged and went straight back to Valerie Plame, WMD, Bush lied.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

The evolution of a nascent democracy is remarkable to behold; horse trading, bargaining, deals, payoffs, all the tradeoffs and inducements which made our democracy what it is today. A system for all its warts and corruption expresses what a people want and need so that matters of national policy and existence are not settled by a bullet.

“I feel sorry for people like David Corn who have put themselves in such a box that they de facto are rooting for failure in Iraq, no matter how much they deny that.”

David Corn and his ilk are on the wrong side of history. They are losing power and influence. Self preservation is their primary motivation. If President Bush is deemed successful in Iraq---the leftists will look like fools. Their liberal Democrat and Republican allies will continue losing elections. Ideology is often of secondary importance. Self preservation remains the primary motivator.

Everyone knows blind loyalty to violent right-wing leaders with no regard for the laws of the land always produces the best results...

It's especially ironic because 30 years ago, the McGovern / Peacenik wing saddled the Dems with the rep of being anti-military & therefore not fitting to lead the country. The only presidential elections they won were post-Vietnam Carter, & post-Cold War Clinton. Now they're reinforcing that image, & the open-ended War on Terror doesn't bode well for them

I'm sure people like Mr. Corn feel sorry for you, Mr. Simon, a once principled man who has forsaken his ideals -

unprovoked war is wrong
torture is wrong
imprisoning Americans without due process is wrong
spying on Americans without a warrant is wrong
the Executive is not a de facto dictatorship

for a theory in Iraq that is far from being settled as a historical matter, despite all the speeched our President might make.

What do liberals like Mr. Corn and I want? A return to the era when America was a beacon for freedom and enlightenment in the world as opposed to the current time when we are viewed as many saw the USSR during the Cold War: a secretive nation without scruples, a nation that will do any deed so long as some undefined security is had.

Too many Americans are waking today and saying, like Michael Douglas in Falling Down: "I'm the bad guy? How did that happen?"

I know it's wrong to generalize, but I can't resist. Corn and his ilk are frustrated by being proved wrong on every issue, all the time. Their unbounded hatred for Bush binds them to look at the world through closed eyes.

Read this -http://dailyscorecard.blogspot.com/2005/12/near-miss-on-secular-iraqi-politician.html
Iran, envious of their proteges success in Lebanon, tries to kill a Secular Allawi cleric.

Here we go again:
Everyone knows blind loyalty to violent right-wing leaders with no regard for the laws of the land

I present to you for examination:
1) Everyone knows
Quite a presumption, who exactly is this "everyone"?
2) violent right-wing leaders
What leaders? Does this person suggest GWB or Cheney hit their spouses or daughters? Did some WH reporters get attacked physically by the so-called "violent right-wing leaders"? Shouldn't we have heard of the crimes by now?
3) no regard for the laws of the land
I suggest you re-read the NYT piece again [though chance of comprehension by this person is still nil]

I knew when I went to Europe in 1982 and called home my calls were being listened in on.

BTW, the USSC ruled a few years ago they cannot sit outside your home and listen in when you're inside.

I can't read Korn - he is a sick joke to me. Roger, I protested when he was included in Pajamas Media. I understand why you did it and I still object. Nevertheless, the insanities that come from these people's pens and mouths are the vehicles of their own destruction. So let them rant on.

It is perfectly clear to me, as Ed Poinsett aludes to, that much of the Left's derangement stems exactly from the fact that, by opposing Bush and everything he does, IN WARTIME, they directly plant themselves on the side of our enemies, thus engendering the loathing and disgust of thinking Americans. I truly mean this (and as a former lifelong liberal, as you are, I know whereof I speak). It should not be this way in a representative democracy, but we no longer have 2 viable parties both loyal to the country. By opposing Bush the way they do, all the Left and most of the Dem leadership align themselves against America and with our enemies. It is simply undeniable.

I don't know what they do in early 2009 when he goes away. They lose their sole reason for being.

(Korn) . . . loathes George Bush on stylistics, . . . defined at dictionary.com as the study of the use of elements of language style, such as metaphor, in particular contexts.

