No Third Way In Iraq!!!

Victory or Defeat. You pay for it. You make the choice.

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

It is certainly bracing to be living and working in the capital of the world's richest and most powerful nation during war time, and to hear so little wisdom or courage emanating from either the government or opposition benches. Even the capitals of backwater third-rate powers usually have a better grip on reality and their own national interest than we do here at Colossus-opolis.

It seems that our vast current prosperity and the still mentally reassuring great oceans that appear to guard us from the outer world's madness create the illusion in the minds of far too many that we are -- as a nation -- immune from the consequences of our foolishness and slackness.

From a Washington Times article, No third way in Iraq, more follows:

No third way in Iraq [/] By Tony Blankley [/] THE WASHINGTON TIMES [/] Published January 31, 2007

[...] All of this mental stretching and twisting comes, of course, while a majority of perhaps even Republican senators express support for a war condemnation resolution, the Pelosi Democrats call to frog march our troops out of Iraq (i.e. redeploy) starting around May Day, and she who has experience with un-named evil men (aka, Hillary) stamped her formidable Prada heels and demanded that Mr. Bush should "extricate our country" from Iraq before leaving office, as it would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief. (I suppose she is selflessly looking out for Barack Obama's interest on that point.)

[...] Even some at the White House seem to be buying in to the sense that "the surge" is our last chance in Iraq -- after which failure (should it come), Iraq will have to take care of itself, with a greatly reduced number of redeployed U.S. troops looking helplessly on from somewhere over the rainbow (Kuwait, Okinawa, Timbuktu or perhaps the Epcot Center at Disney World).

Sen. Richard Lugar described in The Washington Post the strongest, most rational sounding version of a redeployment: "A potent redeployment of U.S. forces in the region to defend oil assets, target terrorist enclaves, deter adventurism by Iran and provide a buffer against regional sectarian conflict. In the best case, we could supplement bases in the Middle East with troops stationed outside urban areas in Iraq. [/] "Such a redeployment would allow us to continue training Iraqi troops and delivering economic assistance, but it would not require us to interpose ourselves between Iraqi sectarian factions."

I am not sure that such a limited redeployment is exactly what the war critics have in mind. But even if Murtha, Pelosi, Biden, Hagel, et al. and the passionate anti-war element of the public would accept it, it would probably only delay full retreat. Because, to the extent that Mr. Lugar's redeployment removes our troops from Baghdad and other violent areas, exactly to that extent we will be getting poorer intelligence, have less influence on events and be more passive sitting behind fortifications.

How exactly would we able to stop Iranian border intrusions from these remote, passive locations when we have not been able to stop it while currently forward deployed? How would we target terrorist enclaves if we are not in the field gathering intelligence from the people (whose trust has to be earned before their tips will be given to us)? Would our redeployed troops be placed in the oil fields, or over the horizon and forced to truck or helicopter in when an emergency arises -- remembering that it is during the transporting of troops that they are most vulnerable to blind-sided attacks.

Both in conventional and counter insurgency warfighting, fixed fortifications, as Gen. George Patton said, "are monuments to the stupidity of man." In 1983 we lost almost 300 fine Marines who were supposedly bivouacked out of harm's way.

Now is a good time for clear thinking and speaking. If we intend to succeed (and it is vital that we do) then we must persist. If the "surge" doesn't work then more troops and different strategies should be employed.

If we are going to throw in the towel, then we should bring the troops home promptly, lick our wounds and prepare for the inevitable Third Gulf War, which we will have to fight under far worse conditions than currently. Either option is at least honest (although the latter is dangerously foolish).

But the current mentality in Washington -- to pretend that there is a third way between victory and defeat -- is morally despicable. Washington politicians of both parties are trying to salve their consciences for the ignominy of accepting defeat by fooling either themselves or the public into believing they are doing otherwise.

Perhaps they can fool their own flaccid minds, but history grades hard and true. And history may enter its ledger with shocking promptness. [My ellipses and emphasis]

The Left: Fallen Angels Who Love Mohammad?!?

