Absolut Delusion
MrConservative, one of the regular commenters over at "Blog of the Year" PowerLine, wrote the following sua culpa following the treacherous behavior of the American people on Tuesday. I've inserted my observations:
The greatest consequence, however, is our national security. Even though the squishy middle will not want to be more vulnerable to terrorist attack, the consequences of their vote will be that it is more likely.
This is probably true (not that America will be more vulnerable, but that more attacks may come). If you read the "One Percent Doctrine" or some of the other exposés that look closely into the intelligence communities' efforts to combat terrorism, it's pretty clear they (the intelligence communities) think that al-Qaeda 1) prefers Republicans because their foreign policy galvanizes the pissed-off Muslim masses, and 2) believes that Americans can pretty reliably be scared into voting for Republicans, or reverse psychologized into it (again, see bin-Laden's crude-but-effective video stunt prior to the 2004 elections). If these two observations about al-Qaeda are correct, it seems likely that they will attempt more terrorist strikes, particularly if they stand to lose the incredibly effective scapegoat of America in Iraq.
The leftists will see that terrorist surveillance programs are history.
No, only the extra-constitutional warrantlessness of the Bush approach will be history. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how getting retroactive warrants from the FISA court will damage our surveillance programs.
Aggressive interrogation of terrorists will cease.
I'm not convinced that the Democrats have the balls to stand up against torture, but if they do, more power to them.
Iraq’s future looks bleak.
Indeed, following the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate, the candy and flowers may now give way to IEDs and interfactional butchery.
Iran’s ascension looks secure. (This is tragic. The mullahs grip on power is tenuous at best. A leftist American tilt will strengthen them.)
The first two premises were basically guaranteed when the neocons colluded with pro-Iranian double dealers to dupe us into carrying out Tehran's geopolitical objectives in Iraq. The last two are just wishful thinking on MrConservative's part.
Our allies in the war on terror will doubt our resolve. They will be looking to cut a deal with the terrorists as a matter of survival.
Who could he possibly be referring to here (by the way, the Baker Report is likely to suggest the US do just that)? All of our Middle Eastern "allies in the war on terror" have been cutting deals with terrorists all along. The few Europeans and Asians who remain in the "coalition" can probably survive in a Republicanless world, even in the face of an active international terrorist campaign emboldened by stupid and incompetently executed Bush policies.
Israel will be exposed. North Korea will be emboldened just when they have blinked. The list goes on and on.
The list doesn't actually go on and on, which is precisely when idiots like MrConservative usually write that it does. The Republicans haven't been at all successful in covering Israel, or in solving its problems, which are largely of its own making. And North Korea? Is he really suggesting that Republicans have finally maneuvered Kim Jong Il into a corner by doing nothing while he developed nukes? What would the next piece of strategery be? Luring them across the DMZ and trapping them in Seoul?
The greatest consequence, however, is our national security. Even though the squishy middle will not want to be more vulnerable to terrorist attack, the consequences of their vote will be that it is more likely.
This is probably true (not that America will be more vulnerable, but that more attacks may come). If you read the "One Percent Doctrine" or some of the other exposés that look closely into the intelligence communities' efforts to combat terrorism, it's pretty clear they (the intelligence communities) think that al-Qaeda 1) prefers Republicans because their foreign policy galvanizes the pissed-off Muslim masses, and 2) believes that Americans can pretty reliably be scared into voting for Republicans, or reverse psychologized into it (again, see bin-Laden's crude-but-effective video stunt prior to the 2004 elections). If these two observations about al-Qaeda are correct, it seems likely that they will attempt more terrorist strikes, particularly if they stand to lose the incredibly effective scapegoat of America in Iraq.
The leftists will see that terrorist surveillance programs are history.
No, only the extra-constitutional warrantlessness of the Bush approach will be history. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how getting retroactive warrants from the FISA court will damage our surveillance programs.
Aggressive interrogation of terrorists will cease.
I'm not convinced that the Democrats have the balls to stand up against torture, but if they do, more power to them.
Iraq’s future looks bleak.
Indeed, following the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate, the candy and flowers may now give way to IEDs and interfactional butchery.
Iran’s ascension looks secure. (This is tragic. The mullahs grip on power is tenuous at best. A leftist American tilt will strengthen them.)
The first two premises were basically guaranteed when the neocons colluded with pro-Iranian double dealers to dupe us into carrying out Tehran's geopolitical objectives in Iraq. The last two are just wishful thinking on MrConservative's part.
Our allies in the war on terror will doubt our resolve. They will be looking to cut a deal with the terrorists as a matter of survival.
Who could he possibly be referring to here (by the way, the Baker Report is likely to suggest the US do just that)? All of our Middle Eastern "allies in the war on terror" have been cutting deals with terrorists all along. The few Europeans and Asians who remain in the "coalition" can probably survive in a Republicanless world, even in the face of an active international terrorist campaign emboldened by stupid and incompetently executed Bush policies.
Israel will be exposed. North Korea will be emboldened just when they have blinked. The list goes on and on.
The list doesn't actually go on and on, which is precisely when idiots like MrConservative usually write that it does. The Republicans haven't been at all successful in covering Israel, or in solving its problems, which are largely of its own making. And North Korea? Is he really suggesting that Republicans have finally maneuvered Kim Jong Il into a corner by doing nothing while he developed nukes? What would the next piece of strategery be? Luring them across the DMZ and trapping them in Seoul?
posted by Mockrates at 2:56 PM
1 Comments:
Here's another wingnut meme that's growing in popularity:
"They made a deliberate decision not to take a position on the biggest issue of the day, the Iraq war."
The Levin/Reid Plan is supported by a majority of Democrat Senators and Congressmen. What exactly is the "Bush Plan," and how many Republicans support it?
Again, we see this annoying Republican habit of claiming that things they don't like, don't exist (insurgencies, evolution, climate change, for example).
Post a Comment
<< Home