Saturday, August 20, 2005

A comedy of errors

It's the complete and utter disconnect from reality that makes me wonder why exactly the Bush administration and its quasi-religious loyal supporters are qualifiied to be dogcatchers, much less in any real positions of power. It's this kind of maladaptive, and quite frankly pathological, illusion they're defending that made me spray coffee across the room in a fit of laughter tonight.

From the cult of personality that is Blogs For Bush:
Now, the concept that Iraq only became a terrorist haven after our liberation of the country is a rather idiotic leftwing talking point - but the fact that our lefties say this and say we should pull out can only mean that they believe we shouldn't be fighting terrorists. Regardless of why the terrorists are there, if they are in Iraq, then that is the place we need to be, right? If we pull out of Iraq, do our leftwing friends think the terrorists there will pack up and go home? Hardly - we leave Iraq, and the terrorists will just be freed to strike strike not well-armed American military personnel, but unarmed American civilians here in the United States.
It is a strange world our Democrats live in - a world in which the best way to beat terrorists is to stop fighting them.

The bit about Iraq, the new terrorist haven, being an 'idiotic leftwing talking point' is probably my favorite part of the whole thing. God knows those guys in the National Intelligence Council and their report on Iraq are just a buncha Birkenstock-wearin', dreadlock sportin' hippies. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if we found out they were financially supported by MoveOn.Org.

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

And the proof that this conclusion isn't real, dont-pay-attention-to-the-partisan-hackery-just-take-it-all-on-faith? Why a screwy pundit site showing proof that Saddam Hussein gave money to the families of Palestinian bombers (Correlation is not causality) and other flimsy opinion pieces from the National Review, a magazine that's unapologetic about being a biased and factually skewed publication. As the NR reporter enthusiastically boasts, "No claims of fairness or objectivity here!"

But wait. If terrorism has always existed in Iraq and Saddam was a major contributor to it, shouldn't that mean that since we captured Saddam and overthrew his reign, terrorism should be on the run there?

Don't ask about the missing WMD. Just belieeeeeeve.

(Nevermind that a Congressional commission of Republicans and Democrats found "no credible evidence" that Iraq was linked to 9/11. They plan to hold onto that one and the Vince Foster conspiracy till they die)

But I think I'm in love with the beautifully constructed strawman that is "the fact that our lefties say this and say we should pull out can only mean that they believe we shouldn't be fighting terrorists." A logical fallacy given that no one except the tiny fringe left is advocating a capitulation to terrorism. Certainly not anyone in the Democratic Party. So Mark Noonan's assertion that the political Left "believes we shouldn't be fighting terrorists" is completely false, one that I guarantee you he can't prove via direct quotation from any standing Democrat. Not even Howard Dean. So let's just put that little lie straight to bed.

More importantly (or rather conveniently), Mark ignores the fact that it isn't just lefties that are looking at Iraq as a tarbaby we should have never been involved in. It's slowly becoming the consensus of Republican after Republican after Republlcan. The GOP is hemorrhaging politically over the issue and the gang at B4B want to claim it's only the Left that's concerned about it. Comedy gold.

But the gem of this whole thing? The one that had me gasping for air, snorting and cackling like a donkey on nitrous?

This bit of strategy from Mark Noonan's comments:
Be that as it may - yes, if you turned off the cameras, terrorism would whither away.

You just can't make this schtick up. With logic like that, with the belief that an aberrant war would take care of Bin Laden and with a steadfast refusal to commit the necessary troops, armor and equipment to win this thing, I'd say these guys are, without a doubt, the men for the job. So long as the job meant building and strengthening terrorism instead of, y'know, actually taking it down.



Post a Comment

<< Home