Here’s A Thought, Geniuses

Fox & Friends is on TV in the background, and they’re discussing several key developments:

1.  We’ve now realized that al-Qaeda is back at pre-9/11 strength, now that they’ve found more safe harbors in all those countries full of peaceful Muslims we’re always hearing about.

2.  There is a frighteningly high level of “chatter” right now, and authorities in the know are clearly sweating (message: attack imminent).

3.  Americans are just plain tired of all this fighting terrorism business: can’t we just make it all go away?

I’ve said it a million times, and I’ll say it again: this country is simply not going to get serious and take off the gloves until one of our cities is completely destroyed.  Well, maybe it doesn’t have to be a nuke blowing up in D.C. or New York—but I think it would take a death toll of at least 100,000 to really, truly wake us up.  We’ve just been dicking around so far.

I have a proposal: completely and utterly forbid any new Muslims from entering this country for as long as it takes to bomb our enemies into oblivion.  That would help things, dontcha think?  Until the Lovers of Peace around the globe, and their governments, take serious action to identify and terminate terrorists (instead of sheltering them or even funding them in their efforts to regenerate and plot), the Religion of Peace should lose its American privileges.  Are you a Muslim-American living abroad for some non-essential?  Tough titty.  Are you trying to get over here on a visa to take advantage of our educational system for your own gain?  So sorry.  Get off your asses and start helping us (thereby showing you’re really on our side and not just pretending to be): the sooner you purge your religion of head-lopping maniacs, the sooner you’ll get to come to the U.S. again. 

Of course this sounds radical—of course I realize it does!  Until we get hit with an attack that makes 9/11 look like small potatoes, that is.  Then it won’t sound so crazy: then it will sound remarkably sane and prudent.  I sure do hate it for the thousands of blameless Americans who’ll have to die in order to bring everyone else around to reality.

Advertisements

~ by lewdandlascivious on July 12, 2007.

15 Responses to “Here’s A Thought, Geniuses”

  1. You may be on the right track. These people are so different than anyone else we’ve faced in war. What if we bomb Tehran in a serious way and say, “Look: that’s for getting in our way in Iraq. Back off starting NOW or we’ll follow this up on a regular basis.” No ground stuff, just serious bombs. You could do the same thing for other countries helping our enemies.

    We’re in WWIII, we just don’t know it.

  2. Here’s my fear: A major terrorist attack takes out a large U.S. city right before the 08 elections. Then, with the press and Democrats being the way they are, they pounce on Bush Republicans and the American people buy it, not only giving a Dem the White House, but creating a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate. The way things are now in the country I don’t see another attack causing us to rally around the flag. I think if another attack occurs, we as a country would pull a Spain. Then all hell breaks lose for four or eight years.

  3. Ugh, I had never thought of it that way! That’s scary as hell. But then again, if people are stupid enough to put the Democrats in charge of our safety, we probably deserve whatever we get.

  4. Come on now. If a US city was demolished it was obviously Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby helping Halliburton.Seriously though depending on the zip code of the attack I think the response would be pretty impressive. HAGWE

  5. Cui bono?

    Let’s see who would benefit most from an attack on us? That would be the current administration and neoconservatives.

    Don’t worry though, a bombing will happen. It’s been said for years that it is inevitable, so don’t you believe them? Recently you have the Chertoff “gut feeling” that something will happen. Then Rick Santorum on the Hugh Hewitt show suggesting that “unfortunate events” will take place in the next year. He said, “Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view.”

    What do these guys know that we don’t? The unfortunate event will be one or two of three things in my opinion. A Gulf of Tonkin type of event in the Persian Gulf. Perhaps the it’s time to “retire” the 47 year old USS Enterprise steaming it’s way to the coast of Iran? The other two events would be dirty bomb, perhaps nuclear or a bio weapon release of some sort.

    Why do I think these events? I believe a neocon when they say these things will happen, so it won’t surprise me. The neocon agenda is to secure Middle East resources and bring the US under martial law. If Bush does it or another administration (Hillary) it would be horrible, but Bush certainly has laid the ground work with National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

    We are well past slippery slope arguments and on to witnessing the building blocks of a dictatorship.

    al-Qaeda is at pre 9/11 strength because they are now our allies. In the crazy world of the CIA and US government we use and fund these organizations to fight a “common enemy” and then turn on them as the new enemy. Look at our history with Saddam and Osama. Now we are using al-Qaeda to attack Iran. That’s right, our huge arch enemy who attacked us on 9/11, we are now allied with to attack Iran. As reported in the London Telegraph and many others, the CIA is using Jundallah to run black ops in Iran. Jundallah is affiliated with al-Qaeda.

  6. Yo, Patrick–sounds like you were up all night like me!
    Ok, let me try to unpack this:

    1. First and most importantly, I would agree you’re well past slippery slope arguments on this one: you’ve gone beyond the usual Bushitler talk and have ventured right into Black Helicopter territory. There is some evidence that the CIA has for some time backed Jundallah in efforts to destabilize Iran internally, but I fail to see how that is a plot against US interests or security; rather, it’s pretty clearly the US using an enemy against another enemy. Which is pretty much our only option in the Middle East. The region in question is not exactly teeming with pro-democratic, organized groups willing to nip at Ahmedinejad’s or bin Laden’s heels: we take what we can get because doing nothing is worse. One could also point out that almost all, if not all, Islamic terrorist groups are linked together–they’re not discrete groups with identifiable members, which is one reason they are effective.

    2. It’s useful to remember that the CIA is an administrative agency, and to an alarming extent outside the control of the President and Congress, both of which ostensibly oversee it. If there’s one dirty secret I’d agree with you on, it’s the fact that there is an unconstitutionally delegated 4th branch of government (administrative agencies) operating that is almost entirely unaccountable to the elected branches. But that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms, and one that was opened long, long before Islamic terrorism became an issue for anyone. Anyway, keep in mind that the CIA and all other agencies are in reality self-sustaining bureaucracies that do almost anything they want–that’s the reality, so it’s rather, um, irresponsible to pin everything the CIA does on any President or even on Congress (which authorizes its spending).

    3. Could you define your use of the word “neoconservative?” I’m not really sure who all is included in that group as you term it.

    4. I don’t find it particularly sinister that government representatives are concerned about another attack, or even positive that one is coming. I myself have been waiting for the other shoe to drop ever since 9/11–haven’t we all? Of course, if you’re absolutely determined to believe that everyone in our government is evilly plotting our enslavement, far be it from me to dissuade you (as if any argument or evidence could). I myself interpret the warnings as. . .warnings. Toeing the line between scaring the living shit out of us and putting us on guard. When they don’t do that, they’re accused of treasonous negligence. When they do, folks like you say AHA! and see all kinds of nefarious, byzantine conspiracies behind it. I think the place for rational people is somewhere in the middle. But of course, I can’t even hope to convince you of that if you’ve made up your mind that the Fourth Reich is right around the corner.

  7. Not up all night, but I do get fired up by this sort of thing.

    Allow me to highlight how our media now totally hypes events and that plays right into a culture of fear and sends people running to military mammary gland. First, let’s look at terrorists from the 70’s and 80’s such as FALN. A group of radical Puerto Rican nationalists who carried out bombings, including police attacks, here in the US. The thought in the media, government and people in general was to keep these attacks hush-hush, because people knew that putting these sorts of things on the front page of the paper would only help to promote the cause of the terrorists. In essence, you would help to achieve what they wanted. Contrast that today with say the most recent bombing in Glasgow Scotland where an incident wasn’t just reported on but was totally hyped up way beyond reason. Major media crossed a journalistic line into propaganda in this case. The initial news coverage errs on the side of dramatic. We later came to find out it was some weak pathetic attempt at a bomb as reported by Larry Johnson on Keith Olbermann’s show. I didn’t agree with Keith’s analysis on everything; however Larry seems to deliver a straight and reasoned response. I understand the need to warn, but the pendulum has swung in the direction of ratings.

    Perhaps it is Santorum who is in Black Helicopter territory when he gives a freakin’ timeline for when the next attack will occur.

    A neoconservative is for a large military, pre-emptive wars, torture (or as they call it enhanced interrogation techniques), might makes right, ends justify the means, pro-Israel (Likud party), cultural as well as economic imperialism.

    I certainly don’t pin everything on the CIA. You are right that Prez and Congress have their oversight responsibilities as well. However, I do think that anytime people have that much power behind the veil of “national security”, it is fertile ground for evil to grow. And I think a closer look at the CIA would show any rational thinking person just how much damage they have caused. History has proven that time and again.

  8. Haha, I understand all about getting fired up. It ought to be my job, I do it so much.

    Well, I definitely don’t trust agencies–they are not accountable to the electorate or to elected representatives. I think that’s where the biggest liberty encroachments lie–in these unaccountable, behemoth bureaucracies full of lifers who answer to no one. Presidents come and go, and the Congress shifts around all the time (although we do need a third party)–at least those bums can be thrown out.

    The CIA sometimes is good and sometimes is bad. But my question to you is, what level of power do you think would be appropriate for our national intelligence services and President to have? I’m not sure they would be very effective in dealing with threats to our national security if they had to publicly announce every single thing they did. Do you think that? (I’m honestly asking–not being sarcastic).

    And I can’t say I’m wild about the media either, as a whole. It’s become all tabloid, all the time–this beast feeding on its own offal. Ick. But in terms of reporting on near-miss attacks, do you think it’s better for people only to hear about threats once they’re fully materialized (i.e., thousands of people dead)? I personally would rather know when and where they are trying to hit us, not just when their plans come off 100%. It gives a more accurate perspective of what we’re really up against (a constant threat, as opposed to some random weird thing that happens every decade).

    I suppose I can’t speak for the entire country (nor can you), but I am not afraid of radical Muslims. They just piss me off really bad. So be careful with the mammary gland talk—I’m in favor of the war and believe me, I’m no fearful little girl running to Daddy Bush. I want these Islamofascist f***ers dead, every last one of them.

  9. I go 3 days without the internet and miss all this???

    Lewd, good call on asking for his definition on “neo-con.” At least now we know he has no idea what he’s talking about. To him all it means is “anyone who supports Bush’s foreign policy.” Because I doubt he’d ever read a book on the subject, wikipedia will have to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

  10. Where’d you go, D? 3 days with no Internet is hardcore.

  11. It was not by choice. My internet wasn’t working, and the three unsecured networks my computer picks up from my apartment weren’t either. I barely made it…

  12. If Bush does it or another administration (Hillary) it would be horrible, but Bush certainly has laid the ground work with National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

    Which would make some sense IF Bush had in some way sanctioned 9/11.

    Now, let’s go over the facts. In 1993 (Clinton’s presidency), Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center. In 2000 (Clinton’s presidency), they attacked the USS Cole. From 1998 onwards (Clinton presidency: 3 years; Bush presidency: 8 months), they inflitrated the United States, secured visas, and attended flight school to learn how to fly our planes into buildings and kill lots of people.

    Um, I don’t see how this is a Bush issue. Martial law or cleaning up Clinton’s mess?

    And I think a closer look at the CIA would show any rational thinking person just how much damage they have caused. History has proven that time and again.

    Why is that? Because, as the Queen said, they are an unconstitutional fourth branch of government which is responsible to neither Congress, the President, or their constituents? We can hardly blame them for a power-grab if such is the case. As Madison said in Federalist 51:

    If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

    We’ve created a government in which 90% of our laws are made by agencies with no responsibility to any other branch of the gov’t or the people. That happened long before Bush and long before any “neoconservative” agenda appeared.

  13. I sense some defensiveness from Dustin and theo. I am very well aware that neoconservatism is not limited to the Bush administration and that many unconstitutional agencies have had presence in Washington for decades. I particularly like the blog high-five from Dustin to you on asking for my definition of neoconservative. I understand you were looking for an operational definition, totally reasonable. I then gave one in a reply. Not once have I seen an example of where I might have misrepresented or misunderstood neoconservatism. If I have, please enlighten me. I don’t claim to be an expert of neoconservatism, but I have read much more than just the Wikipedia entry on it. I have read Kristol, Kagen, Krauthammer (alliteration intentional but only in jest) as well as Ralph Peters and many others. I have read the debates about why Leo Strauss should be considered a neoconservative and why he shouldn’t.

    Neoconservatives tend to write favorably about Machiavelli. Leo Strauss did, as does Michael Ledeen. Let me pull some quotes from a Ledeen book that helps construct the intellectual/philosophical backbone of neoconservatism generally and specifically leads to so called pre-emptive wars. The book is Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. This book was even passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting. In it, Ledeen endorses situational ethics with “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” He quotes Machiavelli approvingly, “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” And more from Ledeen, “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Ledeen asserts that peace undermines the power of the state. It is amazing how he is able to turn peace on it’s head and view it as a detriment to mankind while at the same time justify perpetual war as beneficial and necessary. He goes on, “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’” These guys even endorse lying as justifiable: “Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.”

    Trust me, there is so much more where that came from, but I won’t bore any of you. It is all out there for anyone to read. I refuse to accept the “strategic deception” from this or any administration as benevolent or necessary.

  14. Thanks for the response, Patrick. Clearly I am taking a break tonight and so am responding to some blog stuff.

    I get it loud and clear that you see nefarious plots behind pretty much everything Bush and/or neoconservatives say or do, and I also understand that nothing will ever convince you otherwise.

    I guess this is just not my kind of argument: I’m not into navel-gazing. I’m more worried about Islamic terrorism. Also, I notice that you are plucking quotes out of their context and applying them to preconceived notions; namely, that “neoconservatives” are soulless Machiavellian brutes. Your analysis serves only to bolster your own opinion—which might be persuasive to you, but surely you can see that it is not effective with other people.
    Unless you were present at the Congressional strategy meeting or have a transcript, I question your interpretation. Any conversation anywhere can be portrayed as damning when snippets are cut out and pieced together to reach a certain conclusion, a la Michael Moore. Talk about propaganda!

  15. Such a nice argument to fall back on. I never said I know what was said or even took place at this meeting, only that a Ledeen book was handed out and gave some quotes from the book. Apparently when a neocon reads this book it is “strategy” and everyone else is “navel-gazing”. And Sean Hannity or Michelle Malkin don’t use snippets, or any other blogger? It is a freakin’ blog here, I’m not going to read the entire book for you.

    It is sad to see so many intelligent people controlled with a fear paradigm. You fear the terrorist and want to operate a world where everyone is in that same state of fear. The neoconservative world view is not sustainable without fear. More attacks on the “homeland” will only benefit GOP and neoconservative ratings, bolster support for more military interventions (Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc.) and increase more Stasi like methods at home.

    I’m sorry to see you can’t defend a paradigm you hold to. Ledeen is right, war narrows and focuses the mind. I see it in your reply, failing to see larger issues or seeing them as “navel-gazing.” You gave absolutely no examples of how I misrepresented neoconservatism. No corrections, nothing at all. So what is it then?

    Don’t worry though. Soon enough it looks like you will get the attack you have been waiting for. I’m sure the neocons (I think Hillary and Obama are mild ones too) will allow it to happen. It is the only thing that can save their downward ratings. Bush isn’t doing the GOP any favors by continuing on his stubborn path. It is political suicide, unless another attack happens and saves him and the GOP. I’ll have to worry at that point when more people have narrowed and focused minds and in Malkinsian fashion want to round up people like me. Oh joy. See my post: http://pursueliberty.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/neoconservatism-unsustainable-without-fear/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: