They certainly are living in another world, but at least this guy is trying. He's at least saying that reflexively condemning anything the US does is a stupid position to take, and for many on the left, that's progress.
But there are many areas where he and the others fail to confront their own hypocrisy. Did you notice, for example, that he never mentions the horrible treatment of women by radical Muslims such as the Taliban? Now it's a fundamental tenet of the left that women are oppressed, men are pigs, etc. and that our society can never do enough to raise the status of women. But do they hold anybody else to such a standard? Of course not - they don't even mention it. So they've still got quite a ways to go before the left can be accused of honest argument.
It's really simple.
The left isn't right about anything.
John Miller published excerpts in the NYPost today from his interview with OBL in which the terrorist raghead basically says the Somalia debacle engineered by the Klintoon administration gave them the idea that the USA runs from a fight.
OBL is an idiot.
The USA only runs from a fight when a Democrat is in the White House.
Yea. I’m divided too.
Should we nuke Iraq and Iran today or
nuke Iraq today and Iran tomorrow?
This sentence makes sense for the left, the right and the in-between.
Boy, you can say that again.
It was all over my monitor for what seemed like the longest darned time, too.
Anyone catch this line? One thing that has remained a constant since 9/11, is the Left's pathetic insistance that an awakening for the need for sensible security measures is equivalent to America automatically becoming a totalitarian police state.
It was the Iraqi army, backed by the US, that kept Khomenei from over-running the Persian Gulf, something he swore he would do.
Never mind that the radical Shiites of Iran are sworn enemies of the Sunni fundamentalists of Al Qaeda.
This a truism that passes for wisdom, but is actually quite overdone.
Iran opposes the Sunni regimes, but Iran's Shia insurgents and the Sunni insurgents in Lebanon and the West Bank manage to agree to both attack Israel. Iran and Iraq and Saudi Arabia all support Arafat, and it was a ship full of weapons from Iran that was seized recently headed for Gaza. Iran opposed the Taliban, and supported the Northern Alliance, but has also provided refuge to Al Qaeda. And has helped to fund Al Qaeda operations.
Hardly had the Taliban collapsed when a new war was declared, a war on terror with a long list of enemies (almost none of them related to Al Qaeda) and no obvious endgame.
The war was only incidentally against the Taliban, in that our real target was Al Qaeda. And who is Al Qaeda? That is the Muslim insurgency funded and managed from Riyadh. Osama Bin Ladin was their titular leader, but his movement was funded by the Saudis, and facilitated by both Iran and Iraq. They were active in Chechnya, Chinese Turkestan, the Phillipines, and Indonesia. Some of their people have recently taken refuge in Georgia, Iran, and Iraq itself.
Look where we are sending our soldiers and it dovetails quite nicely with the list of countries where Al Qaeda is operating.
In other words, Katz is prevaricating.
"If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops...then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too. So they won't be able to say, 'Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.' No way, 'cause it'll go straight through that as well. They'll be dead, in other words."
In other words, any kind of mass murder and terrorism as long as it is for the glorious communist cause. What sick puppies without any moral compass these leftists are!
I can't argue with this at all. I am totally against shedding American blood trying to get the children to play nice.
Christopher Hitchens has said that our country is a number of things desirable from a leftwing point of view: multicultural, secular, and tolerant. It is hence worth defending. Someone on the right might define the country differently in terms of traditional political and cultural values but still maintain that it is therefore worthy of defending. The leftists detailed here, notably Chomsky, have as their base premise that the country is, and cannot be, worth defending by definition no matter how it is viewed, and their conclusions proceed from that rather insufficiently examined start. And they are mortally afraid of examining it, which is how the Taliban end up as victims in their eyes despite a nature that should be anathema to a principled leftist.
The screeching you hear from them is nothing more than a herd of people covering their ears with their hands and shouting "I can't hear you" when confronted with 3000 bodies in the smoking ruin of the World Trade Center.
This fellow couldn't supervise latrine clean-up, but feels qualified to dictate foreign policy. Jeez.