You can't be serious. Korn is a prime example of Kool-Aid drinking moonbat who hasn't had an original idea since 4th grade. His name on the masthead of your alter ego website has brought like-minded types here where formerly only coherent arguments whether right or left of center were offered and reasoned debates could be conducted.

I don't feel sorry for poor David or for the loons who congregate at his site. I feel only contempt for the 'ideological' box he has constructed for his mind. Not only can he not see the forest for the trees, he appears to be somewhat unreliable in identifying the trees themselves.

You can hate Bush all you want(although I really just don't 'get' it why hate is the appropriate response), but to not see that only VICTORY IN IRAQ is acceptable is not a pitiable attribute.

Iraq is NOT Bush. If you can't see the difference, then you are much more to be censured than pitied.

As for IVV and monkyboy --- Can you just go out and play in traffic? A lot of traffic.

As a Republican, I can't claim to speak for the Democrats, but I would be happier to see Tom DeLay in jail than Bush out of office. It might bring back some sense of honor to my party...

As an extraterrestrial, I can't claim to speak for delusional ultraleftist females, but I'd rather see Hillary Clinton nude than see her in the White House.

Earlier you said something to the effect of "whatever makes the rich richer, Republicans will vote for."

You are no Republican, nor do you have the slightest understanding of conservatism.

It may surprise you, Bostonian, that some of us who fought for term limits, balanced budgets and states' rights are still around.

A half-wit like Bush is an embarrassment, but the real power rests with Congress...Looks like 2006 will be the year the courts help us take back the Republican Party.

"This is the fate of the modern fuddy-duddy liberal who was formerly in the "cool" position and now finds himself allied with most reactionary forces on earth just because he loathes George Bush on stylistics. Yes, that's what it seems to come down to. What a brutal historical joke."

Really. You know what hurts the most though. It's bad enough if you are an old fuddy-duddy. Even ageing baby-boomers reluctantly acknowledge that it's unreasonable to expect to stay on the cutting edge of coolness.

What really hurts is when you're "formerly in the "cool" position and now finds himself allied with most reactionary forces on earth just because he loathes George Bush on stylistics" and you're 25 years old! I know many of these earnest young social activists on the Upper West Side and the East Village. And what's even sadder is that they aren't even rebelling against their parents. Their parents are the old fuddy-duddies.

"Looks like 2006 will be the year the courts help us take back the Republican Party."

Like a good little lefty fascist she'd like the courts to trump politics. Suppose that's the only recourse if you can't win an election.

"Looks like 2006 will be the year the courts help us take back the Republican Party"

Manque boi: looks like you would rather be ruled by nine gnomes in robes than the ballot box. Me thinks your totalitarian prolclivities are showing.

Someone is going to have to explain to me how getting rid of a genocidal tyrant is immoral...

The best way to reclaim "liberal" for the angels is to get on the right side of history - the side the Iraqi people are on. The word "liberal" has no meaning if those who wear the label refuse to celebrate the birth of a new democracy after 40 years of tyranny. Yet, if you wandered the Internet on Thursday, you came across far too many "liberals" who watched the election, shrugged and went straight back to Valerie Plame, WMD, Bush lied.

Generally, you have to pull out before you can "celebrate the birth" of anything...

I'm sure everybody will cheer if our withdrawl doesn't lead to a civil war in Iraq.

As a Venusian, I can't claim to speak for the Martians, but I would be happier to see Buck Rogers in jail than Princess Leia out of office. It might bring back some sense of honor to my planet...

IVV said: "What do liberals like Mr. Corn and I want? A return to the era when America was a beacon for freedom and enlightenment in the world as opposed to the current time when we are viewed as many saw the USSR during the Cold War: a secretive nation without scruples, a nation that will do any deed so long as some undefined security is had."

Anybody want to bet that IVV thought that President Reagan was a dangerous extremist and that the Soviet Union was the aggrieved party during the Cold War. He wants us to believe that the left supported Freedom during the later stages of the Cold War. We all know that they supported the Communists in SE Asia, in Central American in in Europe.

His words simply echo Harold Pinter's recent Nobel address. Whenever the left falls into moral equivalency you know that they are merely trying validate their past support for Communist Dictatorships.

