Why the surge is a failure

McCain listening to a National Intelligence Estimate

“Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject, as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is their interest to go to war.  Were the money which it has cost to gain, at the close of a long war, a little town, or a little territory, the right to cut wood here, or to catch fish there, expended in improving what they already possess, in making roads, opening rivers, building ports, improving the arts, and finding employment for their idle poor, it would render them much stronger, much wealthier and happier.  This I hope will be our wisdom.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Man will not be brought up with the savage idea of considering his species as his enemy, because the accident of birth gave the individuals existence in countries distinguished by different names.” – Thomas Paine

John McCain likes to let everyone know that he “supported the surge and the surge worked.”  “The surge” refers to increased troop levels in Iraq last year.  Large-scale terrorist attacks in Iraq have decreased since the surge began.  McCain sees this as a great success, and would like voters to see it the same way.  The ploy may work, but if McCain is not out of step with Americans regarding foreign policy goals, he is certainly circumventing logic.

The surge can only be called a success relatively.  There are less Americans dying in Iraq now than there were before the surge, but Americans are still dying in Iraq.  To apply McCain’s logic to a less heated subject: If trees fell through four of McCain’s homes last winter, but with some landscape alterations, only two homes fell victim to timber this winter, McCain will call this winter’s tree-in-home situation a great success.  Relatively, this is true, but anyone with eyes will see idiocy in a man who calls the destruction of his own property a success.  While there is success relatively, we are ultimately still talking about failure.

The Iraq War issue boils down to a couple of questions that the American people must ask themselves.  First, what is the goal of U.S. foreign policy?  If it is national security, then the United States can leave Iraq right away.  We know Iraq was never a threat to U.S. national security, nor was it a sponsor of terrorism against the United States.  Secondly, what is worth the life of an American soldier?  I believe–and I don’t think I’m too presumptuous in saying most Americans would agree–that no American soldier should die in combat unless it is absolutely necessary for the protection of national security.  The knowledge that the Iraq War has nothing to do with our national security, along with my belief that soldiers should not die for reasons unrelated to national security, warrant only one logical conclusion: The death of a single American soldier in Iraq is a tremendous foreign policy failure, outweighing any relative “successes” (i.e., the surge) claimed by Cheney, Bush, McCain, Obama, or anyone else.

To say “the surge worked” with any honesty, our foreign policy goals are necessarily something other than our national security (i.e., nation-building, or resource confiscation).  However, if national security is our foreign policy goal, and one more American soldier dies in Iraq, the surge was a failure.

The Iraq War, in the tradition of Jonathan Swift

Iraqi prisoners

Before reading:

Read Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”. This will help you understand the title and the tone.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/modest.html
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFptybbietQ
Intellectuals will understand the nature of this piece without explanation, and those readers who do not will find themselves inspired to defend the Iraqi people, which the media has taught them are subhuman.
It is satirical.  It is supposed to be disgusting.  My aim is to help the disgusted American reader, by forcing the reader to view Iraqis as humans, which is what they are.

The fundamentalist factions of Islam and Christianity have such similar social goals regarding women, substances, arts, sciences, and sex, that I have often wondered why the two don’t join forces against socially liberal ideas. These factions are almost invariably better armed and more passionate than liberals, and could together defeat and rule their pusillanimous counterparts within weeks. Instead of joining forces, however, they have become brothers at arms, and because the Christian faction “represents” my nation, I submit a modest proposal, hoping it will teach U.S. rulers how to maximize the economic productivity of their otherwise wasteful war (beyond the apparent strategy of stealing oil).

By some counts, our war has extinguished more than one million souls in Iraq, many of them young and–aside from bullet and/or blast wounds–relatively healthy. A show of hands reveals that many of the million dead terrorists (or terrorist sympathizers) have suffered severed limbs or crushed skulls, but that a large percentage of their torsos remain intact.

Let us modestly assume that–subtracting infants, the aged, and the unusable–we have produced 300,000 employable human torsos in Iraq, and we have let them all decay to waste. This is tragic when we consider that many die on transplant waiting lists in the United States each year, and that there are only 107,213 Americans on all such lists today. To the list registrants and their families, there can be no sufficient reason why the bodies of our enemies should not have been harvested for useful organs. We know our enemies are evil, but we are well aware that the corruption resides in their minds–not in their hearts, livers, lungs or kidneys–so let us use their organs productively.

