I knew I would eventually see slimy Giuliani running for president over the nearly 3,000 bodies sacrificed by Islam. It’s not enough that this son of a Mafia thug, serial adulterer and cousin-marrier has raked in millions of dollars based on 9/11.
But I did flick the tube on to catch some late afternoon local news, and since the TV had been previously tuned to C-SPAN, there was General Betraeus, still the toy soldier lying to Congress.
He should never even have been asked, or ordered, to testify because while he is an expert on military tactics and organization, this criminal enterprise known as the War in
The rumble from across the Potomac I think I heard late today was that of the thousands of real American heroes rolling over in their graves at Arlington National Cemetery when Bushitler announced that NOW that he has heard from Betraeus, he agrees with his general and will by next July reduce the number of American targets in Iraq to the number it was last year! Remember yesterday when the Betraeus stonily said none of his testimony had been reviewed by the White House? Why would it have to have been since he has been meeting with Bushitler and other administration officials all along.
The general was there, the day before and the day of 9/11 to help his boss exploit the dead even more; to build support for the worst foreign policy blunder since the War of 1812. But Betraeus was finally exposed, first by Democrat Joe Biden and then by Republican John Warner.
Biden, by orders of magnitude the best qualified Democrat in the presidential race, pointed out that the general’s earlier show of good faith of announcing withdrawal of one contingent of troops really was a routine rotation previously decided upon, and not anything new.
Warner, a World War II veteran and combat Marine in Korea, was secretary of the Navy under Reagan and later the second longest serving senator in Virginia’s history, a state that supports the military more than any other. In fact, his colleague in the Senate, James Webb, is a wounded veteran of
Warner asked the trillion-dollar question. “Is this (surge) making
The rest of us know.
This beloved country of ours and all who carry a U.S. passport, are in mortal danger because this war was promoted under a cloud of lies for their personal or political profit by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condolleezza Rice, George Tenet, Tommy Franks, David Betraeus, Paul Bremer, and chickenhawks Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Douglas Feith, Karl Rove, Tony Snow, Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney (and his five sons and Jenna and Barbara Bush.)
The events of 9/11 needed to be avenged. But Osama bin-Laden remains a reality-TV star and more Americans have died in
The other real enemy of the
"The other real enemy of the United States is radical Islam and in, my opinion, all of Islam. I and any number of other good Americans would sacrifice our lives, our fortunes our scared honor if we were asked to fight the right foe. Kill the malignant sons of whores whose belief in Islam translates into death for everyone else."
ReplyDeleteWith the greatest respect, Ira, rants like this are not worthy of you. I understand your feelings - after all I live in a country constantly under threat from radical Islam - but I don't believe that ranting away in the same currency of hate as they do is either worthy of us or helps the situation one iota. Creating a new divide - a second Crusade - is what these people want the West to do. Then they can prove to the doubters that Judeo Christian society really does seek the destruction of Islam. Its playing into their hands.
Brian F.
I have the highest regard for your views on international affairs, since your country once ruled the world and, if I may remind you, created Iraq in the first place!
ReplyDeleteOn September 11, 2001, someone attacked America just as the Japanese did on Dec. 7, 1941. No country can allow that to happen without declaring war. The only difficulty is which lucky country gets declared upon.
There is no country to declare war against, but Bush invented Iraqi complicity so he could topple Saddam, an explicit repudiation of his father. I wish this Oedipal moron would have done what he said he would do: Find the perpetrators and exact justice.
He never had any intention of doing so. In the meantime, I was willing to give Bushitler the benefit of the doubt, even allowing myself the luxury of checking off which of four rationales I agreed with and ignoring his lies as the currency of winning popular support for crushing radical Islam.
As I did more reading, particularly "Terror and Liberalism" by liberal essayist Paul Berman, it became clear to me that the enemy is Islam, as I stated in my post.
