James Lileks hits it right on the head:
For the last few weeks I’ve had this gnawing belief that bin Laden got lucky by attacking during Bush’s term. Conventional wisdom says the opposite, because Bush fought back. But he’s the enemy now. I ask my Democrat friends what they’d rather see happen – Bush reelected and bin Laden caught, or Bush defeated and bin Laden still in the wind. They’re all honest: they’d rather see Bush defeated. (They’re quick to insist that they’d want Kerry to get bin Laden ASAP. Although the details are sketchy.) Of course this doesn’t mean they’re unpatriotic, etc., obligatory disclaimers, et cetera. But let’s be honest. People are coming up with websites that demonstrate ingenious technology for spraying anti-Bush slogans on the sidewalks; it would be nice if they sprayed "DEFEAT TERRORISM" or "STOP AL QAEDA" now and then. Wouldn’t it?
That’s exactly the problem. The Democrats are so focused on this sense of absolutely vicious hatred of Bush that they can’t even recognize the enemy out there decapitating people. The Democrats entire strategy seems based around a hatred of the President and little else. The fact that anyone, especially normally reasonable people, would seriously rather have bin Laden walk free than have George W. Bush reelected speaks volumes.
The partisanship surrounding Bill Clinton was often vitriolic, but it doesn’t hold a candle to this sort of thing. Imagine if Ann Coulter had produced a movie that accused Bill Clinton of committing war crimes in Bosnia and interviewing soldiers who said that they didn’t want to be there. Think she’d be getting the Palme D’Or and getting a standing ovation at Cannes? Somehow I doubt it.
Which of course also raises the point that the excuse that "the Republicans did it too!" is no excuse. Even if one took that to be true, exactly how does that excuse behavior that is even worse? The Democrats seem to be in a race to the bottom, trying to outdo themselves in overheated rhetoric and childish politics. Such games are not only infantile, they’re destructive to the political fabric of this country.
Unless the Democrats can develop a sense of perspective, they don’t deserve to be anywhere near power.
UPDATE: Roger L. Simon adds some thoughts on why he’s supporting Bush:
It’s ironic, really, when you think about it. Back in the day it was the Democrats who were correctly railing against Pinochet who, bad as he was, wasn’t even in Saddam’s league when it came to gassing people and cutting out their tongues. I guess partisan politics is so important to some people that it’s all about which “team” wants the dictator out of office, not the dictator himself. It’s hard to even get your mind around that.
Just yesterday, you and Laurence Simon speculated how wonderful it would be if Syria would “export terrorism” to Paris and Berlin……but the Democrats are filled with hate???
As for comparing Clinton hatred to Bush hatred, I can’t picture Michael Moore comparing his massive posterior to the face of Jenna or Barbara Bush the way Rush Limbaugh did to then 11-year-old Chelsea Clinton because of a disagreement over politics. I also can’t imagine Democratic columnists gloating for a week if Bush’s family dog got run over by a car. Again, can’t say the same about Republicans who were high-fiving each other after Clinton’s dog Buddy was killed.
Furthermore, I don’t believe most Democrats would hope for murderous terrorist attacks to be waged against those we disagree with. Even if no other conservatives want to see French and German civilians murdered by terrorists, you and Laurence Simon do. The day after you spew such bloodthirsty hatred, it’s generally not a good idea to lecture others about the need for civil dissent. The saddest part about conservatives is that they don’t even know when they’re being hypocrites. Just to let you know, now is one of those times when you’re being one.
Again, I realize that the concept of sarcasm is completely lost to you, but you’ve proven my point anyway. The Democrats are more concerned with chickenshit political pissing matches about how a bunch of Freepers making fun of a dead dog is the equivalent of equating someone to Hitler while Islamofascists are beheading Americans.
The complete lack of perspective demonstrated by the Democrats is simply appalling.
Hateful remarks by Republicans are merely “sarcasm” while hateful remarks by Democrats are simply vicious, mean, cruel and vitriolic. Anyone who isn’t a partisan GOP stooge isn’t gonna swallow your infantile double standard.
Mark: There is no equivalent with conservatives making fun of Clinton’s daughter or his dog, and the Dems slandering our President, our wartime leaders, and our military in a time of war.
The left wing definitely is working in such a way as to make it more difficult for us to win the war on terror.
Mark: Another difference: the conservative offenses you cite are committed by private citizens: Rush, the freepers, etc.