We know that many of those who die waiting for transplants are waiting for new livers. This is where our habit of killing Islamofascists in defense of freedom will be uniquely helpful. The backward people of the Islamic world are discouraged from consuming alcohol, and have outlawed its use in many places, which makes their livers pristine replacements for those of good, freedom-loving, beer-drinking Americans.

Many liberals–and even some weak-hearted conservative Americans–are saddened by the innocent-looking eyes of Iraqi children, but I assure you, we should feel no remorse for the children we have incidentally killed. First, we must face the reality that the people we are fighting are peculiarly wicked and–even as children–believe that freedom-loving people deserve death. Moreover, I understand that the children will be very useful to us (given that they are dead). There are certain areas of the body in which a transplant from a child is preferable to one from an adult. Corneal transplants are a perfect example.

Given that our toll of useful corpses nearly triples our conventional need for them, and that we have been assured, “my friends, there will be more wars,” it is only appropriate–for the sake of production–that some unconventional uses for dead terrorists (or terrorist sympathizers) be explored.

For example: intestine. Of the 107,213 on the organ transplant waiting list, only 236 are waiting for intestine, which naturally brings us to wonder what is to be done with all of the extra gut. Gut has a variety of productive uses, and its excess promises to be of great use to American society. It can be fashioned into a tough string for musical instruments or tennis racquets. It is a source of rennet, which is used for the production of cheese. It can be used to case sausages. With all the possible uses of gut employed, we will be able to minimize the waste of Islamic intestine.

The use of human remains is not my area of expertise, and I hope and trust it never will be, but I am sure our government’s scientists will find a number of uses–known and yet unknown–for leftover Iraqi flesh. This new resource will be undoubtedly welcomed by the struggling United States economy.

The management of the war has also given us overseas prisons filled with terrorists. Of such prisons and their occupants, we are told, “my friends, there are some bad people down there,” and this is undoubtedly true. If the people in our government’s secret prisons were not obviously guilty terrorists, they would never have been arrested and detained by our benevolent military forces.

Currently, the scoundrels in our overseas prisons are a drain on the American economy, but this effect can be reversed. Because we know that their cases will never be formally tried, and that they will remain in these prisons indefinitely, we are fools to let them age wastefully. They are terrorists. They are guilty. They are fanatics. They cannot be rehabilitated. They are not getting out, ever. They are, for all intents and purposes, already dead. It is torturous beyond measure for a person to live endlessly in confinement this way, so it is with the utmost mercy that we should kill them humanely, and harvest their remains. This is the only way for them to become productive members (or–pardoning the pun–dismembers) of society. Because of their religious beliefs, a number of them are begging for death, so I am merely suggesting that we fulfill their requests.

Given our economic strife, and the necessity for our war despite its hefty price tag (not to mention the irrefutable sense of what I have proposed), there can be little doubt that these suggestions will be taken into serious consideration by our elected deciders in Washington. I believe, through sincere reason and revelation, that the measures I have proposed will help the United States win its war against evil, and thus they will help ensure that good people always prevail.

Unjust war: are passive Americans responsible?

Feeling guilty forever

“A policy of overthrowing or destabilizing every regime our government dislikes is no strategy at all, unless our goal is international chaos and domestic impoverishment.” – Ron Paul

I received a good question about a post in which I asserted, “those who henceforth perpetuate the lie that the surge is working are war criminals, and perpetrate crimes against humanity, by extending an illegal, unjust, and murderous war through known falsities.” Bold, I know. When I said it, I was thinking of government officials, but a layperson would also take it personally.

The thought-provoking question was essentially this: how can a person be called a war criminal if they have only claimed that “the surge is working”? The following is my attempt to answer that question.

