Thursday, January 25, 2007

Iraq and Bush's State of the Union speech

Patrick J. Buchanan:

Churchillian it was not. Yet the State of the Union seemed a success if Bush's purpose was to buy time from Congress to wait and see if his surge of U.S. forces into Iraq might yet succeed.

But when Bush started to describe the ideological war we are in, one began to understand why we are in the mess we are in.

"This war," said Bush, "is an ideological struggle. ... To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come to kill us."

But the "conditions" that drove those 19 men "to come to kill us" is our dominance of their world, our authoritarian allies and Israel.

They were over here because we are over there.

If Bush is going to remove those "conditions," he is going to have to get us out of the Middle East. Is he prepared to do that? Of course not. Because Bush, believing the problem is not our pervasive presence but the lack of freedom in the Middle East, is waging his own ideological war to bring freedom in by force of arms, if necessary.

"What every terrorist fears most is human freedom -- societies where men and women make their own choices."

Very American. But the truth is terrorists do not fear free societies, they flourish in them. The suicide bombers of 9-11, Madrid and London all plotted their atrocities in free societies. From the Red Brigades, who murdered Italy's Aldo Mori, to the Baader-Meinhoff Gang, who tried to kill Al Haig, to the Basque ETA, the IRA and the Puerto Rican terrorists who tried to assassinate Harry Truman, free societies are where they do their most effective work.

Stalin's Russia and Nazi Germany had no trouble with terrorists.

"Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies," declared Bush. Oh? Explain, then, why 70 million Germans, under the most democratic government in their history, gave more than half their votes to Nazis and Communists in 1933? In every plebiscite he held, Hitler won a landslide. In the year of Anschluss and Munich, 1938, Hitler was Time's Man of the Year and far more popular than FDR, who lost 71 seats in the House.

Why I'm Right About Liberal Jews and the Antiwar Movement

Democracy Languishes, but Neocon Strategy Lives

Why America needs New York U. to become a football powerhouse


At 2:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As much as I like Buchanan, he is wrong about this. They are here because the Koran tells them to wage war against the infidel, i.e. non-muslims. That is what islam is all about, in other words, jihad.
Who are the major oppressors of muslims in the ME? Why, it is other muslims, like Saddam oppressing the Shiites, the Egyptian gov't jailing the Muslim Brotherhood, the Jordanians throwing out the Palestinians, Iran V. Iraq, etc...But notice no muslims ever complain about that. They bitch about America and Israel to no end because America and Israel are infidels, and worse, some (Oh Allah Save Us) Jews! Bin Laden's complaint was the Spanish ejecting the muslims from Spain. The Nazis and Russians had plenty of opposition, especially the Russians in the Ukraine and Baltic States. Why was there no terrorism? Because anybody who kicked up a fuss got shot. Ukranian Holocaust anybody?! Can Buchanan tell me why muslims terrorists are active in India, the Phillipines, Thailand, Sudan, Algeria, France, Spain, etc...The Thais have an army in the ME fucking with the muslim populace and making them eat good take out that has pork in it? Give me a fucking break. Why did they blow up a disco in Bali? Not because of Australian divisions sweeping into Baghdad, but because they hate the idea of infidel men and women drinking beer and hooking up. You don't need a PhD to understand islam and its motivations, just open the fucking paper. Every 2 bit shit jihadi shooting at me in Baghdad v understandsislam just fine. Even better than a roomful of college professors.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

View My Stats