With the loonie Democratic party left, so much of their hate and vitriol comes from party leaders and elected officials: a BIG difference.
It’s one thing for a private citizen radio commentator to make fun of someone’s daughter; it’s another for a US Senator or former Vice President to make statements accusing the President of nothing short of treason.
Let’s put it this way: you know Osama and the terrorists have to smile everytime they hear someone like Kerry or Ted Kennedy or Al Gore speak, because they too often follow the same talking points.
There is no doubt that the terrorists want Kerry to win, and fear a Bush reelection.
That is all one needs to know.
Another Thought, please cite an example where a Democrat has “slandered” George Bush. As for who the terrorists want to win, I can actually envision Bush-Cheney ’04 signs plastered all over the walls of al-Qaida headquarters. Here’s an administration that in just two years has redirected world anger from the administrators of terror (al-Qaida) to the victims of terrorism (America) by waging jihad against a nation completely unconnected to the 9-11 attacks. Virtually everything Bush does swells the ranks of al-Qaida soldiers by the thousands, from his “Israel’s always right and you’re always wrong” Middle East policy to his connections to the oil industry and the war profiteering of one of the corporations Bush and Cheney are most closely connected to. Furthermore, Bush is not only pushing the Arab world into the al-Qaida worldview, he’s managed to turn our former allies against us in the process.
Granted, John Kerry is operating on a “ditto to what Bush said” foreign policy platform and, if he follows through with his campaign rhetoric, will not be much different. Even so, the terrorists have a known commodity in the Bush administration that is making their lives easier by the day. I guess we’ll know for sure if a terrorist plot is either squelched or carried out this October. Al-Qaida certainly knows that a terrorist attack against America before an election would result in a Bush landslide. Perhaps if they quit all attack plans between now and November, then they’re rooting for Kerry in the election, but what was that John Ashcroft was warning about just a couple weeks ago…..
The left wing definitely is working in such a way as to make it more difficult for us to win the war on terror.
Oh, really? What are we doing, exactly?
I really thought it was Bush’s plan to anatagonize young, already-angry Muslims so that they join up with Al-Qaeda in record numbers that was making it harder to win the war on terror. You know, and these constant political cock-ups that make us look even worse than Saddamn in the Arab press. Terrorsts love Bush. He’s swelled their ranks with angry men itching to die for their religion.
Compared to all that, you think that people making fun of Bush is what’s making it harder to win the war on terror? You conservatives live in a dream world. Isn’t it about time, people, that we just stopped pretending like Republicans know how to govern?
Well, I know how we can end terrorism right away. Let’s just enact shari’a and al-Qaeda will never attack us again!
In all seriousness, the argument that fighting terrorism create more terrorists is bunk. Did fighting Nazi Germany create more Nazis? Did the defeat of Imperial Japan unleash a wave of kamikaze attacks on the US?
The only way to defeat terrorism is to defeat it, not pussyfoot around. Al-Qaeda is one symptom of the larger sickness: the cultural failure of the Arab world to adapt to modernity, which is causing the Arab world to fracture in places like Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Unless we support the cause of reform, terrorism will increase dramatically.
We’ve already seen 2/3rds of al-Qaeda’s leadership killed or captured. The heads of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia and Algeria have been killed just this week. al-Qaeda has turned from trying to attack the west to trying to destabilize Saudi Arabia and manipulate the world oil markets.
The only way we can end this war is to win, and the Democrats care more for winning the election than they do for winning the war.
Two days in a row, you’ve opened mouth and inserted foot. Just yesterday, you tried to lecture me on recognizing sarcasm in Laurence Simon’s rant about the need for more terrorism waged against French and German civilians. Moments later, Mr. Simon responds that he wasn’t being sarcastic and actually does want more terrorists waged against Europeans. Result: Jay Reding has a faceful of egg.
Today, you assert that it’s ridiculous that a war against terrorism can produce more terrorism. Your timing has once again proven to be self-defeating, as today’s headlines are splattered with the news that terrorism is actually on the rise, contradicting erroneous figures from the Bush administration (imagine that!!!!). Don’t the flies bother you with all the egg on your face? 🙂
Again, did the war against Nazism produce more Nazis?
Did the war against Japanese aggression produce more kamikazis?
Did the Civil War produce more Confederates?
Arguing that fighting terrorism creates more terrorism and appeasing terrorists reduces it is an asinine argument that goes against basic common sense. The bin Ladens of the world know that if they can just get America to retreat from Iraq like they did from Somalia they will have one, and the Marks of the world play right into his hands.