You are not a war criminal in the legal sense, and should certainly not be held accountable as such. But there have certainly been what natural law would consider crimes perpetrated in the war with Iraq. Let us say, hypothetically, that time proves me correct in my belief that this war is unjust. I suggest that we do not have to be prosecuted for a crime to feel guilt for having aided in it. I also suggest that those who support the Iraq war (even passively), may in the future feel some guilt for having done so, assuming they have the capacity for honest reflection. Did passive German citizens not feel guilt after WWII, even though they accepted the Nazi claim that they were fighting to save Western civilization prior to the war’s end? Even some of the finest philosophers and scientists in the world fell for, and sometimes even contributed to, the aggrandizement of Nazi empire. The same could be said of British imperialism. Are not all empires (even unacknowledged ones–in our era no one calls oneself a fascist or imperialist) eventually humiliated, and forced by nature to admit their arrogances and poor judgments?

“We are fighting for freedom against a dangerous enemy”, “the surge is working”, “support our troops”, “let the generals decide”, “it’s a complex region”, “there would be chaos if we leave”, “we are winning”, “let the troops win”, “we are at war with Islamo-fascism”, “be patriotic”, “don’t blame America”–all are comforting phrases intended to stifle dissent against the Executive and destroy critical thinking in America, but when we research them, we find that few of them are backed by substance. Because the war is impossible to justify, the President has bombarded the people with mystery, nationalism, irrationality and fear, because reason cannot argue in favor of falsehood. The American people, starved for leaders and clarity, have been subjected to rulers and ambiguity. They deserve better than the empty slogans that lead this stanza, and, appallingly, no one in the media seems to be taking responsibility for providing them with the truth.

As far as my philosophy on this war is concerned, I agree with what Gandhi wrote: “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”

I believe the threat posed to our security by Iraq was certainly overstated, if not fabricated. I am opposed to war without just cause. I consider the acceptance of aggressive war to be an assertion that murder and plunder are legal if a legitimate government commits them. The reality is, any government that engages in aggressive, unjust war becomes illegitimate in doing so. Moreover, I see our presence in the Middle East as only adding to the grievances that terrorists use against us to convince suicide bombers that their mission is worthy. Take away the U.S. presence in the Middle East, and terrorists would likely turn their efforts against the dictators that are the true cause of their wretchedness.

Iraqis have a voice, “but nobody listened.” Will you?

We have committed the invasion.

I have written a book; and if it cannot be refuted, it cannot be condemned. But I do not consider the prosecution as particularly leveled against me, but against the general right, or the right of every man, of investigating systems and principles of government, and showing their several excellencies or defects.” – Thomas Paine

Don’t share this with anyone allergic to truth. I have recently seen testimony that is–shocking is not the right word–horrifying. The official story we have been told about Iraq is a lie so big (though some leader, perhaps modeling for our own, once noted that people are more apt to believe a big lie than a small one), that I fear American heads will roll as a result of its telling, and perhaps justly. The big lie has officially lost legitimacy, and can now only be perpetuated through force. God bless America.

Iraqi leaders have been allowed to talk to members of Congress on CSPAN, and it should well ruin the war propaganda campaign that the Clinton and Bush Administrations, in conjunction with mainstream U.S. media (yes this includes “conservative” talk show hosts), have been orchestrating against the American and Iraqi people for the past decade. What the Iraqis are revealing, to the horror of Americans who have tuned in:

  • “The surge is working” is a lie, and always has been. Anyone who uses this phrase after the revelations of 06.04.08 is either a contemporary or a follower of Goebbels, and should be prosecuted for sedition or libel, before their efforts pave in America, a short road to Nazi Germany. Those who henceforth perpetuate the lie that the surge is working are war criminals, and perpetrate crimes against humanity, by extending an illegal, unjust and murderous war through known falsities.
  • Iraq is undeniably capable of defending itself without U.S. military aid, and has been for some time.
  • The U.S. is not defending Iraq from Iranian invasion.
  • Iraqis would rather have Saddam Hussein than what America has “given” them.
  • Most Iraqis want American forces to withdraw.
  • Continued presence of American troops in Iraq will increase the size and strength of terrorist militias there.

If we believe it too radical to suggest that the people of a nation should govern themselves, if we believe that our distant and uninformed (if not misinformed) opinions will serve the Iraqi people better than their knowledge and experience can serve themselves, if we lack (or unpardonably disregard) the God-given virtues of humility and compassion that the Scripture commands us in all of our affairs to employ, and if we disdain our own blessings so severely that we might arrogantly idolize ourselves as Rulers of the Universe, then we will care very little for what the Iraqi people think of our presence in their country.

