From Woodstock to Laughingstock…
September 4th, 2007 at 08:47pm Mitch Mulhall 171
As if a half-hour radio interview with Dr. William Bennett this morning was akin to spending too much time around the enemy’s campfire, Michael Conniff spent the remaining ninety minutes of the Con Games radio show trying to throw haymakers at Republicans and conservatives. Despite the not entirely unformidable force of his intellectual pugilism, the most remarkable characteristic of his punch was the audible “swish” as his fists sailed through the air without hitting anything.
What amuses me about Michael and other Democratic Party apologists is that they fail to recognize when their logic breaks down and gives way to ribald entertainment.
For example, while it is true that, fairly or unfairly, Karl Rove and Lee Atwater before him successfully painted liberals as morally vacuous, such assertions would not have found purchase without some measure of truth. In one tortured construct, Michael asserted that Republicans have fallen so far from the tree of values that Rudy Giuliani has emerged the early favorite in the 2008 Republican Presidential Race. Michael pointed out Giuliani’s Democratic proclivities and adorned the airwaves with this parting shot: (paraphrasing) “I mean, the guy’s been married three times—his morality is in question,” thus reinforcing the very idea that an absence of any moral compass is one of the defining characteristics of the left. Based on this thinking, Larry Craig would still be Senator if only he’d changed party affiliation.
The Democratic problem is their celebration of Woodstock-ian free-thinking, open-mindedness, and non-judgmentalism—if you can conjure up an idea, no matter how absurd, and build a consensus for it, the Democrats will cede a place at the table for you, providing, of course, the idea is in no way based in Christian doctrine.
Michael threw a veritable barrage of punches this morning, but one of my favorites was “Republicans do not want equal rights for all people.” In this generalization, Michael fails to distinguish between a desire for equal rights and the act of legislating rights. I share in the former and despise the latter. By Michael’s metric, that makes me a closet Republican, or at least a conservative. Why? Because I oppose legislation that mandates special protections and considerations based on sex, ethnicity, sexual preference, or religion. Legislate rights on this basis and you create special classifications that dilute the idea that “all men (read “men and women”) are created equal.” Implicit in any special classification is exclusion, and I have a real problem with any group of people being more, or especially equal. The Constitution of the U.S. and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sufficiently define and extend rights to all American Citizens. The fact that, after more than two hundred years, people still perceive social injustices is not evidence of a need for legislative remedies, but of human imperfection…
On balance, I find Michael’s views thoughtful and well-reasoned, but when he pulls out his partisan soap box, I stop what I’m doing, turn up the volume, and prepare to be amused. He rarely disappoints, and he certainly did not do so this morning. Where was David Bach with the laugh track?
Cheers,
Entry Filed under: Politics, Snowmass, Aspen, Colorado, Foreign Policy, United Post
26 Comments Add your own
1. Michael Conniff | September 5th, 2007 at 4:36 am
Wonderfully said, as always Mitch, but way way off the mark.
In case you missed my point, here it is:
Liberals have allowed conservatives to define them. As "an experiment," as I called it multiple times, as a liberal I was going to define conservatism.
I was going to turn the tables, in other words, as "an experiment."
You must have missed the experiment part and thereby missed what I was doing. But you did make my point that such "an exercise," as I also called it, shows how easy it is to distort the views of the opposition with a minimum of effort.
That's what conservative pundits do with numbing regularity.
And, by the way, I stand by the statement: “Republicans do not want equal rights for all people” as it pertains to those who oppose gay marriage. Only true gay marriage will translate into equal rights for all homosexuals.
But thank you for calling me "a Democrat apologist." Number one I'm not a Democrat. Number two, some of my liberals listeners have been questioning my liberal credentials, so thanks for standing up for me.
Sounds like you were conned.
All best, Michael!
2. Edward Troy | September 5th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
{The Constitution of the U.S. and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sufficiently define and extend rights to all American Citizens. The fact that, after more than two hundred years, people still perceive social injustices is not evidence of a need for legislative remedies, but of human imperfection…}
It is the inconsistent enforcement, punishment and economic legacy of privation, creating a "first amongst equals" social demographic set that the saying "Equal justice Under The Law," adresses more than adequately but has no clear mandate for action that is the problem, hence much of the inferior legislation in the form of various affirmative action and busing laws.
