Re Morganized Mass Self Delusion
Oscillon here makes comments worthy of being answered, or if not answered, at least commented on:
“I will not support abandoning them to their fate.”
Bless you, sir. No matter what else we disagree on, I embrace you for saying this fine thing. It is a relief and a pleasure to hear.
“My recollection is that the administration did use the reasons you state.”
Whew. I was beginning to think I was from a parallel universe.
“But the association was intentional. It was a transference propaganda technique.”
Ridiculous.
The only intentional association was that our national honor could not tolerate, after a stinging defeat from a sneak attack in New York, continued defiance from a runty little puke dictator in the Middle East. After 9/11, we looked weak, confused and helpless. In the Hobbesian state of nature, which governs international politics, to look weak and helpless provokes attack. It has serious and real-world consequences.
The gain to our national honor was pissed away by the public behavior of the Left, which has emboldened the enemy. The Left weakens us, and leaves us confused and helpless. The enemy adroitly exploits the weaknesses of our psychology, our legal system, our media. We, on the other hand, cannot even get up the gumption to declare war in a proper constitutional fashion.
If it was a propaganda technique, it must have been grossly unsuccessful, because even a bloodthirsty war-hawk like me, someone willing and eager to be convinced of war propaganda, was not convinced that 9/11 was directly related to Saddam.
Do you personally know someone who actually says that we attacked Iraq to punish Saddam for 9/11? Really and truly? Or do you only know articles in Lefty publications criticizing someone — not people that really exist, mind you — who might say such a thing?
“In order to support those women, it is not enough to cheerlead the people that have proven they are incompetent.”
I could care less about the Bush Administration (aside from my native desire not to see good men slandered by ne’er-do-wells). I do not look to Caesar for my salvation. The Left did not commit treason against the Administration: one cannot betray an administrator–he is a servant. We owe him no personal loyalty. The Left committed treason against the nation, the West, against civilization and humanity, all things to which we owe loyalty.
Any administration that was not criminally incompetent would have had to invade Iraq and for substantially the same reasons given by the Congress: had Clinton served a third term, his administration would have helmed this same war.
The causes for war were not light nor transient, and their weight over the years had been growing. 9/11 gave those reasons a new urgency and a new implication.
The 2008 administration, Republican or non-nuts Democrat, will have to continue the global war against the Jihad in much the same way. Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia should be on our list for war targets: anywhere that supports or harbors the Jihad is an enemy.
If the next administration is nuts-Democrat, of course, all bets are off. The war will be put (on our side) on hold until another attack, this time with nukes or nerve gas, strikes continental America. I am assuming Hillary is a non-Nuts Democrat. She has not positioned herself with the antiwar lunatics.
She is clearly a man with brass enough to do the job. All she would have to do is bump off Ahmadinejad and drop his body with a suicide note in Fort Marcy Park, and then have Tyson’s Chicken come by the Rose Law Firm and trash all the billing records for the Pentagon so that there was no evidence her administration declared war. The press would give her a free pass. And I would cheer, because then the Iranians would get a chance at democracy.
(Only a slim chance, mind, but the West is not in a position to give the followers of Mahound more than a slim chance at democracy–it is not a seed that grows well outside its native soil.)
So, yes, I agree, cheering for our side is not sufficient for victory, but cheering for the other side is treasonous in intent, perhaps in deed. The lesson of the Vietnam war is pertinent here: the gangland thugs we fought after the war said that the only thing that kept them hanging on to hope when they were on the brink of giving up was the antiwar movement here in America. The Left handed them victory, basically by cheering for them. Ideas have consequences, and so do words.
The reason why Americans do not censor public speech is because of our respect for the weighty consequences of words. No freedom is really worth anything unless its abuse is serious. The Left, by booing our side and cheering for the Jihad, is abusing their powers of public speech, and ignoring the consequences. Real people are going to die real deaths because the Left was too childish and fancy-free to govern their speech soberly.
The yellow people in Vietnam were not real to Left then, in much the same way the brown people in Iraq are not real to the Left now.
I am beginning to hope, based on your comments, that these people are real to you, at least. Thank you.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
