Disagreement with policy is one thing; loyal Americans can disagree on policy, but those rejoicing in the tribulations of the US and crestfallen at its triumphs are, objectively, traitors.

Assorted dimwits trying to prove their cleverness by taking a knee-jerk contrarian stand adopt the form of traitors, but generally lack the intellect to do so with conviction. (Hollywood is chock-a-block with such.) A relatively small cadre of hard-core subversives manipulate the public opinion of legions of cognitively disenfranchised nitwits who yearn to strike a pose and be considered fashionable.

In the case of the former Shah of Iran and Musharaff, the ideology they resisted and are resisting is the ideology of islamofascism. Given the family relationships between fascism and communism, a mutual alliance based upon blood connections can be made. And has been made.

One often heard accussation from the Left is that fascism goes with Bush and the right wing nuts. Given the fact that the Left knows absolutely nothing about intimidation, assassination, executions, and so forth, it is very very unlikely that the Left can tell the difference between a Communist agenda for purging humanity of undesirables and a Fascist agenda for purging humanity of undesirables. Iranian mullahs are hot on gays, while Communists are hot on the rich. Just as Communists were behind the doors raking in the money, so are the followers of the Islamic Jihad having gay orgies behind closed doors.

I would recommend to anyone, except our enemies of course, that they rely NOT upon the Left’s judgement of groups that conduct operations using hard core violence. The Left is simply too sensitive to violence. They are no good at analyzing it, using it, or resisting it. Given that fascism and communism both used violence and the purging of undesirables, it is a toss up whether the Left is correct about Bush being a nazi or about the fascists being on the right, as opposed to standing right by the highest members in the Left.

As far as the difference between supporting one’s leader and supporting one’s nation, sometimes, if rarely, and on particular topics, there is no difference. For a group who adamantly opposes authority, the police, and the military, which selects and elects presidential families who call their protective services personnel “pigs”, and who work to undermine security networks, intelligence systems, and national secrets, both material and military, being called a traitor should be your honor. The only reason it isn’t, is because it would put you out with too many of your non-comrade fellows. At least, the ones who stay far enough away from politics and news not to know better. Traitor is a poor word to use, but it works, for now.

The idealist says yes in all cases – it’s democracy in action. The pragmatist says…maybe not.

And no, I’m not talking about the relatively minor things the Bush administration has done, presumably to increase security in America. I’ll call Bush a tyrant if he’s still in office in 2009. Otherwise, he’s just a highly controversial president.

Nobody says opposition to Bush means being a traitor. Being a traitor is hoping for and acting to bring about your country’s defeat in a war because of your opposition to Bush.

Xan can’t even prioritize the people that the US Constitution is supposed to preserve and protect, thus I am not very sure he knows terrorists from those that actually hunger for peace and prosperity.

And that, in the end, is why Murphy still rules.

The choice is between the desires of one man to hold on to power, and democracy and free elections.

When people value words on paper more than they value the people those words are designed to protect, you tend to get these kinds of sentiments and statements.

It is as if Xan and Company can simply proclaim democracy and free elections via words on paper, such as on the internet, and suddenly it will happen. Their objections to Iraq is solely the result of envy and jealousy that we would dare to try to win at democracy and free elections where the Left have utterly failed in. You don’t hear Xan talking about democracy and free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, after all. Like a double hulled ship, there are water tight compartments sealed off from other compartments in the ship. What happens to one doesn’t affect the other, so to speak.

Please explain to me how the situation in Pakistan, wherein a single dictator oppressed democratic reform is economic prosperity through power and security.

I’m not exactly sure that this would be a productive use of time. After all, even if I do explain things and you do understand my explanations, it still will not change your fundamental philosophical premises and assumptions. Only experience, the shock of psychological defeat or of actually seeing things for yourself, would ever be capable of changing a person’s philosophical beliefs.

Pakistan is still in play, whereas Iran has already finished the process. The Shan of Iran was in the business of stabilizing Iran and bringing Iran into the modern world, so that the youth of Iran would be educated in Western skills and processes that would remove Iran’s reliance upon Western technology and refining capabilities. This all ended when the Shah lacked the power, and the will what power he did have left, to stabilize his country.

Power and security are the fundamental bedrocks of economic prosperity. Without the knowledge that the roads are safe, that upheaval and turmoil are not going to suddenly erupt, and that one’s investments are safe from confiscation and war, then there is no such thing as “economic prosperity” for there would be economy to begin with.

Musharraf has too much power, and uses it to subvert democracy

Your idea of democracy, X, has nothing to do with the well being and best interests of the people in Pakistan. It sounds good, for sure, but that is all that it is good for.

What power he has he turns on in his democratic opposition, not the terrorists that are to us the justification for him staying in power.

The fact is that you would never, ever, support Musharraf in cracking down on terrorists, given the fact that any crackdown on terrorists would inevitably drag in innocent people. You don’t even like the Patriot Act, X. Don’t even try to kid us on this subject. So does it really matter who Musharaff cracks down on to you, when all you care about is the fact that Musharaff has used force which you have not authorized and violated civil liberties which you hold above the lives of good men and women?

We surely do, as you saw in the debates over Bosnia.

Certainly European whining and begging along with United Nations corruption and mercenary practices have power. Not enough though to make a difference in human progress, of course.

into propping up dictators who actually fail to serve our national security interests.

Since when did you care about national security interests, Mr. Uber Patriot, given that you called your opponents “nationalists”?

Cognitive dissonance here. What did I say about compartments… oh ya, a change in one does not affect the other. That is only true to a certain extent though. A flood in both watertight compartments will bring the ship down, X. So it is logical for you to try to rationalize why suddenly national security interests (security interests *scoff*) matter to you in any real sense of the term.

And I see that as in the United States, a traitor is defined by his/her opposition to the leader, not by his/her opposition to country.

Given that Bhutto tried to leech her “country” dry of wealth, I am not exactly what your point is.

Musharraf, the egalitarian! He “allowed” one of the opposition candidates back in the country, and she was-conveniently-nearly killed. And I see that as in the United States, a traitor is defined by his/her opposition to the leader, not by his/her opposition to country. And crushing dissent and democracy is a “spanking”! What was Burma then? Domestic abuse?

That’s silly. Please explain to me how the situation in Pakistan, wherein a single dictator oppressed democratic reform is economic prosperity through power and security. Musharraf has too much power, and uses it to subvert democracy. What power he has he turns on in his democratic opposition, not the terrorists that are to us the justification for him staying in power.

Liberals believe in power. We surely do, as you saw in the debates over Bosnia. But we don’t think a belief in the power of military force translates into propping up dictators who actually fail to serve our national security interests.

“More repressive than absolutely necessary.” What a delightful turn of phrase! One must note of course that the people Musharraf is oppressing are those who hunger for democracy and reform, not the terrorists, who are free to take-over more and more towns and villages in Western Pakistan.

…the choice in many countries seems to be between the Scylla of dictatorship and the Charybdis of anarchy—or worse.

Not in Pakistan. The choice is between the desires of one man to hold on to power, and democracy and free elections. As you may recall, Pakistanis at one time elected their government, and are probably qualified to do so again.