As American republicans and good people, what I have described in the preceding stanza is not our condition, but if it were, we could rightly call ourselves evil, and if unrepentant, we would certainly deserve Hell, presuming its existence. If our intentions in Iraq are good, we must seek to remove all ambiguity from our understanding of the conflict, because, as a selfish but quotable man once wrote, “the consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity.” A selfless and more quotable man expressed as much in fewer words: “mystery is the antagonist of truth.” And I’m told a wise chimpanzee shared a banana. With that in mind, I leave you to the material at hand, with this advice in closing: seek truth, remove ambiguity, remain conscious of good intentions, eliminate mystery, and most importantly, share your bananas.

Why hasn’t the media been telling us that these tan-colored, robed creatures in Iraq are capable of rational thought? I feel misled, for I almost believed Iraqis were little more than cackling orangutans with bombs strapped to their torsos. Apparently this Iraq War thing Americans have been watching almost as attentively as they watched season six of Survivor–Iraqis actually care about it for some reason. You would think the Iraq War actually affected their lives. Go figure. Maybe it does. Who knows? Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to see what these surprisingly rational residents of Mess-o-potamia are saying, and I have compiled some video and quotes from my worldwide web travels.

Some quotes from a prominent Iraqi Shiite leader and a prominent Iraqi Sunni leader, sitting side by side in the Capitol Building in Washington:

“I just would like to assert that Iraq is capable to defend itself.” – Dr. Nadeem Al-Jaberi, Iraqi Parliament

“The majority of the people of Iraq are for the withdrawal, perhaps even about 70 percent.” – Dr. Nadeem Al-Jaberi, Iraqi Parliament

“The [American] Embassy in Iraq has an incredibly large amount of staff. It is certainly larger than the diplomatic mission for which it has arrived. I have information that there may be about three-thousand employees, and there certainly is another view than the one that we see … From the principle of reciprocity, would it be appropriate for the Iraqis to establish a three-thousand employee embassy in Washington?” – Dr. Nadeem Al-Jaberi, Iraqi Parliament

“There definitely is a resentment for the presence of [U.S.] military bases.” – Dr. Nadeem Al-Jaberi, Iraqi Parliament

“I would prefer if it [the invasion of Iraq] didn’t happen, because it led to the destruction of the country. The U.S. got rid of one person. It put in hundreds of persons that are worse than Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately, now Iran is going into Iraq, and this is under the umbrella of the United States.” – Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, Iraqi Parliament

“Increasing the number of forces [a.k.a., the troop surge] didn’t affect the level of violence in Iraq. What led to the reduction of terrorism acts and violence was the forces of … those volunteers from the tribes of the areas where terrorists are more, and those forces managed to eliminate the terrorists, because they know them, and they know their tactics. We suggested that a long time ago for our government and for the American government, but nobody listened. I believe that the reduction of the level of violence is due mainly to the efforts of the volunteers. I believe the thing that will reduce the violence more–not a military force–but having realistic solutions to convince others to join the political process. I believe the best method to achieve that is a real national reconciliation, not only slogans, as is being done now.” – Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, Iraqi Parliament

“Many of the armed militias were established in order to fight the presence of foreign troops on their land, so their justification is to liberate Iraq from the foreign troops, so as soon as the troops have withdrawn, they have no more justification to exist, because it doesn’t make sense for them to start killing their own compatriots. It is my belief that when the troops withdraw, these groups will not bear arms any longer. And for as long as we have foreign troops on our land, these groups will actually increase in number…the presence of foreign troops is actually serving these groups. In the case of a withdrawal, we can rehabilitate them so that they can become civilians, and then include them in the democratic process in Iraq.” – Dr. Nadeem Al-Jaberi, Iraqi Parliament

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXelUuw4nWk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3eQVVe-dH0

Government submits to God, who wants to leave us alone

God at his computer.

This story is, of course, fictional.  If you see this headline in the newspaper tomorrow morning, you will need to pinch yourself–and if that does not wake you–realize that you have in fact died and gone to heaven.  As I imagine it, there are no tax collectors in heaven.  Upon entry into heaven, I could pick up the Times and read the following:

Today God announced major cutbacks in everything government. 

God called for an immediate end to all hostilities in Iraq, and condemned George W. Bush for lying to His people and killing His children without just cause.  “You’ll burn in hell for this,” God ordained matter-of-factly, in an unusually calm damning ceremony.  Taking questions after the announcement, God explained the departure from the usual thunderbolt display.  “Our traditional ceremony was a little over the top, and we’re trying to cut expenditures in these ceremonies anyway.  After the Falwell incident, I don’t really trust the lightning machine anymore–he wasn’t supposed to burn until he actually got to Hell.  I am not one to deprive Lucifer of his fun, but I am told he has still had plenty of it with Falwell.”  He then belted maniacal laughter for over three minutes.

God’s announcement expectedly drew some disfavor from President Bush, who backwardly believed he was doing God’s work.  “But God–” he started to say, but The All-Knowing knew what was coming and responded before Bush could finish.  “I do my own work, thank you,” God thundered.  “Love thy neighbor.  It’s simple, really.  Why couldn’t you just do it?  Jesus!”

The military will be mostly dissolved by mid-year, much to the dismay of the military industry.  Sources tell us that one CEO was particularly opposed to God’s will.  God quieted his argument, saying, “I never intended for you people to go around killing one another because of your petty arguments about me.  I’m going to let you keep fire and subsequent technological advancements.  Don’t push your luck with this fighting fetish you’ve developed.”

God called for the immediate dissolution of the CIA, FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and all government secrecy.  He said His “reasoning here is simple: if people really want to be free, information must be free to them.  Besides, there is no reason for a good government to have secrets.  Good governments do not need protection, because people find no fault in them worth attacking.  If anything is going to be mysterious in this world, it’s going to be Me.”

No more personal taxes or tax identification numbers.  God seemed particularly frustrated by these human measures.  “I don’t know what nation is before me now, when I look at these income taxes,” God offered.  “Soviet Russia? Nazi Germany? Oceania?  Certainly not one nation, under Me, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  There’s no liberty in assigning everyone a number and staking claim to their labor–it’s as if you’ve modeled your society after Hell.”

God ended drug laws as well, and allowed all non-violent drug offenders to leave prison.  He called for a cutback of over 85% of the nation’s local police forces.  “You’ve got a lot of nerve,” He reprimanded Congress.  “Do you think I put cannabis on this planet so that you could spend your days trying to destroy it?  It’s not going away.  I put it here for your enjoyment.  Don’t tell people what they are allowed to do with what I put here.  I ought to damn you all to Hell for this!  As I look around, you’re all headed there anyway–oh, except for you, Dr. Paul of Texas: the Lot of Washington D.C.  What’s that, Ron?  Alright, you can bring Duncan along too.  No, Kucinich burns with the rest of them!  Alright, you may rescue Barney Frank from damnation as well, as we cannot fault the mentally handicapped.”

In perhaps related news, the Federal Reserve Board has disappeared.  No one can find any of them anywhere.  God did not explain where they went, but did say they will not be back.  “Gold and silver will always back the currency, to protect My people’s savings from confiscation.  The market, which I created, will determine rates of interest.”

To cap off His day of governing, God smote Mike Huckabee.  “Huckabee is a false idol,” decreed God, “almost as bad as the pope.”  The Almighty went on to relate Huckabee to the ancient Golden Calf, and his followers to ancient pagans because of their lack of respect for what God called “civic virtue.”

Fear is Tyranny was able to catch up with God during an evening prayer session.  We asked Him if He was done with governing for awhile.  “Absolutely not,” He said, “this is just the first day.  I’ve got five more to go before I rest.  My motivation here is very basic and has never changed: I gave people the capacity to think so that they might use it to guide themselves, and I am simply taking steps to encourage individual thought.”  Pray for similar results tomorrow.

Let me get this straight, neoconservative freak

A continuation of my education of the neocon: 

Let me get this straight. You think a tall slender man in the mountains of Central Asia is orchestrating the end of American freedoms. Okay. Assuming that true, we must also admit that Bin Laden has received help in this pursuit from the Bush administration. Are we not losing civil liberties because of Bush’s fear of Osama Bin Laden? Bush and Bin Laden: working together against American freedoms.

I did not mention personal responsibility, but I really don’t see how “the absence of government coercion” can exist without personal responsibility. Personal responsibility should be an assumption in America. There is no need for a nanny state. Also, you forgot the definition of the word “liberal.” I dislike progressives and socialists–not liberals, but liberals gone wild, progressives who seek to correct past grievances by creating more of them (like affirmative action or welfare) in the opposite direction, i.e., Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or just about every Democrat politician. This is why I can’t vote Democrat-because they are not really “liberals” but progressives and socialists. They pay lip service to liberty to get the anti-war and anti-surveillance state vote. The grocery list of complaints belongs to these people, but I can claim none of them–I would request earplugs if I had to spend more than a few moments listening to whatever crap the media has told them to worry about lately. True, they share my discontent with the war, but they have no idea why. I dislike unjust war. They just dislike war.

My guide is nature. “My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.” My common ideal is individualism–the belief that a human is a human, and should be free from government-forced collective ideals. Individual freedoms used to be a Republican Party stronghold. So did claiming that there is no need for the nanny state. Apparently the party now believes individual freedoms are not as important as some greater ideal (this is the opposite of the Reagan conservatism that carried Republicans to Congress in 1994). We have fallen into the trap of believing that, if we become a little bit more like the militants and totalitarians, it will be easier to beat them. But without liberty, what is America? Oh well, this year’s media-anointed Republican candidate is only the straw man anyway. His only hope of winning is if a terrorist attack occurs before the election (he can cross his fingers and hope).

It is unfortunate to read that even our most promising youth recite party ideals instead of practicing personal responsibility and thinking for themselves–that they mangle the meanings of simple words like “freedom” and “liberty,” and misfortune turns to fright on the realization that energy and aspiration are combining with falsehood. What falsehood, you may wonder. Only this: “Americans do not incite violence.” This is your opinion, and it will remain the same regardless of what the facts are. Perhaps you did not read the 9/11 Commission’s report. Perhaps you misunderstand human nature. Perhaps you misunderstand the historic social revelations of the 20th century. But you should understand that your ignorance (assuming not ill will) combines with your democratic influence to “plunder seas and ravage coasts,” and yes, incite violence.

In Iraq’s Diyala province, Specialist Jerry Ryen King wrote, “I thought it was pretty comical that I shot at a guy a long ways out but missed, and later after taking his house and using it as a patrol base, he offered me Chai and rice.” In the insanity of war, this does seem comical, but what if he King had not missed? Might the killing of a gentle, peaceful Iraqi incite violence from his friends, family, and countrymen? Might they even become associated with the dreaded Al-Qaeda? It makes some sense. Such, I realize, are the necessary realities of war, but they are also the reasons unnecessary wars should not be waged.

I would, if I could know the facts, give Bush credit for preventing the attacks since 9/11, but his government is so secretive that I cannot know whether his preventative measures have done much good. Has he saved 5,000 American lives to make up for the 5,000 he has sacrificed? Has he saved only a few? One can only wonder. Moreover, his solution to terrorism is like pulling the leaves off of a tremendous tree, only to see them multiply faster than he can remove them. In order to down the beast, we must lay the axe to the root, and he seems quite unaware of that simple truth. He seems not to even know the root of terrorism-why in the early 1990s Osama Bin Laden and his contemporaries began professing their hatred for America. If the President does know these reasons, he is careful to ignore them and focus on “democracy,” the esteemed political process that gave the coercive powers of government to Stalin, Hitler, Ahmedinejad, and Hamas. Democracy: not the solution. Constitution is the solution.

Your interpretation of Osama Bin Laden’s quote is reminiscent of National Socialist Germany’s claims about their enemies-at least they had the luxury of lying about nations with real military power–the American neoconservatives’ cause is much more difficult, because they are forced to try to convince our nation that an obscure figure living among mountain goats on the other side of the world is our greatest threat to national security. Maybe you forgot that Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia-nearly every nation we now blame for terrorism-also hated Osama Bin Laden before 9/11. Maybe you haven’t noticed the exponential increase in Al-Qaeda’s numbers since we went to Iraq. Indeed, everyone in the Middle East seems to be allied with Al-Qaeda now, when on September 11, their numbers were no more than a few hundred. How, on the battlefield, do we know they are Al-Qaeda? Quite simply, if they are dead, they are Al-Qaeda-excuse me, were Al-Qaeda. Maybe I don’t know the facts on the ground as well as you do, but I think it noteworthy that more troops (who know the situation better than both of us) donated to Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign than to all the other campaigns combined, Democrat and Republican. They must be confused about what is going on in Iraq, right? Perhaps they are only victims of their unfortunate oath to the Constitution-those poor misguided young souls who promised to defend something that their Commander in Chief does not believe in. That’s alright. We showed the troops. They want Ron Paul as Commander? We’ll give them John McCain! May they fight in the Middle East for a hundred years, regardless of the situation on the ground!

It is the claim of the socialist, the fascist, the corporatist, the sycophant, the Democrat, and the Republican that the Constitution is antiquated. “They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong.” They often base this thinking on the fact that many of the framers owned slaves, as if that makes all of those men’s intellects repulsive. It has become too common in this country to disregard all of a man’s principles because of one of his practices, and view politicians as semi-gods, cowering in shock anytime they humanly misstep. I know you only mean well for your country, as nearly all do, but men of your nature, who believed in their country but not in constitutional liberty, were hung at Nuremburg despite their good intentions. If we choose to continue to ignore the Constitution even when we are aware of the results of our errors, the United States of America will soon be compelled to proclaim, in the words of the poet, “a long farewell to all my greatness.”

The response I got from the letter above was something along the lines of, “I don’t have time to think about all this.  I am busy with more important things.  I just want to be a career politician.  Leave me alone.  Please go back to not thinking, like the electorate is supposed to do.  Thank you, and don’t write again.”  If the author makes an attempt at public office, I will sell my condo to donate money to the other guy’s campaign.  I like to think politicians do not know that what they are doing is causing all sorts of problems for their country, but this guy is just an insensitive bastard.

Nationalists on the Right, Socialists on the Left, compromise for a planned economy with Muslims in concentration camps

The following was a response to the letter that appears below it, and I share as proof that neoconservatives are a little confused about reality–too much Fox News perhaps.  The writer of this rudimentary stream of consciousness–if it can be called that–is to remain anonymous.  I would not sacrifice a friend for a political disagreement, regardless of his obvious flaws.  My next entry will be a response to this.

Yes, you are crazy. While you may have a long grocery list of complaints, you seem to be ignoring one of the fundamental truths in life; True freedom, and true patriotism, begin with personal responsibility. Personal responsibility means carrying your share of the load. Think on this for some time before you launch into criticism of others. If every one of us did our part, there would be no need for a Nanny State. However, your laundry list is not linked together by any common ideals, except maybe that you poetically copied liberal talking points (which you also lamented, ironic no?). Personally, I find empty liberal rhetoric to be one of the most repulsive things in our society, if you want to attach values to personal interests.

Americans do not incite violence, but we sure do use it when attacked or when necessary. The deaths of our soldiers is very sad and unfortunate, but so would be the deaths of innocent Americans going about their business in any number of potential terrorist targets. If you are so logical, as you espouse in this letter, how can you not link the conflict in Iraq with the absence of terrorist attacks here, or even in Europe (not since London has there been a large attack). Also, being the true defender of freedom that you are, how do you fail to link the concept of personal responsibility into freedom. Whether or not you agree with invading Iraq, we did it. That cannot change. We must take responsibility and help the country rebuild. Please do not respond to this with the typical empty liberal smears about empire building, controlling the Iraqi government, etc, because we are blatantly doing none of that. We have reaped no huge “oil gains” from the war, and we are not telling Iraq how to run their country any more than we bargain with other world governments. We are providing security, both for Iraq to rebuild, and for ourselves.

Further, you are preaching to the choir about the wastes of big government. Take your song and dance to someone who disagrees about high taxes, bad economic policy (in the whole Bear Stearns mess) if you want to enact change. But remember, change always begins at home.

“Iraq is the perfect stage for the start of Jihad” – Osama Bin Laden. Translated: if we win Iraq, the jihad rolls on.