Maybe for those aboard the SpaceShipOne you were writing about yesterday, it’s possible to create your own reality and get away with it. Perhaps as one gallavants the galaxy, there really are new dimensions that can be warped into where facts merely are distractions from one’s pre-conceived worldview. In the meantime, for those of us still on Planet Earth and who can master the 1 + 1 + 1 functions on our calculators, the number of terrorist attacks has risen since the War on Terrorism began. I’m not suggesting the War on Terrorism isn’t necessary (although I am suggesting the war in Iraq isn’t), but at least the short-term effect has been an increase in terrorism and every report indicates that al-Qaida recruitment is exploding in the Arab world.
It’s also ironic how you guys insist this is a “new kind of war” that defies comparison to historical context. Nothing in the history books can prepare us for this epic struggle against terrorism, you repeatedly insist. Yet what do you use in a feeble attempt to discredit the facts presented by myself and today’s headlines about terrorism increasing following the War on Terrorism?? Throw history books in my face! Considering this War on Terrorism is supposedly such a historical novelty that defies comparison, it’s a little curious how you immediately feed from the trough of World War II analogies to try to swim against the current of facts overwhelming you.
No, I have never said that. In fact, I’ve said quite the opposite, that while the methods of this war will be different, it’s no substantively different than the war against Nazism or Soviet Communism – a world war that requires multiple fronts and great cost.
So, you can either find a direct quotation where I said that, or you can leave. I’m not going to let you use this site as your personal soapbox to make wide-eyed rants and distort the facts.
“a world war that requires multiple fronts and great cost.”
It will require multiple fronts and great costs, but it doesn’t have to be a war.
The comparison you are making with USSR/Germany/Southerners isn’t workig: terrorism is not a country Jay!!
As you can see in Iraq,the US have won te war (as Bush stated proudly in a pure Hollywoodian happy ending
style on the carrier), but now fighting guerilla/terrorism/urban war is not the same thing. The ennemy doesn’t have a head but hundreds. And guess what, we can find the same problem in the occupied territories=>these people are willing to die for their cause. The reason for this “weird” behavior is that this is their only chance of survival.
The only way to end this violence is to help them to live another hope instead of a wall of threats.
In fact, I’ve said quite the opposite, that while the methods of this war will be different, it’s no substantively different than the war against Nazism or Soviet Communism – a world war that requires multiple fronts and great cost.
This is the stupidest thing I’ve heard you say yet.
You can’t have “fronts” in a guerilla war, Jay. Jesus. The primary strategy of the other side is to avoid having fronts at all costs. They attack soft targets. They’re not interested in taking territory, they’re interested in spectacle.
Terrorists aren’t trying to seize the fucking capital, Jay. They’re trying to influence foreign policy and public opinion. It’s like a kind of advertising where you kill people.
There are no fronts in the war on terror. It’s a social problem. You can’t just fucking march into Terror Capital and make them surrender.
This isn’t like any war we’ve ever fought, Jay. This isn’t like battling Nazis. You can assert that fighting terror doesn’t cause more terrorists, but the numbers prove you wrong.
God damn, Jay. Move into the real world, you know, the one where folks are being killed by terrorists.
The war on terrorism is a PC euphemism for the war on Islamofascism. It is an absolutist ideology along the same lines as Nazism and fascism. The only way to defeat such an ideology is to utterly discredit it – the same way Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany was defeated.
The terrorists divide the world into Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb, the House of Submission and the House of War. Their goals are the same as any other expansionist ideology – only the methods are different.
Read Sayyid Qutb or any of bin Laden’s speeches. They make it quite clear that the ulimate goal is to have the world either adopt shari’a or die.
The biggest difference between this war and the last world war is that we have a minority of Americans who don’t particularly seem to care if the West loses.
The only way to defeat such an ideology is to utterly discredit it – the same way Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany was defeated.
What history books are you reading?
We didn’t defeat the Axis powers by “discrediting” them. We defeated them by marching in and taking their capital, and smashing their war manufacturing to pieces.
How do you think that’s going to work against Islamofascism, when the manufacturing centers are the hearts and minds of Arabs, and the capital cities are every small Arab villiage?
Your view is naieve, at best – and a criminal abdication of sense at worst. We’ve never fought a war like this before and it’s dangerously stupid to suggest that the tactics that worked in a battle between manufacturing superpowers are going to apply at all to the ultimate in asymmetric warfare.