Exploring the historic basis for the anti-theist/pro-Islam paradox of crypto-statist thought. I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From an American Thinker .com article, Why the Left Loves Muhammad:

January 27, 2007 [/] Paradise Lost; Why the Left Loves Muhammad [/] By Timothy Birdnow

"For who can yet believe, though after loss,

that all these puissant legions,

whose exile hath emptied Heaven,

shall fail to reascend Self-raised,

and repossess their native seat?"

- John Milton [/] Paradise Lost [/] Book one, verses 631-634

Conservatives seem baffled by the animosity held by liberals towards Christians and Jews. Christianity requires the believer submit to authority, accept the rule of government, be charitable to his fellow; in short, be a model citizen. Ditto the Jews, who held these requirements even longer than the Christians. Why are liberals so hostile to both? For that matter, why do liberals seem so smitten with that 7th century holdover known as Islam? Why do those on the Left seem less than eager to defend our freedom and way of life from the ravages of Islamic Jihad?

To understand this, it is necessary to examine the intellectual underpinnings of modern Liberal thought. We must begin with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Godfather of modern liberalism, in his treatise The Social Contract: [/] "MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains." [/] Why? George Bush, of course, but also because:

"It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. As the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions.

"What the pagans had feared took place. Then everything changed its aspect: the humble Christians changed their language, and soon this so-called kingdom of the other world turned, under a visible leader, into the most violent of earthly despotisms.

"Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighborhood, have desired without success to preserve or restore the old system: but the spirit of Christianity has everywhere prevailed. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the Sovereign, and there has been no necessary link between it and the body of the State. Mahomet held very same views, and linked his political system well together; and, as long as the form of his government continued under the caliphs who succeeded him, that government was indeed one, and so far good."

So, Christianity and Judaism, by giving the World Separation of Church and State, destroyed the old pagan order and splintered the power of the collective will. To those who believe in this collective and the exercise of the will of society over the individual, there can be no worse crime. The results were ‘the most violent of earthly despotisms' while the Islamic world, that model of theocratic benevolence, offered a government ‘so far good'".

[...] Those who would revolutionize society, who would remake America in their own neo-pagan, atheistic mold, find the fundamental weakening of the power of the State intolerable (since it is only by that power that their will can triumph), and would prefer to institute a system more akin to that of Muhammad. They admire Islam for maintaining the ancient regime, although they ultimately plan to displace Allah with a Man-centered deity.

Of course, the liberal also hates being constrained in any way, and traditional morality flows, as they perceive it, from the Church down. By raising Islam as an alternative to Christendom, the liberal hopes to bludgeon the keepers of morality. Islam can help with the dirty work of crushing the usurper ideologies of Christianity and Judaism, and then, of course, their turn will come.

Then, too, we can look to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, who believed not in the rationality of Christendom, but in a mythical Greek paradise ruled by "Dionysian" creative forces - emotionalism and irrationality. These forces were vanquished by the rise of Socratic intellectualism and the coming of Christianity. Nietzsche argued further against a fixed reality in his unpublished work

On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense', claiming that what we think of as truth is merely a convention agreed upon by society, thus freeing Man from the tyranny of concrete reality.

This wild spirit, this vision of the anti-mind slithers throughout liberal thought and can be seen in numerous left-wing positions; being soft on crime, spiritual environmentalism, their admiration for dictators such as Castro and Mao, and in their current love affair with radical Islam. Terrorism is the ultimate irrational force, a violence aimed at random destruction and mayhem. It holds kinship with the bloodlust of the Marxists and Nazis, and, as such, is a "creative force" by Nietzschean standards. (Oh, and Nietzsche also hated Christians and Jews, and was a prime inspiration for National Socialism; copies of Thus Spoke Zarathustra were issued to German soldiers during World War One, gaining the interest of a certain corporal...)