Either fight the real enemy, or accommodate the enemy. But in diverting our attention from reality, Bush is having the worst of both worlds. Dead Americans on 9/11, dead Americans now and more dead Americans for the foreseeable future; loss of American hegemony even on its own continent. And Osama lives on.
I would like to think there are moderate Muslims with whom to work, but apparently you cannot be a true Muslim and not want to kill infidels. They are the same, in kind, and to a worse degree, as the Christian extremists who run the United States of America.
When I first stated these views in public in 2001, I was condemned as a bigot. I am more convinced of my position now because no one has come forth from the world of Islam to effectively condemn the radicals. There is no evidence that Islam, if followed, is a peaceful religion. Islam is the enemy until someone can demonstrate it is not.
The more warmaking Muslims we kill, then the weaker Islam becomes, because these ARE their best and brightest. If we stick to it, run a permanent but selective war against Islam, we will win because, as a people, we are smarter than they are and have the wherewithal to win.
Democracies defeat totalitarians almost every time out because they possess collective intelligence and have put forth better leaders. Except in this case. I could run this "war" better than Bush.
So, fuck Iraq. Destroy the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Pakistan for starters, and starting today deny any aid to earthquake victims in Indonesia.
It's war or it isn't. If we in the West are not prepared to apply pressure to every Islamic state that claims to be our ally; if we are not prepared to even say that Islam is the enemy; if we are not prepared to fight for a way of life Islam would destroy on a lark, then let's just surrender now.
I agree, needless to say, with your assessment of the Bush Administration's crass handling of the post 911 situation. That's clearly a no brainer. There was some considerable sympathy and support for America when it tried to flush Al Quaida out of Afghanistan but the subsequent lunacy destroyed much of that goodwill.
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult one for me to argue with you as I feel I'm not sure whether your angry, and to me slightly irrational, passion on this issue, comes from your Jewish anger or your anger as an American citizen. I haven't a hope in hell with the first so I'll stick with the second.
I believe radical Islam cannot be 'cured' but, like other diseases, it can be put in remission. The fanatics will still be there but there would be less possibility of them picking up acolytes like flies round a hot turd if the west, and particularly the United States, took a long hard look at its foreign policy and particularly its relationship with the arab states.
Forgetting about the state of Israel just for a moment, which was conceived in turmoil and has remained thus since 1948, the rest of the west has not been much bothered by Islamic fundamentalism for centuries. Sure they protected their own back yard but there has never been an explosion of anger and reaction against the west such as has happened over the last twenty years so so. Why? There have been fundamentalist movements for centuries, way before Al Quaida came on the scene.
You talk about 'our allies' and thats one of the issues on which I believe America needs to change its act. In the middle east you have few true allies, merely nations the US has leaned on to provide oil and stabling grounds for its troops in exchange for weapons and a blind eye turned to its human rights abuses - and of course Saudi Arabia is right at the front of THAT queue. The US has made alliances with corrupt and unpopular regimes - like the Saudis, like the Shah of Persia, like Saddam when it suited them. Ira, the cycicism of these American 'alliances' can be clearly seen through by the mass of the people in these countries and it foments anger, frustration and the start of a deep hatred for all things American.
Osama Bin Laden had some fertile territory on which to work and he is still being provided with ammunition by America's middle east 'Empire'. You may not have painted the map with stars and stripes in the way Britain imperially painted it red, but your economic and military hegemony is in many ways an even more powerful tool.
I know its radical, I know its unpopular in DC but, instead of the US trying to massage nations to produce leaders which suit American interests why doesn't it try allowing the arab nations to work out their own destiny and then trying to work with whoever rises to the top. America is seen, by the Islamic nations, as a manipulator, prepared to pour in troops, arms and money if it produces a result that keeps American interests at the top of the agenda, regardless of the desires of the populace.
I think your desire to kill all the Muslims is not only fanciful, its foolhardy. I believe America could change its image, and diminish the threat to the west as a whole, if many of these people were given the right to self determination without the US affecting the balance of power in quite the way it currently does.
Brian F.