As a nazi, I can't really speak for democrats, but I'd love to see John Kerry drive his swift boat into the White House and kill the baby Jesus.

As a ghoul, I can't really speak for humans, but I'd rather eat a bucket of lard than tap-dance to Brahms.

Mr Larson You are beginning to sound like a Democrat,stop repeating the DNC talking points at once!

yes, i retire, this monkybaiting has ruined too many serious threads. I zip de lip.

It's not that Buddy,there is too much detail,they will know about the wire taps.

Down hyar in Texas we calls 'em "war" taps. No implications, just accent--like "bob-war fence". But, it DO fit as 'war-tap'.

Somebody please call me when Caryl locates those those Bolton cites? Just dial 1-800-SMEARED.

I know it's wrong to generalize, but I can't resist. Ed and his ilk are frustrated by being proved wrong on every issue, all the time. Their unbounded love for hatred binds them to look at the world through closed eyes.

Somewhere Roger knows there is a difference between rooting for failure and David acknowledging failed policies and an incompetent and mendacious petty ruler.

Roger has his dark own alliance with reactionary forces he once opposed. This coming year as the Iranian dominated Shiite coalitions assume control over Iraq as the result of our unpaid and unnecessary $300 billion war and Bush and the GOP's corruption and overreaching hubris of power cases dominate the court and legislative systems I can only hope that the old Roger will come back to his senses and oppose the new Nixon.

David Corn is associated with Nation magazine. How unfortunate for him since the Nation will be always associated with Stalinist/Maoist war crimes!

I find it impossible to listen to this less than credible idiot when it comes to things Islamic and Islamo-Fascist terroism. I look forward to the day when the left will actually come out with meaningful commentaries on the crucial issues of the times. The only problem is that 50 years from now I'll be gone, but the left will not have shown any acknowledgement that they have understood what's going on around them. As of now, the left is totally brain-dead and shows no signs of coming back to life in the near future!

It's so dreamy, oh fantasy free me
So you can't see me, no not at all
In another dimension, with voyeuristic intention
Well-secluded, I see all
With a bit of a mind flip
You're there in the time slip
And nothing can ever be the same
You're spaced out on sensation, like you're under sedation
Let's do the Time Warp again!

Since Easter Lemming and his fellow 'progressives' are hooked on the 60ties/70ties, I thought it would be nice to provide some background music for the intellectual 'elevator music' they provide.

What the NYTs and its remaining readership on the left are actually doing is rehabilitating 'Tricky Dicky'. The more we see and know of how that segment of the population really 'thinks',and acts to distort information to suit its peculiar world view, the more sympathetic Dick becomes.

Dougf--you're so right--reverse-rehabbing Nixon proceeds apace. As the old mask falls off the you-know-what's face, Nixon's looks ever more Rushmorian.

Easter Lemming, yes. Lets all communicate and see each other's viewpoints, and adopt net handles that insult 200 million countrymen. What's next, "Watermelon Sambo"? "Holocaust Honky"? "Chinee Laundryboy"? Some peace and brotherhood.

Oh, so Roger Simon is so omniscient he knows that David Corn is "... de facto are rooting for failure in Iraq, no matter how much they deny that."

Well Mr. Simon, I know that you are de facto rooting for a facist takeover by George Bush no matter how much YOU deny it. Isn't this fun?

BTW, your "man on the scene" in Iraq needs to get out of the Green Zone once in a while. According to today's Times "Early voting results announced by Iraqi electoral officials on Monday, with nearly two-thirds of the ballots counted, indicated that religious groups, particularly the main Shiite coalition, had taken a commanding lead. The secular coalition led by Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister, had won only meager support in crucial provinces where it had expected to do well, including Baghdad."

And according to Juan Cole, who is of course one of the "lefties on the wrong side of history" but who certainly seems to know how to count votes "There were 69 seats at issue in Baghdad province, the largest single lot. If the UIA got 40 of them, that is a huge victory. Add those 40 to the likely 70 or so the UIA got in the solidly Shiite provinces, and you have 110. Another 8 in Babil and it is 118. A similar number in Diyala and you'd have 126. Then they may get some of the reserved seats when the reapportionment is done. They will be very close to having the 138 it needs to form a government."