A return to the "good old days" of the 7th Century, to a time before paradise was lost to the tyranny of Judeo-Christian intellectualism seems preferable to modern liberals, who have flatly rejected Hobbes' view of primitive life as solitary poor, hard, nasty, brutish, and short. We especially see this in the neo-paganism of the environmentalist movement; they dream of a lost pastoral Eden where mankind could be free of the drudgery of industrial life and the endless intellectual toil. A great many on the Left wish to overthrow the current order, replacing it with this twisted Nietzschean/Rousseauian mirage stolen from the Book of Genesis.

Of course, to those who do not believe in a concrete reality, as many liberals do not, one system is as good as another, and we have no right to judge the Moslem on how he conducts his affairs. Since the Jihadist's reality is equally valid as the Westerner's, we are practicing moral Imperialism if we force our Judeo-Christian moral law on them. This is exacerbated by the fact that they are Third World peoples; many liberals, deep in their hearts, are pulling for what they perceive as the underdog - in this case the terrorist murdering thug-at the expense of their own culture. A racist, sexist, homophobic, power-mad society such as ours deserves to be taught a lesson! Even if the teacher is racist, sexist, homophobic, and power-mad, they aren't Western, Christian, or White! They aren't Dick Cheney! Power to the people!

There is a strain of masochism involved here as well; the white liberal perceives himself as having unfairly benefited from his station in life, having lived well on the backs of the poor. Somebody must be punished for this! He will flagellate himself in his mind, and will support those who will punish his country, because justice demands retribution, and America has lived far too well. If we must endure terrorist attacks to atone for our sins, so be it! Perhaps we should do the decent thing and die; let others have their turn at the table. [/] Here Socialist thinking comes into play; there is only so much to go around, and we have been hogging it for too long. For those in the Arab world to live better, we must exit the stage. It's only fair!

The Liberal ultimately believes that the culture we have built, the triumph of Judeo-Christian values, is diseased and must be erased. If Islam can do their work for them, so be it. Islam, like the State under Marx, will ultimately wither away, and the paradise which predated Christ and Abraham can be restored. At least they like to think so.

Much like Milton's fallen angels, they believe they have been dispossessed of their rightful station by a tyrannical spiritual entity, and they are determined to repossess their native seat-the fallen pastoral paradise promised them by Rousseau and Nietzsche-via the triumph of their Collective Will. This is their prime mover, their principle motivation. It is why they were so enraged at the loss of their political power, and why they hate the "usurper" George W. Bush; they were driven out before they could attain paradise. This concept-lifted from Christian doctrine-that History has an ultimate end in a Humanistic Eden cannot be overstressed; the Left is consumed with this. They feel that, by losing their political power, they have been cast into the Lake of Fire.

"They, looking back, all the eastern side beheld

of Paradise, so late their happy seat,

waved over by that flaming brand, the gate

with dreadful faces throng'd, and fiery arms."

Paradise Lost [/] (Book XVII, verses 642-644)

Timothy Birdnow blogs at Birdblog. [My ellipses and emphasis]

L dot Comments Jan. 15, '07

The comments on the links of Lucianne.com's Must Read section are particularly good today.
I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a Lucianne .com Must Read section, on Jan. 15, '07:

Lucianne.com MUST READS of the day
`

• Bush: 'We're Going Forward'
  Amazing what one can accomplish if being popular isn't a priority
  
• Freedom of Information - the Wiki Way
  This sounds like trouble
  
• At Libby Trial, Power Players Face Uncomfortable Spotlight
  This farce of a trial starts today
  
• Democrats Are Unified in Opposition to Troop Increase, but Split Over What to Do About It
  What to do about it would be key and be called 'leadership'
  
• Edwards, With King in N.Y.,Strongly Denounces Iraq War
  Little Johnny goes to Hillary's backyard and ties her pigtails in a knot
  
• Murtha proposes bill to choke funding for surge
  Memo to Murtha: Try to catch up. They already have the money
  
• Economists upgrade US outlook after surprisingly strong data
  Facts that refute politically engineered news are always a 'surprise'
  
• Memorial Thread for Helen Schieber - Our aussiegirl
  Please feel free to post your remembrance of her here
  

Senate Boss Reid: a Deadhead!?!

