Search Ratttler

Saturday, September 02, 2006


The Pentagon has issued a new report on the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Although they try to paint a smile on by claiming Iraq is not in a civil war, the facts speak for themselves. Killings in the thousands per month. Conflict that is not just based on an organized insurgency, but that is a chaotic mixture of rebels, armed Shia militias and neighborhood groups. Bombings, kidnappings, tortured bodies dumped on daylight streetcorners. Roving gun battles barely held in check by Coalition bodies.

People like Mosesknows like to smarmily ask the misguided question, "Do you want to win in Iraq, or not?" as if that is even the primary consideration. Even Waiting_for_Godot, who is a social liberal, completely misunderstands the threat we face. Most Americans, according to new polls, recognize that the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq are two distinct and separate things. Godot is like many neocons, still sunk in the fog, thinking that leaving Iraq will somehow empower terrorists. In fact, both the American people AND national security experts believe that the invasion of Iraq has made us MORE vulnerable to terrorism, for a variety of reasons.

For those, like Godot, who have been blinded by fear or anger, and who have been twirled around by Bush's lies and conservative propaganda, it may not be possible to fully unspin them from the web of neoconservative lies. The most important lesson to be learned is this: Neoconservatives were wrong about Iraq. They were wrong about every single prediction, recommendation, and every boast. It is now time to stop listening to liars and fools, and start listening to clearheaded and intelligent voices.

I would say now that neither party is on the right path, but that people like John Murtha, Chuck Hagel, Russ Feingold, Chris Shays, etc, are clearly pointing in a better direction than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld. The only thing any of the latter group has been able to offer are platitudes, and the worst kind of demagogic propaganda, accusing those who have made careful and cogent criticisms of the president's policy of being appeasers, and of working for the enemy. Paltalk neocons regurgitate that rhetoric nearly verbatim, seemingly without irony, calling the enemy islamofascists without realizing that their words are very nearly identical to the fascist bile of a half-century ago.



MrArchieBunker said...

I'm confused here Claus. Nazi analogies are acceptable when used by Turban Durbin to demonize the American military, but not acceptable when used by the Secretary of Defense to describe throat cutters who who give their women clitorectomies?? Perhaps you can clear it up.

Jesus Claus said...

Yes, this is easy to clear up. Durbin's comment was a reasonable comparison based on what was apparent to anyone with a brain: Those tortured at Abu Ghraib resembled victims of torture from bygone eras. Do you approve of the horrors that were done to those innocent people?

The conservative "outrage" was partisan propaganda of the worst kind. Ask anyone in the military, and they'll tell you that the criminal actions of those torturers demean and dishonor every other member of the military, and it is the duty of all to root that contagion out.

What Rumsfeld said,on the other hand, is actually propaganda as well, as is your craven attempt to shift the focus of his statement. How disgusting it is to see that even within your reply, you cannot help but slide into oleaginous lies. You know well enough that he was not speaking of the terrorist enemy, he was referring to those in America, as high as 60% of us, who favor a timetable for ending this war. What he said was meant to demonize the opposition to this administration, to answer with smears and slander what they cannot with reason or facts.

Look at the similar sentiment expressed by Hermann Goerring (I'm sure you've heard of him): "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, 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. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

That's Donald Rumsfeld, MrArchieBunker. And that's you.

vacreeper2003 said...

mrarchiebunker - it is WELL ESTABLISHED fact that FASCISM, of which Nazism is a dyed in the wool firstborn, is a patently CONSERVATIVE philosophy. All you need to do is a bit of research. What you are admitting, mrarchiebunker, is that Bush and his ilk are NOT conservatives, but liberals - neo-liberals to be exact. Neo-liberalism is as dangerous as Nazism, the difference being rather than the focus all social outcomes on the glorification of the state, neo-liberals shift the focus to the glorification of wealth accumulated in the hands of a select few individuals. Both Nazism and Neo-liberalism THRIVE in Capitalism.

It is PERFECTLY legitimate to compare George Bush's neo-liberal attack on America and the world to Hitler's Nazi Germany: the irony is too palpable not to make the estimation.

Just accept it mrarchiebunker - Bush is a loathsome dictator of the worst kind, and his underlings are nothing more than arrogant henchmen.