As I wrote in the "on the ground" post, it looks like al-Sistani is running Iraq now (maybe since the invasion).

It's hard to see what he is up to, but considering he is an Iranian cleric, it's doubtful his vision of Iraq is the same as the administrations'.

If he were to die soon (he's 76?), it may lead to a civil war whether our troops are still in Iraq or not.

What do liberals like Mr. Corn and I want? A return to the era when America was a beacon for freedom and enlightenment in the world

I suspect that statist anti-liberals like you and Mr. Corn NEVER saw America as a beacon for anything. The only beacon for Corn and the Stalin apologists at the Nation is Marx.

-- I know that you are de facto rooting for a facist takeover by George Bush no matter how much YOU deny it. Isn't this fun?--

Again with the cognitive dissonance around here. David Corn (and many, many others from across the political spectrum) point out that our policy in Iraq has not been successful, has been handled incompetantly, was launched on false pretenses, etc., in other words, point out the demonstable fact that our policy has been a failure in many ways, and you say they want failure. Wow. Logic like that is akin to seeing the people who reveal illegal, unconstitutional policies like no-warrant wiretaps and secret prisons as the bad guys. It's dizzying really.

Look, I opposed going to war in Iraq. I did not think Saddam (while obviously a monster) was a credible threat to the US (I was right, even more so than I thought when it turned out he had NO WMDs) and I did not believe he was in league with Al Qaeda (I was right on that too). I believed these things based not on some irrational prejudice or blanket opposition to US military action (I supported the war in Afghanistan and think we left the job unfinished there), but on the facts on the ground and historically-based principles about how the US should and should not use its power.

That said, if the war was going to happen, I at least want it to be waged competantly. It hasn't, and people ranging from David Corn to GOP Senator and Foreign Affairs Chairman Dick Lugar have said so. At this point, I think we should give material support to whatever government wins the elections (and it looks like the Shiite alliance is going to run the table again) and maintain an advisory, special forces, and over-the-horizon military capacity there (as the Murtha plan calls for) but we have to realize that our soliders are little more than walking targets and major sources of resentment there now. Every month the violence grows and we have to understand that there is little a large-scale presence can accomplish there now. And that's not just me talking, look at the military strategy journals. It's time to pull the bulk of our troops out. We ought to start drawing down our troops when the new gov't (which has asked us to leave) is sworn in, and hope that the insurgency looses support when the visible foreign troops pull out and the new regime can fight for itself. It's the best option we have right now, and no amount of calling on people to clap harder (the only strategy the right seems to have) is going to change that.

Oh, and Liberal, Progressive, Democrat, Freethinker, it's all good. I'll answer to any of those names.

JustinK
"...And that's not just me talking, look at the military strategy journals."

I keep pretty close tabs on the military journals,
;which ones are you refering to??

JustinK,
Full marks for getting all the DNC talking points in,heard them all before,but nice the way you worked your raging ego in.

"That said, if the war was going to happen, I at least want it to be waged competantly. "

"It's time to pull the bulk of our troops out. We ought to start drawing down our troops "

2005 has been the best year for freedom and human rights since these guys started measuring, back in the 70s.

No DNC talking points here, just me talking. And besides, right is right regardless of the source.

As for over which horizon, I mean the means we have for exerting power in Iraq w/o having large numbers of troops on the ground (i.e. airpower, quick reaction troops stationed elsewhere in the region, advisors, special forces and intelligence invisible to most Iraqis, etc). The size of our footprint currently bogs down a lot of our troops in dangerous force-protection work (esp. the convoys that keep getting hit with IEDs). Friends of mine in the National Guard have often complained about risking getting blown up just to transport fuel for troops who are guarding other troops. By drawing down we can still influence outcomes w/out getting our guys killed in large numbers or antagonizing Iraqis further, as any occupation, no matter how careful, will. It's either this or keep our guys sitting around getting shot at as the situation deteriorates further. Look, we are going to have to leave sometime, and when it becomes clear that our presence is not improving matters, it's time to go, a phased withdrawal over the next 12-18 months. Our allies in the Iraqi gov't have asked us to draw down (the basically endorsed the Murtha plan), the majority of Americans want out, and we are not achieving anything positive by staying the course.

Oh, and here are a couple of the articles I mentioned. Links below.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050101faessay84103/edward-n-luttwak/iraq-the-logic-of-disengagement.html
http://www.twq.com/05spring/docs/05spring_rubin.pdf

Justin, you certainly made me sit up and take notice, thanks! You have a duty, now, to hop on your tricycle, ride over to the Pentagon, and straighten out that total mess over there.

The Pentagon (at least the uniformed brass) is not the problem here Buddy. Heck if Bush had listened to Shinseki and sent enough troops when we started this thing, we might be in better shape. Generals, military and civilian experts, political leaders and others have been warning Bush that he was making big mistakes since before we invaded. He systematically ignored the advice of people who knew what they were talking about and listened to a bunch of rank amateurs, cronies, and apparatchiks (this is of a piece with how Bush runs the whole gov't it seems, see Katrina). Heck, Murtha was speaking for a lot of the officer corps when he talked about how our Army's capabilities are being steadily degraded by long deployments with inadequate material and rationale. Talk to folks who've served over there, you'll here it from them too.

And "tricycle"? Come on man, surely you've got something substantial to say. Everyone knows I ride a bright shiny 10-speed anyway.

Tell me, Justin, who fired Shinseki, and why, and why GWB should've listened to Shinseki rather than Tommy Franks (the Theater Commander--& "rank amateur", you say?--who 'set' the troop levels, according to Franks, Bush, Powell, and everyone else) and then break down pro-vs anti "Murtha positions" in the uniformed services.

Troop support for GWB is around 90%, but you can concentrate on the 10% if you wish, I suppose, if you'd rather *feel* you're right than *be* right.

And, a step back, isn't the Shinseki meme a little shopworn by now, having been refuted by knowledgable players in the thousands, including GWB himself saying that all sorts of things had to be adjusted to new facts as the enemy created those new facts?

The Katrina drive-by is a little mystifying--could you be more precise as to your complaint?

And, okay, you can take the two-wheeler when you go upbraid that building-full of 200 IQ West Point & Annapolis graduates.

When I'm talking about rank amateurs, I mean guys like Dough Feith ("The Stupidest Fucking Man on the Face of the Planet" according to Franks) I'm talking about Rumsfeld and his crew who ignored the advice of folks like Shinseki (call it a shopworn meme if you like, but the man was right, we didn't have enough troops to maintain order, and that's how the insurgency had time to organize. Countless studies and simple observation back that up.) I'm talking about Bush's decision to ignore contrary evidence and accept the WMD accounts of known fabricators and con men like Chalabi. I'm talking about the wholesale rejection of the work done by the State Dept. and others about how to manage the occupation. James Fallows has done some great work on this in the Atlantic Monthly if you want to look it up. That evidence enough for you?

As for the Katrina comment. I think a quick look at Mike Brown and FEMA and cutting of funding to the levvies is sufficient.

And I don't know where you're getting this 90% figure. I have quite a few friends and students who are serving in, or just got back from Iraq (Guard mostly) and they are uniformly pissed. Even the ones who support the war believe it has been botched. It's not a simple pro- and anti-Murtha breakdown in the Pentagon (never said it was), and since active duty personell are not allowed to talk politics openly they have to do so sub rosa, like all the anonymous officers talking to the media about trouble over there. Like the contacts Murtha has cultivated in decades of working with the Pentagon and who tell him what's what.

You can continue thinking that everything is going great, but reality has a way of intruding. It's time to wrap this adventure up.

Lefties like Justin K. prove again and again that they have absolutely NO comprehension of the purpose of our war in Iraq.

How many times must it be said: this is a war of ideas, democracy & self rule vs. Islamofascism.

If we wanted to control Iraq from one end to the other and subjugate its citizens, we would go about things quite differently than we have done. That is not our goal and never has been.