And his home town is: Searchlight! Lots of potential for one-liners in both revelations! Hat tip to Drudge.

I report and link. You decide. - J :)

From a KLAS TV .com article, With Senator Reid in Searchlight:

The I-Team Talks With Senator Reid in Searchlight [/] George Knapp, Investigative Reporter [/] Dec 1, 2006 02:24 PM

In his first interview since returning to Nevada, Reid invited the I-Team's George Knapp to his home in Searchlight to talk about the future. [/] Nevada U.S. Senator Harry Reid will become the majority leader of the U.S. Senate when the new Congress convenes in January. It is the highest political position ever attained by a Nevadan.

Reid will have his hands full with national issues but knows he needs to take care of business here at home as well. In his first interview since returning to Nevada, Reid invited the I-Team's George Knapp to his home in Searchlight to talk about the future.

You can learn plenty about a person by walking around in their home. [/] Sen Harry Reid said, "Here, I'll show you the bathroom. This is my prized possession, a signed poster of the Grateful Dead." Harry Reid, a deadhead? Can it be true? [/] For security reasons, the I-Team cannot show the outside of Reid's home in the small mining town of Searchlight, but we got quite a tour of the inside -- the collection of Searchlight butterflies, the late Denny Dent's two-fisted art attack version of Martin Luther King Dent, likenesses of young Harry from high school days, and an amazing discovery from his high school yearbook where Reid was voted most humorous. [/] Sen. Harry Reid said, "Here it is, most humorous, right next to the most attractive."

It's doubtful Republican leaders find much to laugh about in Reid's ascension to the heights of political power. He has vowed to put Washington on a much more even keel, to hold hearings into such controversies as warrantless surveillance and the use of torture, and hope that the president keeps his promise to strive for bipartisan accord. The time for ideological purity, [[code for patriotic and moral purity, perhaps?!?]] he says, is over.

"We have to govern the way we did [[Wilson, F.D.R. and L.B.J. come to mind]] for a couple hundred years, not on the basis of ideology, but to get things done. [[By BIG government, that is.]] Think, it's been ten years since we've had a raise in the minimum wage. [[And more jobs have been available for those who need them most.]] That's scary. Forty-seven million Americans don't have health insurance. [[So the taxpayer must pay more to support trial lawyers and the medical bureaucracies.]] We have someone trying to destroy social security," [[If we knew in the thirties what we know now, it would have never been started"]] Reid said.

Thursday morning, Reid took a call at home from Bill Clinton. As we had coffee at the Searchlight Nugget, he got a call from New York Senator Charles Schumer. [/] It's a heady time for Harry Reid, but he knows that he's now a lightning rod for Republicans and if he hopes to be reelected in four years, he needs to get things done for Nevada, to bring home the bacon without making it look like pork. One of those priorities is the Nevada Test Site.

Reid says he will be in a much stronger position to get compensation for hundreds of Test Site workers now dying of cancer and other diseases. And while he is not able to kill the Yucca Mountain Project outright, he says he can at least keep it from be fast-tracked. He wants to try and secure water resources including a bigger share of Colorado River water, and get money to help Southern Nevada's infrastructure keep up with our relentless growth. [/] His public lands bills have already brought tens of millions of dollars to the state for parks and preservation. He knows there are tough battles ahead on the national stage, and that if he wants to stay there, he needs to listen to the little folks back home.

Sen. Harry Reid said, "I am who I am and will do the best I can. It's a new title, but I'm still the same person." [/] Reid will be sworn in as majority leader on January 4th. [/] Email your comments to Investigative Reporter George Knapp. [My ellipses and emphasis and Coulter-like comments.]