On paper, we have the best system extant, but that is where it ends. In a spiritual/social sense I feel that what we have here is an explosion of creativity and productivity, suppressed by racist xenophobic social and cultural exostructures socially and culturally inherited and accepted by oppressed and oppressor. Removing these shackles would unleash a ferocity of competition within real freedoms, that would bring us back to the forefront, relight the shining beacon on the hill, rekindle the spirit of hope in humanity, and yes remind us that we are all too human, without ever using that as an excuse.
{And, by the way, I stand by the statement: “Republicans do not want equal rights for all people” as it pertains to those who oppose gay marriage. Only true gay marriage will translate into equal rights for all homosexuals.
But thank you for calling me "a Democrat apologist." Number one I'm not a Democrat. Number two, some of my liberals listeners have been questioning my liberal credentials, so thanks for standing up for me.}
Michael
no offense -- promise! You are not liberal. Left of center, liberal centrist sure, but not straight up liberal. There are very few straight up liberals, most turned tail with the failure of their liberal war in Viet Nam, which conservatives kept going, in Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam.
These conservatives also brought us the war in Iraq to get Osama Bin Laden and all those WMD, oh sorry that's Saddam Hussein, ah what's the difference anyway!
3. reckless G | September 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I enjoyed your show Michael, and your post Mitch.
I was amused at the way Michael was able to twist the definition of conservatism in a negative way, exactly as has been done to liberals by conservatives of late. The experiment was a success; theoretically. But it could never work in reality because liberals would never want to risk hurt anyone’s feelings by calling them names and resorting to dirty tactics like that (which is how we know you’re not a true liberal Michael!). It just wouldn’t be “pc” and people might accuse liberals of (horrors!) not being nice. Which I’m convinced is the worst thing you can say about a liberal.
Take comfort you bleeding-heart-tree-hugging liberals; the mighty and ruthless shall rule for a time, but the meek shall inherit the earth…or so I’ve heard.
4. Mitch.Mulhall | September 5th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
G-
Pleased to see you enjoyed my post. Apparently, Michael thought I was asking him to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly...
[...the mighty and ruthless shall rule for a time, but the meek shall inherit the earth...]
Does that come from Tao Te Ching? There's an almost identical quote in the Bible, the third Beatitude, Matthew 5:5: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."
Cheers,
5. reckless G | September 5th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Yeah, I knew I'd read that somewhere!
And I seem to remember some mention of peacemakers, though that can't be right, the way peacemakers are reviled these days.
6. Mitch.Mulhall | September 5th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I never said I would inherit the earth.
Cheers,
7. Michael Conniff | September 6th, 2007 at 4:23 am
So, Mitch, were you conned or not?
Best, Michael?
8. steve@goldenberg.com | September 6th, 2007 at 4:55 am
I found Rove, Atwater and their Democratic counterparts despicable and key causes of the loss in confidence of our democratic system.
9. Mitch.Mulhall | September 6th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Michael,
[were you conned...?]
Short answer: absolutely not.
Long answer: The fact you intimate I was conned reinforces my characterization of you as a Democrat apologist, but for the purposes of this comment, I’ll stipulate that you’re a registered Independent and really more interested in the defense of Liberalism as Ed Troy defines it. You harshly criticize the right for playing gutter ball, and rightfully so, but you turn a blind eye to equally heinous conduct by the left in an attempt to elevate one side of a cesspool, an exercise that makes the late Michael Hutchence seem like a Mensa member. Well done you.
Moreover, rather than addressing my arguments, you publicly declare that I failed to pick up on your “experiment” and therefore wrote my post without the benefit of a “proper” understanding. I was going to let this go, but since you’ve pressed it, I’ll go on-record saying I heard damn near every word you broadcast last Tuesday. Yes, there were several interruptions as there almost always is, but I got the gist of it, to be sure.
So do I recognize that both Democrats and Republicans resort to smash-mouth political tactics that place truth on the list of priorities behind the Paris Hilton diaries? Sure. Do I let these tactics form the basis of my thinking? Hell no. That’d make me, like the premise of your question, dumber than a mud fence.
Cheers,
10. Michael Conniff | September 7th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Mitch:
My respect for you is unbounded, but I'm still not sure whether you realized this was an "exercise" for me to make a point--the point being that conservatives have hijacked the word "liberal" from liberals.
