Why do we go on putting ourselves in danger by cutting our nose to spite our face?
Worth the read.
.
The Democrats' 'Cut & Run' operation last time around =
Pictures of a vietnamese Re-Education Camp
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308949/posts
What horrid price is there
for US to now pay, i wonder...
for another CLINTON Presidency
in a new time of war
in a new century
with our own Freedom
now directly at stake
right here at home,
with an Enemy that's now
just around the corner and
...up your street..?
NEVER FORGET
.
It is a very good article. I can see why the Left is so upset with the author and his new book. He replied to them in an OP/ED in the Washington Post.
They do so for the same reason they join Gangs. They get noticed for acting out and they get a perverse kind of respect, where they otherwise would be ignored.
In addition to the gang benefit they have the lurid promise of virgins in heaven and the permission of the religion to treat women as chattels.
Mohammed knew how to market his line to the lusty tribesmen of his time.
"Why don't the Liberals, Democrats and Hollyweirdos ever learn?"
I ask myself the same question. Perhaps they actually don't spend any time reading about World events. Or they are too locked into the 1960's and 70's to act in any other way. Or maybe they're just America haters, capitalism haters, and traitors.
Basically, Carter and the Dhimmis unleashed the current Islamic jihad on the world by helping overthrow the Shah of Iran, then gave the Soviets a green light to move aggressively to spread Communism, while Clinton gave our military secrets to the Chicoms and encourage Al Qaida to bring terror to American shores. TRAITORS!
D’Souza thnks that the lunatic Wahabbists aren't in league with the Saudi government. What's he been smoking?
***Why do we go on putting ourselves in danger by cutting our nose to spite our face?***
Because domestic political power is more important than national security.
We now only want easy victories at the national level, but loose over two men and we must declare it a quagmire, run home and hide under the bed.
btt
A good read, though I could have done without the annoying boldface font.
I know an Iranian leftist who marched with the Muslims in 1979. She said it was a euphoric experience at first, it being a true-blue revolution and all. She and her college student friends carried banners in the streets with the Muslim girls. But when they were threatened with beatings if they didn't veil their faces, the realization dawned that maybe this wasn't the progressive revolution she was expecting. Pretty soon she was fleeing the country with her family. Her father was well-placed in the Shah's oil ministry, and with the Ayatollah soon to take power he felt it best to leave for the States while he still had his head.
ping
How We Lost Iran And why we can_t afford another loss in Iraq
Posted by Bobibutu
On News/Activism 01/28/2007 11:39:21 AM PST
Khomeini believes that Iran should become a parliamentary democracy. Carter forgot to tell Khomeini this was to be his belief, since Khomeini never had this in mind - as proved by his writings on religious jurisprudence and his response to what should be done about the Ministry of Justice. He replied: "if someone is against me, he is against Allah and should be killed on the spot. Why do I need a Ministry of Justice or any other justice?"...one little mistake... cut Jimmuh some slack. I mean, it's not as if he hates Israel, and has never met a dictator he didn't like... oh, wait...
I keep wondering when the public is going to wake up to what the dems are really doing ..?? It's seem hopeless!
Bump for later read.
A few comments:
I'm not sure if we can trust info from Gary Sick. He was the main conduit of a lot of the conspiracy-theorizing regarding Pres. Bush 41's role in "Iran-contra," which was never proved or even seemed very plausible.
McGovern's position is a good summary of the left's perspective. The left has developed a "vendetta" mentality, in which they fantasize about their enemies (conservatives) confessing to all manner of horrible things. Sort of like Stalinist show trials. Or the trials describe in Orwell's 1984, in which the people who rebel against Big Brother are forced to publicly confess to such crimes as deliberately spreading venereal disease.
This leads the left into a sort of passivism (which they mis-represent as pacifism, which it is not), an attitude that nothing can be improved, that anything anyone tries to make a bad situation better (Iraq), will only make it worse. They themselves are afraid to try any sort of helpful action (i.e. anything beyond empty criticism), because then they would be responsible for consequences, which they can't bear to contemplate. Navel-gazing and random criticism of others is so much more safe and self-pleasing.
It's ironic, but this strain of the denial of the possibility for human progress of any kind, any improvement in the human condition anywhere, is now called the "progressive" position.
It also tells you what the left is afraid of. They are pulling out all the stops to ensure America and Iraq will fail together, because they are terrified that America might actually succeed in helping Iraq become a decent country.
If Iraq does become a decent country, with America's help, that will validate in spades everything Pres. Bush and the people who the left disparage as "neocons" have stood for: An active American presence in the world, which is able and willing to effect change for the better in totalitarian hellholes that need it very badly.
That would be the worst diaster imaginable for the left. It would even be worse for them than the collapse of the USSR was.
The possibility of actual progress, real progress, an increase in human decency in a place where suffering and horror, routine inhumanity, had been the norm, scares the left because it would show that their agenda of human stagnation and decline is not inevitable. And for conservatives, the most moronic of the knuckle-dragging stupid, the most ape-like examples of humanity, to be able to actually do this, when the ivory-tower leftists progressively insist that such progress is utterly impossible, would shatter their world-view and possibly shatter their identities as "progressives" and leftists. And they know it.
The horror of this prospect is what is motivating the left to its frenzy of anti-war action.
They know they're standing on the edge of the abyss, and American success in Iraq is all it will take to make the ground they're standing on start to crumble.
I heard D'Souza on National Puppet Radio over the weekend saying the STUPIDEST things about Vietnam, apparently for the sake of promoting his new book. He bought into the idea that the Communists, even after the Tet offensive, were indigenous patriots, instead of foreign invaders from the North; that the South Vietnamese people's desire to get rid of their brutal government was the reason the war happened to begin with (rather than a Soviet-organized invasion); that bombing the North didn't do any good; that the war was unwinnable by us as a military conflict. And so on. The entire Communist propaganda line from back then—unchanged by the revelations from the Communists themselves since that time, showing every one of these statements to be false.
If I hadn't been so bored, I would have been disgusted.
Carter's failure, as former Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, was the result of being “unable to distinguish between America’s friends and enemies.”
According to Moynihan, the Carter administration had essentially adopted “the enemy’s view of the world.” Carter does not deserve sole discredit for these actions. This intellectual framework that shaped Carter’s misguided strategy was supplied by the political left.<<<
And now we are back in the same spot, with Carter type leading in Congress and pushing his agenda.
You are right, it is a good article.
Ping to another must read article.