Basically, Bostonian, don't you think it's becoming clear that the hard (hard because some die against the enemy) genius has been to expose Iraqis--and Araby in general--to prolonged contact with the very finest young people this nation has to offer--and thus to begin breaking the toxic spell that Islamic Fundies have cast using the signs and artifacts of western pop-culture?

IOW, in a world where warriors rule and mercy is by choice, our troops have shown that the west too can make fine and merciful warriors? That Hollyrot is but a current in a much less self-evidently perverse-to-Islam river?

Bostonian,
"Lefties like Justin K. prove again and again that they have absolutely NO comprehension "

Justin simply trots out the same talking points without knowning any background,we've heard it all before.Not a free thinker or a progressive(pseud) but a frozen thnker and stuck in time,what part of things have changed does he not understand.
BTW Shinseki retired.

The breathtaking virtue of a turning of the mideast's political entropy--gone as murderous as it was despairingly hopeless--is what I'd be teaching students--along with of course the facts & figures, and oppo viewpoints.

But, I wonder if Justin is doing that--pointing out the direction the 'old' mideast was taking the world (sitting as it does atop the goo that all nations crave) vs the direction that a constitutional democracy sitting right in the middle of the middle at least has created the chance--if everybody hangs tough and is determined to make it so--of taking the world, instead.

You know, dynamic, rather than static, analysis. I know he could teach it, because he knows "cognitive dissonance"--a differnt form of the static, but referring to the same ancient Greek notion of being frozen by action-distraction.

Are any of your lectures on the web? I'd be glad to read them and critique for you.

You know, open forum, spirit of inquiry, search for truth, vox populii, etcetera.

--(call it a shopworn meme if you like, but the man was right, we didn't have enough troops to maintain order, and that's how the insurgency had time to organize. Countless studies and simple observation back that up.--

And of course the timeline to all this is also included in the studies and simple observation.

Really, Sandy. Goes back to Roger's title. Like hating mom & dad because you didn't get the pony for your 8th birthday. Forget that they sacrificed their lives for you, hate them for that disappointing birthday.

The size of our footprint currently bogs down a lot of our troops in dangerous force-protection work
...
Heck if Bush had listened to Shinseki and sent enough troops when we started this thing, we might be in better shape.

By golly, if Bush had only sent fewer than more, but more than fewer, the enemy would've done a head count on our guys, realized that Bush had hit the perfect number, and said, "Oh, poo" and gone on home.

I think what Justin is saying is that Bush sent too few troops, but the way to correct that mistake is to withdraw the troops he actually sent. This is the latest military doctrine taught at Les 'Ecole Speciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr.

Chuckles, Ha...can't help but wonder how "Aimable Jean Jacques Pellisier" managed to live to such a ripe old age....

"since active duty personell are not allowed to talk politics openly they have to do so sub rosa, like all the anonymous officers talking to the media about trouble over there. Like the contacts Murtha has cultivated in decades of working with the Pentagon and who tell him what's what."

Does this mean Murtha is encouraging enlisted personel to reveal classified informatio which he is making public.

War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told
Intelligence Officials Talk Of Growing Insurgency
"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists,"
-CIA Director Porter J. Goss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html

"When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they're there" -George W. Bush, Iowa Western Community College, Jan 21, 2000.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war,
but after all, it is the leaders of a country
who determine the policy, and it is always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it
is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be
brought to the bidding of the leaders.
This is easy. All you have to do is to tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger.
It works the same in every country."
- Hermann Goering, Hitler's
reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII

..and your point is guano. Why do you people quote infamous dead nazis..are you fans?

I get the impressinon the left think if and when,ther big one strikes,that their shield of righteousness will leave them unscathed,there will be a great cleansing,sorry guano,you will be crawling about in the radioactive rubble with all the rest...if you survive.

All combatants--even evil ones like nazis and japanese totalists and global terrorists--really, really grow their armies *after* the people they attack start fighting back.

heheh!
http://radiofreesawatdee.blogspot.com/2005/10/find-another-devil.html
http://www.spenceruk.org/purityfame.htm
Re: 25th July 1999 PeterUK

December 19, 2005: "What did you do in the war, daddy?"

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post