My "experiment" was an effort to turn the tables and hijack the word "conservative" from conservatives, and the response has been overwhelming: conservatives who heard the program are as pissed as I've ever seen them--they're coming out of the woodwork.
I'll blog more on this myself, but let's say the exercise is over and I'm going to keep going on this. One example:
"Conservatives don't care about the environment."
This is not literally true, but the point I don't want you to miss is that many conservative voters have gone to the polls and slavishly cast their ballots for candidates who decry any notion that the earth could be in some trouble. My question to them (and perhaps you as a conservative) is how could you vote for George W. Bush over Al Gore? How could you vote for any candidate who doesn't treat this as a deadly serious problem?
If the shoe fits wear it: vote for candidates who don't deny climate change and want to do something about it.
So let's say you weren't conned. If you're a true conservative, then why aren't all conservatives required to be conservationists--or they don't get your voice?
Here's another one for you, just for fun:
"Conservatives want us to be dependent on oill."
Best, Michael!
11. Edward Troy | September 7th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Mitch,
I am a liberal, but not a bleeding heart. I know I am not being accused of being the latter.
{Long answer: The fact you intimate I was conned reinforces my characterization of you as a Democrat apologist, but for the purposes of this comment, I’ll stipulate that you’re a registered Independent and really more interested in the defense of Liberalism as Ed Troy defines it. You harshly criticize the right for playing gutter ball, and rightfully so, but you turn a blind eye to equally heinous conduct by the left in an attempt to elevate one side of a cesspool, an exercise that makes the late Michael Hutchence seem like a Mensa member. Well done you.}
The gist of what Michael is saying is that being "liberal" is something you accuse someone of being. In the 50s, "commie" would serve the exact same purpose. "Liberal" has been turned into a dirty evil perjorative epithet. When I remember the commercials for Republicans over the last 25 yrs., after the opponents name the words "is a", then a pause and then to hushed gasps "liberal," were spoken, as though the opponent was a traitor. Even in Republican primaries this occurred.
In one word, ethics, patriotism and morality were incinerated, not just questioned.
Republicans/conservatives define themselves and label others. The Democrats are do not do this; instead resorting to mealy mouthed double speak that merely might mean something -- whatever that is. Look at the response after the elections.
There has been no effort to find a tact, salient position, or an angle to go after Bush, and the Iraqi multiplex theatre of the absurd (the war over there is civil, what we are doing is unfathomable, unless saving the Bush administration is considered) by Democrats, except wait for Republicans to dig a hole to, well hope it's funny -- China!
Consider the lubrication and fueling of the Military effort, any oil needed? The loss of alternative and cogenerated power tax breaks back in '82. Now nuclear power may have to be back on the table. Consider the CAFE standards that trent Lott and others undermined BEFORE 9/11. Remember how Limbaugh pleaded for the public sale of Humvees and the proliferation of gigantic SUV's for city driving. What a stupid use for oil.
Mitch, we both know, as sure as D'escartes did about personal existence, with near metaphysical certitude, history is not going to exhonorate this president. I wish that Republican/conservatives practiced equal justice under the law, were fiscally responsible, aggresively pursuing citizen development through education and universal healthcare to battle the ascendante economies of China and India, and set in motion the generation of a meritocracy, on the democratic republic foundation we have. I would be right in front.
At this time after hearing El Presidente Calderon of Mexico, I am not liking conservative "leaders" anywhere.
12. Mitch.Mulhall | September 7th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Michael,
[…conservatives have hijacked the word "liberal" from liberals…]
How did the term come to connote a political ideology to begin with?
The word “liberal,” as in “liberal arts,” used to connote a curriculum that gives a person a “classical education”—what the ancient Greeks called the “Paideia” (παιδεία). In a student’s early education, he—and here I use this pronoun literally—would study the trivium: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Once a student had mastered the trivium, he graduated to the quadrivium: astronomy, arithmetic, music, and geometry. The trivium, according to theory, laid the essential groundwork for mastery of any subject. The result was a young man equipped to effectively contribute to a country’s social fabric. The concept, if not the traditional application, survives today in almost every University as a “College of Liberal Arts”…
Nowadays, the term has come to mean a person of left-leaning political ideology. Did conservatives make this association? Of course not. Is this association valid? I don’t think so. Not all or even most of the bellwether positions adopted by the political left arise from logic, science, and other hallmarks of the liberal tradition. To this extent, the term’s association with politics is at best disingenuous.
In my mind, the term’s presence in the political arena is an insult to its legacy.
Cheers,
13. B Jon Traylor | September 7th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I wish I could have experienced Woodstock. I find this entire argument to be just shy of laughingstock. Why are we arguing this particular issue? Why can't we all just freakin' get along? Why can't we set agendas aside and just freakin' do the right thing, based on common sense and moral obligations/responsibilities.
You know what? Well, I'd bet most you know....
I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I'm an American, who votes a split ticket, consistently, who does his homework, who votes the person, the character, the issue as I see it right.
I now consider myself a Christian. Does that, for some reason (Michael), label me as a conservative? Does that also stereotype me as a Republican? No to both, actually... Hell no to both.
So, I've chosen to believe in something other than myself, and its called Christianity, which I'm not completly adept in, but believing in. By doing so, the Rove's and prognosticators of the social agenda now seem to label me. The Conniff's of the world, the Hannity's of the world, the Limbaugh's (ugh!) of teh world... etc, etc.... want to label me, stereotype me, tell me how I'm supposed to vote, believe, what to support, etc. It's laughingstock, plain and simple. Its an argument that irks me, makes me want to wear full ceremonial military dress and attach a shoulder to hip sash with a big, red, emblazened L for liberal on my uniform and march down main street. Now THAT would be laughstock, or would it?
How freakin' dare anyone label me as anything other than my record, voting record, my mind, my thoughts and my intellect tell me that I am.
You think I want to be labeled a conservative? Absolutely not! You think I want someone seeing me on the street and saying... there goes a true Republican/conservative/christian, etc... absolutely not. You think I truely want to be known as a liberal? As a democrat? etc. etc.? No, I do not.
I'm proud to be a patriot, free thinking idealistically minded, independent, who simply wants the right thing for me and for all.
Our present system doesn't work, and it hasn't worked for a long time. I think its time for another Ross Perot type. This time, I want someone more legitimate and with less closet baggage.
Anyone out there liking Ron Paul like I am?
Now there's a person who is telling it like it is, like it should be, with a no holds barred agenda... someone who, like me, just wants to say to hell with the system... let us do the dang'd right thing!
Also, there's a person who hasn't a prayer of attaining the Big House. That in itself, itself!, exemplifies that we gots us here a problem in this country.
Bring on the grassroots America. Bring on the millions of others out there like me who want what is right! Bring on a legitimate third or fourth or fifth party!
America the beautiful, the land of the free, how proudly she stands, and until the twilight's last gleaming... I will forever think there is more to this country,and our ability, than what we see transcended in print and other media outlets... and even more importantly.... our 25% voter turnout and resultant hyprocracies of elected officials to in turn give us bored senseless bloggers something to write and gripe about. How lame is all this, really?
My name is B. Jon Traylor. I've got alot on my plate presently, but I'm checking in.
I'm kicking ass and taking names. Who's next?
Get in line.
Lets just do the dang'd right thing, and let us quit the labeling and name calling.
Sheesh! -- J
14. Edward Troy | September 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
B. Jon Traylor,
luv it, where you are coming from. I do like Ron Paul's expressed opinions on foreign policy, but there have never been any models based on his domestic ideals. As capitalism has grown, responsible governments have grown to make sure there is usually a barely adequate distribution of capital, not just in the form of currency. Without this government growth, we get the crud bucket kleptocratic oligarchies of Latin America that only now are continuing to crumble and the disgraces for government in the middle east, all of which we have gleefully recognized.
I also like Dennis Kucinich.
15. Mitch.Mulhall | September 8th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Ed,
Once again, great comment.
[the war over there [Iraq] is civil, what we are doing is unfathomable, unless saving the Bush administration is considered]
Calling what’s happening in Iraq a civil war is, in my opinion, simplistic. I agree with Christopher Hitchens that we are fighting at least three wars in Iraq: The first is what you characterize as a civil war between Sunni and Shiite. The second is the campaign to isolate and defeat al-Qaida in Iraq. The third is the struggle of Iraq's Kurdish minority to defend and consolidate its regional government in the north…
[Mitch, we both know, as sure as D'escartes did about personal existence, with near metaphysical certitude, history is not going to exhonorate this president.]
Exoneration is the least of my concern. Personally, I think the burden of the decision to go to war—any war—is the weight of hell. As Osama bin Laden says in his latest video,
Even bin Laden acknowledges his responsibility in this war. Apparently this troubles him very little.
Where this war is concerned, I don’t think President Bush had a choice, and neither did the 9/11 Commission Report, which indicates clearly that bin Laden had targeted Americans for murder in 1998:
Bin Laden issued this fatwa in 1998 and made good on it in 2001.
Will history be kind to President Bush where this conflict with al Qaeda is concerned? Certainly not if you or Michael write it.
While we’re on the subject of bin Laden’s video tape, we should all note that bin Laden offers us all a path to end this war:
In one of RecklessG’s threads, I intimated bin Laden’s intention to install Islam and Sharia Law world-wide. I find this statement by bin Laden corroborating evidence of that assertion.
Oh, and before I sign off this evening, have any of you wondered why bin Laden’s beard is shoe-polish black in this latest video, where almost all OBL images in recent history have shown him with salt-and-pepper to almost white beards?
Is it a stretch to think this might be a message to Jihadists to prepare for another attack? Certainly not, but who can say for sure?
Maybe he’s trying to lure another young wife.
If anything, OBL’s Grecian formula love ought to serve as a clear indication of his intent. In The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi wrote, “Some scholars… do not consider the use of black dye as permissible except during time of war, when the enemy might be impressed by the fact that all the soldiers of the Muslim army look young.”
Does this mean OBL himself is ready to fight? Probably not. I’ve heard the guy needs dialysis on a routine basis. How he gets it in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is anybody’s guess.
All I know is, if I died my gray hair black, the enemy might be impressed until the moment I had to move with any alacrity. But that would be effective too—it would cripple the enemy ranks with laughter...
And bin Laden is three years my senior...
Cheers,
16. Edward Troy | September 10th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Mitch,
Sunni vs. Shi'a, al-Qaida vs. secularists (their supporters and those by political expediency defined as "infidels"), and the Kurds declaration/action of autonomous existence (something the Turks, Syria, Saddam (while alive), and the Soviet Union (while in existence) do not, or did not want. My English is in search of a word besides factionalism, tribalism or chaos to describe best, in a word, the situation in Iraq. I chose "civil", since it is generally confined, to a designated political unit we call Iraq. You correctly point out serious problems, beyond subtle nuances in calling the situation a "civil war"
{Calling what’s happening in Iraq a civil war is, in my opinion, simplistic. I agree with Christopher Hitchens that we are fighting at least three wars in Iraq: The first is what you characterize as a civil war between Sunni and Shiite. The second is the campaign to isolate and defeat al-Qaida in Iraq. The third is the struggle of Iraq's Kurdish minority to defend and consolidate its regional government in the north…
[Mitch, we both know, as sure as D'escartes did about personal existence, with near metaphysical certitude, history is not going to exhonorate this president.]
Exoneration is the least of my concern. Personally, I think the burden of the decision to go to war—any war—is the weight of hell. As Osama bin Laden says in his latest video,
You [the American people] permitted [President] Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you—with your full knowledge and consent—to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan…Then you claim to be innocent! This innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th—were I to claim such a thing… [emphasis mine]
~Osama bin Laden, Transcript of video tape release September 7, 2007}
Back in April 2001, I tried to get a magazine started for activists, anywhere around the world. I named al-Qaida to the World Hall Of Rotten Evil Scum, which makes an interesting acronym describing what they, and others were doing to humanity. What I think of OBL ,in just about every negative parameter, vastly exceeds my very low opinion of Bush, except in intelligence; OBL has vastly superior cortical function. Bush is not an idiot, just willfully ignorant; a prime example of zero acheivements or meritorious actions, being hand fed everything he has ever had; Gov of Texas, and of course, the Commander in Chief. Only later, will the genius of Rove be appreciated, for getting this ne'erdowell (Ronald Reagan's adjective describing Bush) no account punk, into the oval office. None of that, of course mitigates the extreme unspeakable wishes of ill will I have for OBL, and his inner circle. Truly, there is no horror he could experience, that would bother me, in the least. In fact, I would probably rejoice in direct proportion to the horror. I know, not very liberal sounding.
{Even bin Laden acknowledges his responsibility in this war. Apparently this troubles him very little.}
Al-Qaida and the Taliban considered Afghanistan wealthy enough to take time and resources to shatter the Buddhas of Bamiyan, while people were starving. The condition of human life, has never been a concern that I am aware of, regarding this monster, whose DNA must have serious ethical, moral and psycho-sociological defects. He has laughed at the suicide martyrs, the true believers that have followed his manipulations.
{Where this war is concerned, I don’t think President Bush had a choice, and neither did the 9/11 Commission Report, which indicates clearly that bin Laden had targeted Americans for murder in 1998:
In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician, Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a “World Islamic Front.” A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority, but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the “individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.”
~9/11 Commission Report, p. 47
Bin Laden issued this fatwa in 1998 and made good on it in 2001.}
The history goes way before that; at least to the WTC truck bombing. Hence my fury with the conservatives pouring their resources into "git Clinton, whatever it takes" and of course the naturally predictable response to defend against that Republican initiative. I don't blame Clinton for defending himself. I blame him for how he responded; he should have told the inquisitors to stick it where the sun don't shine, and that his personal life was going to stay that way. But Republicans showed how concerned they were about the sanctity of American sovereignty by going after Clinton. I will not ever forgive those who participated in this effort to politically lynch, through an attempted constitutional coup de etat (impeachment), against Clinton.
{Will history be kind to President Bush where this conflict with al Qaeda is concerned? Certainly not if you or Michael write it.}
Only domestic conservative apologists will be kind. There is just about world acclamation in support of his condemnation. Maybe Harding was a great guy, few say he was a great, or even good president. Any relation to Tonya??
{While we’re on the subject of bin Laden’s video tape, we should all note that bin Laden offers us all a path to end this war:
I invite you to embrace Islam, for the greatest mistake one can make in this world and one which is uncorrectable is to die while not surrendering to Allah, the Most High, in all aspects of one’s life—i.e., to die outside of Islam. And Islam means gain for you in this first life and the next, final life. The true religion is a mercy for people in their lives, filling their hearts with serenity and calm…
~Osama bin Laden, Transcript of video tape release September 7, 2007
In one of RecklessG’s threads, I intimated bin Laden’s intention to install Islam and Sharia Law world-wide. I find this statement by bin Laden corroborating evidence of that assertion.}
There isn't enough blood to slake the thirst of this vampire. One must wonder if he had the peaceful way of Ghandi and King, focusing on the last sentence in your quote, how this would have turned out.
{Oh, and before I sign off this evening, have any of you wondered why bin Laden’s beard is shoe-polish black }
He has all the spiritual components that Bush, and Hussein have in common with a turnip. On the other hand, humourously speaking, perhaps he is preparing for those virgins!!!
17. reckless G | September 10th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Since this topic has morphed…
[My English is in search of a word besides factionalism, tribalism or chaos to describe best, in a word, the situation in Iraq. I chose "civil", since it is generally confined, to a designated political unit we call Iraq.]
I would choose tribal strife to describe what’s going on in Iraq. True, it’s currently confined to the political boundaries of Iraq (maybe not for long), but with Sunni and Shia attacking not only each other, but their own Muslim sects of rival tribes, I’d say this conflict is one that is ages old, predating Saddam, the Brits, the Ottomans and even Muhammad himself!
Arab tribalism is fierce and lasting, its loyalty is stronger than that of Islam, stronger than that of al Qaeda, and stronger than hatred of America. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for them, the violence is ultimately self-destructive, as it was with the tribes of the Americas.
If we were to leave, the violence would go on…until a strongman came along powerful enough to quell it, albeit by vicious means. Too bad we hanged the only qualified applicant crazy enough to want the job!
[Will history be kind to President Bush where this conflict with al Qaeda is concerned? Certainly not if you or Michael write it.]
Take heart Mitch, your grandchildren will learn of the glorious presidency of GWB. If nothing else the schoolbooks will be kind to him. Our history books are so full of crap it would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. Just compare your high school history books to Howard Zinn’s A people’s History of the United States, and you can clearly see that revisionists are hard at work making sure our citizens are kept ignorant, and above all supportive of the American Way and all of its heroes. Surely GWB will become a heroic figure to future Sophomores.
[While we’re on the subject of bin Laden’s video tape, we should all note that bin Laden offers us all a path to end this war: I invite you to embrace Islam…blah, blah, blah…]
Yeah, converting to Islam has brought such peace and prosperity to Muslim lands and promoted such compassion between Sunni and Shia brothers and sisters. If the whole world converts to Islam there’ll be no more war or violence. Sheeeesh! This is bullshit of the highest degree. It is simply OBL playing to his audience, the same as Bush does when he says “God bless America” to a military audience. Neither of them believes in their platitudes, they just use them to provoke allegiance to the cause and increase their own power.
As far as OBL dying his beard, I would take this as a credible warning of imminent attack. Arabs are very symbolistic. They don’t do anything without serious intent.
[Does this mean OBL himself is ready to fight? Probably not. I’ve heard the guy needs dialysis on a routine basis. How he gets it in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is anybody’s guess.]
I believe the dialysis story has turned out to be a myth. Speaking of myths, I was recently trying to locate the source of bin Laden’s confession to 9/11 and can’t find it anywhere. Can anyone give me a link or two?
18. Mitch.Mulhall | September 10th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
G-
Here's a transcript that is often cited as bin Laden's admission to responsibility for 9/11:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16990-2004Nov1.html
Cheers,
19. reckless G | September 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
His confession came three years later?! Nothing sooner than that? It looks suspiciously like he's taking credit for something that turned out to work in his favor.
One wonders if he's just a figurehead, like Bush, maybe Al-Zawahiri is Cheney; the real brains and evil behind the power. And OBL's speeches are tailored to please his zealous master.
20. Mitch.Mulhall | September 10th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
G-
Your conspiratorial proclivities are showing again. You're right, though. Surely there is something telling that is more proximate to 9/11. I do recall a transcript of OBL discussing with an Imam and an al Qaeda leader how during the planning he never imagined the towers would collapse. I also recall a transcript where he recounts a phone call with Mohammed Atta in which the two agreed to commence the attack. I'll see what I can find after the kids are in bed.
Cheers,
21. reckless G | September 10th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Thanks Mitch, yeah I guess I have a hard time believing anything after the lies about Iraq. I'm a little suspicious of all of the finger-pointing at OBL right after the attack, by this administration. And then the claim he was in Afghanistan. Now that we know what liars they are, who says they were telling the truth about that? Maybe, they just wanted an oil pipeline through Taliban territory...which incidently, they now have.
22. Mitch.Mulhall | September 10th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I take it you're talking about the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, am I correct?
Cheers,
23. reckless G | September 10th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
That's the one. The agreement was signed in 2002. So ok the entire pipeline isn't built yet, but it's underway, no doubt the recipient of millions of Afghani "reconstruction" money, and guarded by the US military whose bases are strategically positioned along its path.
Now you're going to tell me that's another conspiracy theory right?
24. Mitch.Mulhall | September 10th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
[Now you're going to tell me that's another conspiracy theory right?]
Earlier, you asserted that this pipeline is something "they"--presumably the Bush Administration--want and have. Now, you back-peddle and say it's "isn't built yet" but is a symbol of American greed because it's funded with "reconstruction" money and guarded by strategically placed U.S. military bases. Damn those evil Republican black ops. They're evil alright, let me tell you...
"It's a well known fact that there's a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as the Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in here in Colorado, known as 'The Meadows.'
"Who's in the Pentavirate?
"The Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he went teats-up..."
Oy vey...
Cheers,
25. reckless G | September 10th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Yeah, it’s easy to dismiss all accusations of corporate greed with tales of preposterous conspiracies. But the pipeline that was proposed back in the nineties was stalled by the Taliban, then the plans reconstituted and agreed to after the US invasion. That’s a fact.
My statement was "Maybe, they just wanted an oil pipeline through Taliban territory...which incidentally, they now have."
I still assert that they have what they wanted. Pipelines take a long time to build under the best of circumstances, but with being attacked repeatedly by Taliban forces, it'll take a lot longer. No matter. The point isn't to "have" a pipeline. The money is all in the building. So the longer it takes, the more money it brings in to the companies contracted to build it. What was the name of that big oil pipeline building company? I can't seem to recall it right now. Starts with an H.
26. B Jon Traylor | September 12th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Allow me to be silly? In reading all the comments on this particular post.... please allow me to add an off-air comment (sheesh... my bid for the senate is fixin' to go up in flames!.... #^!#$%
Anyone ever wonder why gals from the south don't make good/productive prostitutes??? The have to write too many thank you notes! Reckless, you grinning?
Be cool. Stay cool. I'm going to Texas and Puertos Aventeras in Mexico. Bye. -- J
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed