Obama vs. McCain: profiles in courage
Peter Wehner presents an absolutely devastating critique of Obama’s most visible foreign policy record, his position on Iraq.
It’s also the record of which Obama is most proud. But if one closely follows his shifting statements, it’s hard to conclude anything other than that Obama is an intensely political animal who changed positions based on what he thought would gain him votes, using no other internal compass.
Of course, this is hardly unique in the annals of politics. But if Obama wants to present himself as a profile in Iraqi courage—in his opposition to the war, that is—the record certainly contradicts him:
Obama….was opposed to doing anything about Iraq even when, like everyone else, he believed Saddam Hussein was a menace who was likely armed with weapons of mass destruction; became a supporter of the war after the fact and remained one even as things were going poorly; and morphed into an aggressive opponent again just as the prospects of an American victory began to brighten. If there is a consistency here, it would appear to be the consistency of one consistently divorced from the facts on the ground and, lately, almost hermetically sealed off from even the possibility of good news.
Read the whole thing for the details. It seems clear that Obama wants to focus on his early opposition to the war, to freeze time at that moment when he could be said to have had the foresight to see it was going to be difficult, because his later decisions on the war turn out to have been wrongheaded. In particular, he followed the party line of opposition to the surge, voted against funding the troops, and has attributed any post-surge improvement to the strangest (and most narcissistic) argument of all: that the Democratic Congressional victories in the US election of 2006 made the Iraqis realize time was running out on US involvement and they’d better clean up their act.
I could go on, but why bother, since Wehner has done such a good job for me. Suffice to say that Obama’s stance is not only not a profile in courage, it’s a profile in political expediency.
McCain presents a very different picture. In fact you might say his Iraq position has resembled a true profile in courage—that is, he has persisted in presenting a position based on consistent principles and perceptions, despite its extreme unpopularity. He was an almost Churchillian voice crying in the wilderness (the Churchill of the 1930’s, that is, widely regarded as a political has-been, warning about a growing problem that everyone wanted to ignore). Far from marching in lockstep with the Administration party line, he criticized the way the occupation was being handled, and hammered home the necessity to institute a new policy that turned out to resemble the surge that has been successful there.
McCain can rightly claim prescience, but he can also claim the guts to have taken an unpopular position because he thought it was right rather than politicially expedient. That it has turned out to be advantageous to his political aims is an accident of fate, and of judgment, because it certainly didn’t look that way at the time he first championed it.
McCain’s position was not merely to promote an increase in the number of troops, either. He was advocating something closely resembling the change in counterinsurgency tactics that has proven to be so important, as well.
One of Obama’s recent statements is especially telling. When he told Tim Russert of ABC that if, after he as President had engineered the quick withdrawal of American troops that he’s been promising, he finds that al Qaeda “is forming a base in Iraq,” he reserves the right to go back in. On hearing this, McCain rightly pointed out that al Qaeda is already there; that’s who we’re fighting. Obama made the odd rejoinder that they wouldn’t have been there in the first place but for the Iraq War.
Why “odd?” Well, Obama may be correct that a significant al Qaeda presence was only a postwar phenomenon. But it is irrelevant at this point. Whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place—although a still controversial and interesting topic—is not the issue at present. George Bush is not running for re-election, when last I heard. Obama wants to concentrate on that original decision because he thinks it was his finest hour.
However, it is most vital to focus on what should be done there now. Whoever becomes our next President does not get a do-over.
And in that respect, Obama’s policy is an absurdity and shows astoundingly bad judgment. It would be a perfect example of surrendering gains accomplished by the proverbial blood, sweat, and tears; of doing the very things most likely to guarantee that all those sacrifices would have been in vain and that if we were to go back in the task would have been made exponentially more difficult.
If Obama gets elected the jihadis will be firing into the air in celebration all over the world. Every tyrant, every kleptocrat, every terrorist will be filled with HOPE for CHANGE. Instead of hunting them down like dogs, fighting them, and making their lives short and miserable, he will “negotiate.” He will give them everything they want on a platter. Israel will suffer a new and more terrible wave of attacks, the brave people of Iraq who have fought and died for their own freedom will be abandoned to mass murder, and new tyrants and mass murderers will emerge grinning from the shadows because they know they can kill and oppress in safety.
This is what too many conservatives can’t seem to understand. I don’t really care if John McCain is going to raise my taxes. I don’t care if he has personally performed abortions or snatched a handgun away from a helpless old lady. Those are not the big problem of our time.
If we lose the war that Islam has declared on us, it won’t matter what the income tax rates are, or how various trivial culture-war issues get resolved. If we lose, those decisions won’t be ours anymore. They will be imposed on us.
Alarmist? Ask me again when France is a majority-Muslim state, when terrorist-sponsoring jihadi states with nuclear weapons control more than half the world’s energy supplies, and when democracy is in full retreat throughout the developing world because it has shown itself the weaker horse. Ask me at the end of Obama’s term in office, unless you’re one of the Americans who gets to experience first-hand what happens when radical Islam gets nuclear weapons.
Exactly. I would also like to know more about what Obama thinks of Hamas and Hezbollah. Does he define them as terrorist groups? Someone should ask him about that. Just to be clear; how else would you define groups that launch missiles toward civilian locations from civilian locations?
Krauthammer:
Krauthammer argues that transcending race does not equate to transcending ideology. I agree. I say Obama himself subtly encourages belief in this non sequitur which then becomes part of Obama’s false and brittle facade.
Shelbe Steele argues that Obama does not even transcend race:
I agree. Obama’s campaign is as much about race as it is about any other single thing, and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is that – insofar as his candidacy is allegedly not about race – Obama is a poseur. The first serious black candidacy must inevitably be partially about race. It cannnot help being so. To pretend otherwise is to erect another panel of Obama’s false and brittle facade.
And now fit in the subject of neo’s post: Obama’s antiwar speech of 2002; Obama’s continuing justification of his Iraq position(s) as evidence of the excellent judgement the nation desires in a POTUS. False. Again. Obama’s Iraq position(s) represent the poor judgement the nation does not desire in a POTUS. A third panel goes up on Obama’s false and brittle facade.
The great shattering of the brittle facade is coming. I know not when. If I had to, I would guess: sooner, rather than later. But maybe that’s the naive optimist in me.
Tri, I couldn’t agree more.
The good news is that the election is six months away, too long for charisma without substance to last. There are only so many times one can babble about “hope” and “change” before even leftist dimwits start to think, at which point Obama will take his rightful place alongside Ricky Martin (or, more appositely, George McGovern).
Meanwhile, the knife fight between the sexists and the racists in the Democratic Party continues, and will leave wounds that won’t heal, if ever, until long after the election.
Karma can be a bitch, even (especially?) for those given to identity politics.
Whats up with the MSM eerie silence on Obama the man?
Aren’t there laws against NOT yelling fire in a crowded theater thats on fire?
Obama is not a contender – he is a pretender, in both senses of this word from a dictionary. Political animals are dangerous: in time of serious crisis they come apart. That is what happened to the most awfull exemplar of this kind, Josef Stalin, who for three most decisive weeks after Hitlers invasion in USSR was in complete paralysis of will, while Nazi panzer division marched half way to Moscow and 4 million Russian solgiers were captured or surrounded. And I feel that storm is gathering, in year or two USA will be involved in a big war which will be impossible to avoid.
Occam’s Beard hits the nail on the head when he says that,
As the democrats continue their descent into the fetid swamp of identity politics, it will become more and more clear to any who are listening, that they offer no real hope or change. Even the likes of Paul Krugman are wondering if the left (i.e. the so called progressive movement) has lost its collective sanity. Already polls show McCain pulling ahead of both Hillary and Obama.
I suspect that unless folks on the center/right give into some irrational death wish of ethical/ideological purity and either; a) don’t vote or b) vote for a fringe party candidate, McCain will win this election, precisely because even the most politically dis-engaged recognize that he has something that both democrats lack, namely courage and conviction.
I was not a McCain supporter, but he is the presumptive candidate. Furthermore, I clearly see what the other side is offering. So while McCain is not my first choice, he towers above the other choices and there is too much at stake to set pragmatism aside in the name of ideological purity.
The fight within the democrat ranks has been brewing for a long time and can no longer be contained, hidden or denied. They are reaping the fruit of their leftist identity politics and it is becoming evident to everyone.
neo:
“McCain can rightly claim prescience, but he can also claim the guts to have taken an unpopular position because he thought it was right rather than politicially expedient.”
I’m sorry, but I had to throw up a little on reading that.
Martin:
“Exactly. I would also like to know more about what Obama thinks of Hamas and Hezbollah.”
I bet its more in line with what his “spiritual mentor” opines about the issue.
Why does Nader think he needs to run with Obama damn near the ticket?
Neo brought up some interesting links about McCain’s positions and thoughts about changing the strat in Iraq. I am still not fully convinced of McCain’s pre-Surge validity, because Petraeus and the people that actually produced the details and the work of victory, were not brought into play by McCain. The same article that spoke about McCain being asked by Bush pre Surge about his views, also mentioned that Petraeus was made known to Cheney and another visitor. Not McCain.
These kinds of inconsistencies need to be addressed before people claim the McCain Prescient argument. A bunch of Special Forces, I believe, would also be talking about “countering” the “insurgency”, but what matters is not that what you say about the war turns out to look correct afterwards when someone else has made it better. What matters is whether you get the details right. Most people can look at Iraq and read the confidential papers and say “we have to focus on countering the insurgency”. But that doesn’t mean they know how to do it. Nor that the details of their plans would actually be successful.
“…if, after he as President had engineered the quick withdrawal of American troops that he’s been promising, he finds that al Qaeda “is forming a base in Iraq,” he reserves the right to go back in.”
Some wag called that the “Run Away And Then Run Right Back In” strategy.
Fair point, Y, but I think the broader, more important point is that McCain stood firm in support of the war when many others were pulling their coats over their heads and running for the exits.
For that he gets full marks from me. I don’t care about his strategic/tactical contributions, or lack thereof; placing conviction before personal aggrandizement (as it then seemed) wins him huge chops from me.
Put another way, if the surge hadn’t worked, McCain would be toast right now, beyond question.
I think that in order to be an effective Commander-in-Chief you must understand life, human nature, and history very, very well. The details matter, not just some meta-narrative. Obama does not strike me as a person who has even begun to scratch the surface of these details. He’s a smooth Golden Tongue who never cut his teeth in a uniform of the United States military.
About John McCain, I would say that even he does not understand this enemy very well. The current President does not; nor does his Secretary of State. None of our elites have read Qur’an and Sunnah. Therefore, they do not understand this totalitarian ideology/cult that masques as a religion. This is an enemy that is commanded by Allah to be implacable. The best one can get from them is hudna.
The only thing that John McCain “gets” is the correct instinct of a commander: you yield nothing to an enemy. Do not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And you stand by your allies.
Remember South Vietnam in April of 1975. I was in the service then, and during this crisis I was at the home of a sergeant friend for dinner. His wife was Vietnamese and I will never forget the tears on her face as she watched the news about what was happening. She feared for her family and her friends. Al and I felt shame that we had abandoned an ally.
Obama’s out and in theory shows that he doesn’t know the first thing about what’s going on in Iraq. He doesn’t understand that the success of the counterinsurgency is based on the trust our troops have gained and that if we pull out and return we will not regain that trust. He really doesn’t seem to understand any of the underlying psychology of the terrorists, which makes him totally unqualified to wage a war of ideas.
Fred,
I tend to agree with you about McCain. There is something too reflexive about him, but at least he doesn’t hate his country and he will stand up for it.
I did get the feeling from some of his remarks that Romney made an effort to understand the enemy and knew the many dimensions of this war.
This is indirectly related to the topic today. Fox, Hannity & Colmes showed the Major Garret interview with B.O. this evening. B.O. “rejected” several “controversial” views of Rev. Wright, when confronted concerning them, acting “surprised”, saying he was unaware, and had not heard any of those things when he was in church. Almost simultaneously, he responded that Wright was more like an eccentric uncle who’s views embarass the family from time to time. Now, by curious coincidence Wright is “retiring” (from the limelight). B.O. lied straight into the camera. Unless his IQ is in the 80’s, there is no way someone with his experience, after a twenty year association, and who attended the “Trumpeter” awards ceremony for “minister” Farakhan, wouldn’t have known about Wright’s extreme and bizarre sermons and views… Between Madame Speaker, howlin Howie, the Clintons and the manchurian candidate, B.O. (this guy is incredibly immature to try that), the democrats have morphed into something truly dangerous…
This enemy is so irrational and alien that for any westerner it is hard to understand it. The abyss of Nazi cruelty also became more or less knowledgeable only after Hitler defeat, and islamists are even more alien. It will take decades to know them in full, and this knowledge will kill multiculturalist nonsense.
It is crucially important to define the ultimate goal of GWOT. Will it be world-wide democracy, as Bush hopes, or world-wide colonial empire? I tend to think that only latter is possible, while the former is a pipe dream. For many tribal non-nations even nationalhood is inherently impossible, and democracy is completely unimaginable. In some cases apartheid is the only practical solution, all other mean eternal terrorist war. This is a sad perspective, but now it seems the best outcome among lots of more awful.
Obama is a primary sociopath, hillary is a secondary sociopath. if you take a step back, you can see hillary progress from thinking at best she was up against a secondary, but she couldnt rattle his cage cause he has none. her cage can be rattled cause she supressed or disconnected it.
a short while before she started offering a team place, i said that was what she would do if they were sociopathic. because sociopaths crush competition once their power base is formed. once hill realized what he was she went bonkers realizing that if she doesnt win, he will make sure that she never ever gets a chance to run.
if you want to really think on whats going on, then what your watching is instincts vs reason.
instincts tell us this is a zero sum world. joe has a peach, we dont have a peach, joe will live and be stronger than us.
we no longer live in this zero sum world where ones choices mostly boil down to have and nothing with the outcomes sometimes getting to a hair width (or else some darwinian tunings arent possible, like appendix loss, and perhaps hair loss, though i subscribe to the ocean theory where we lived shorelines and spent a lot of time in the water as it is food rich and predator safe (comparatively))
obama has been pushed forward because he has no past. any choice you make, you choose sides and divide the ‘reality’ the group. this is why leftist groups actually are pretending to represent without choosing sides. it sounds like the great joiner, but its not. you have feminists for porn, and feminists against porn, as long as feminism pretends not to judge they get to have both sides under their power base. if you understand power games from the real side not what always gets spouted at us.
by doing this the ideology becomes meaningless and yet feels representative because it never chastises its constituency, and always chastises the other kid.
but dont confuse methodology with ideology. methodology is how it works, ideology is where they are working us to. everything in the think tank is structured by what can i say to get outcome.
no one cares what the dumb horse thinks as long as the horse moves the way they want. the horse is running too instinctual, so they no longer reason with the horse. they used to have to convince the horse as it was more centaur, but now they have to appeal to the horse. later when the horse no longer responds to appeal, they whip the horse becuase the horse is ruining their utopia, stealing heaven from them for not being what they thought it was.
[thats why most women divorce. their husbands arent what they thought they were. with broken families the norm, how can they have any realistic expectations when the press they read is leftist harriden central? a direct conduit to them from teen to woman. heck they were in bed with big tobacco, helping them define smoking as liberating. youve come a long way baby virginia slims. they militantly stormed the offices of redbook and harranged and abused the editor for 11 hours to get money and a column and force no choice in ideas]
sergey, your right. but these are the same pragmatic people you know. you know that they use the islamics to do their dirty work and know that in a world with no opposition, they can then exterminate who they want with malice and no reason to dally about it like the west.
democracy is completely unimaginable
well yeah. its mob rule. thats why the US is a republic, not a democracy. remember russia was the one that called itself a democracy all the time. even now it uses funny terms like sovereign democracy. and we dont get that it means feudal state over a mob?
obama will be ineffective because obama believes that socialism is ‘passed a phase’. he has read the nice ideas, he has not read the history and the dark tactics. like loostening up the economy to identify elite (hate spelling boug..), then purging them from the genetic mass like good farmers culling the herd for better stock later (which is why the advice is removing some groups, and causing indiscriminate mixing rather than uplifting mixing through better mate choice. everything a state does to help changes the appearance of the worlds landscape of bounty for the humans that perceive it. so they change behavior.)
(which is why i believe the older russians are not getting on the net at all. they are too used to not letting anyone know what they think. so things like facebook, blogs, etc are incredibly dangerous. if we change over here, all this writing will damn most people in some way).
Art, you are absolutelly right about old Russians. Those who lived under terroristic dictatorship are scared to death to reveal their thouhts and keep any contacts with foreigners, this is a life-long obsession.
Sergey,
I wish that i was wrong, or that they were wrong for thinking that way.
Nashi and things around it should have people noticing.
but its the problem with ‘mass’ culture of early keneysian reinforcment. they are the good sheep that just flip from thing to thing, not really knowing or understanding, but claming depth. they attack in arguments because they cant argue. with what? their history is corrupt and if two of them from two locations try to assert, they get different things wrong and end up not in tune as it was corrupted differently. and until they debate, they never check it.
the checka were formed from criminal sociopaths. and socialism, whether valid or not, is how and what they are using to change the older merit based status quo. which is why a majority of things that are changing favors sociopathic rule. this made even more so when this kind of deviousness is not allowed into the argument to be considered as even possible. (other than puirile wrong attacking assertions which of course use it without connecting it to real consideration)
i had a run in at another site of psych doctors. VERY scary. while i was not in my best form, i read the post which asserted why so many sociopaths in the US. but what was in the post was a feminist ideology warrior that claimed (but never gave refs), that she doesnt beleive what she learned when she was doing studies, and so is not teaching her ‘fun’ class, ‘everybody loves’.
i was pretty rough in response and yes i admit could come off unreasonable. but the other ‘doctors’ supposedly there to ‘help’ victims of psychopaths. were all getting it wrong based on all the stuff i have read (and lived. eventually, years after not being together she ended up taking my son with her when she decided to steal from a bank. the stories are to incredible to be believed. that and other incidents being poor growing up in the inner city also gives me first hand experience)
anyway. i was pointing out that the students didnt pay for an skewed biased education with a hidden agenda. explaining that this is why medical psychiatry is so important to political movements and so dangerous when the practitioners are ideology bound.
they went first to.. i dont understand him. yeah.. that way every dunce that shows up will say.. oh, ok.. but they are docs, even if i was incoherent they would ‘understand’ me on some level.
the point was that the ‘doc’ was describing either criminal psychopaths, borderlines, or best fitting antisocial disorder. not subclinical sociopathy.
i apologized and then they swarmed…
i tried to use a neutral, as if there could be one, example that they are defining world views and that people work in the framework of the world view that they create.
they went off that they have 6 years of school (which then told me that they were not phds). they were acting like mild sociopaths themselves. posing as greater than they were, in a position where they could do harm and have grandeur, protected by ideology to blame, wanted me to totally bow to their authority, when i showed weakness they piled on, when i showed merit, they censored the response and closed things.
they tried to say that my quotes from sanger were out of context…etc. a long list of stuff.
when i gave them links to MIT where they ahve a copy of sangers early books and literature and such from the negro project and her comments on aryan race… not in quote, but in complete full book context.
they deleted the posts and censored it, let the posts of doctors making me sound off, and thats it.
they probably didint like the fact i brought up anna politskya, and action 4, and all the history where their practice has a dark side. they are so blind that they do not know, want to know, or concieve that this is how that side got things in society to change, even if i showed them with GOOD references (i dont do tin hat).
they do not want to recognize what you and i both know too well sergey. that the others in this world have read the same text books and have written extensions that are for ulterior purposes.
like recognizing the fact that a politician is stuck argying false facts since the polity will not be rational. no matter how good and intended any one is, they have to argue at the level of the recipient, and so this reduces both sides to arguing on level/relative grounds. the stem cell argument is a great example. the point for the left was not the forwarding of science, and especially genetic science which is disproving things. but to establish a justification for the redistribution of the wealth of life from a fetus to an adult. it justifies and helps solidify and maintain the soft eugenics program.
i pointed out that for every 3 african babies 2 are aborted… that these offices are in these neighborhoods in much higher levels. that jesse jackson railed against it, till he entered the democratic party then went silent.
meanwhile the invisable hand worked again and stem cells are going to be made from other types and through understanding. by placing the obstical, we worked around it (as we always do when we are allowed), and that removed the necessity of fetal tissue, and that justification. which is why the left was not happy at the discoveries (and kind of why the issue is fading sort of).
the scary part is that this is the reason the old russians are the way they are. that they understand these games. right now its starting to take a more solid form. we are already violating ocnstitutional due process in psychiatric areas where persons can lose their rights for a short while, and have their world shocked (to the point of decimating their prior world view), for a couple of days to the power that could be directed at them if they continue to act or talk without right mind. thats why adorno attempted to create the false science of the authority mind… so that they could then use mental services to change to the pc line.
some scary stuff is happening out there, and we are past the point were they are nice enough that we are willing to notice. we are now at the point that there is this big looming thing that we just wish would go away and like a child we are hiding in our favorite spot during the fire.
neo
the occupation was being handled, and hammered home the necessity to institute a new policy that turned out to resemble the surge that has been successful there.
neo is it Iraq under ” occupation”?
according to an intreview with artical Surge architect: There is no U.S. occupation in Iraq!
In an enlightening debate this week on PBS’s NewsHour, AEI scholar and “surge” advocate Frederick Kagan made a curious assertion about the U.S. troop presence in Iraq:
Neo Is it ” the surge that has been successful there”?
In the critical, central goal of the surge, according to its architects and the president, was to create a space for Iraqi national reconciliation. It hasn’t happened:
Just reminder that Baghdad now Gated Communities, its much different from before the surge.
As one friend saying if he need to visit his mothers home which is 2km far from his home, there are 17 checkpoint some US and others Iraqi in his way!!
FredHjr
You smear very fishy, read Iraq’s Jihad Myths
forgot to mention a funny thing. sorry for all the space. i think and type fast.
if you watch rocky horror, and shock treatment you see the whole story laid out from the ‘franfurt’ school landing here pushing gender bending mind blowing future preying on the classic family unit.
shock treatment is the next step.. where the father figure brad is caged as a mental cripple, and janet and feminisms me of me hits the big time… as everyone in denton (our culture) lives their lives watching reality tv… the villian being farly flavors fabulas fastfood… the four fs, find em feel em f**k em and forget em… mass culture replacing classic culture. even the line that the change is reinforced by the medical community… and the state appears absentsia… not stopping any of it..
i keep promising to write up two deconstructions, and have done some long on the fly pieces, but its interesting.
thats revealing art… it resonates so peolple worshiped it… it made sense of what was happening to them even if they didnt realize it.
while shows like ANTZ are communist propaganda with the intent to indoctrinate kids, while getting parents to think its a spoof… you can even read the copy on the box and if you think one step farther you realize that the parents arent teaching the kids its a joke. and they plop them down and run them over and over and over… with the big beautiful eyes looking down more often than normal, like the cereal boxes in the aisles.
yes, there is a whole other side to psychology we dont seem to want to keep in mind.
“but these are the same pragmatic people you know. you know that they use the islamics to do their dirty work and know that in a world with no opposition, they can then exterminate who they want with malice and no reason to dally about it like the west.”
It does not really work that way. When I was an undergraduate at the University of New Hampshire (1978-82) there were a few dozen Iranians on campus who were not Muslim. They were socialists/Communists who had supported the revolution. After Khomeini came to power, he turned on them viciously, killing many, with many more going into exile. The Ummah’s jihad uses Leftists and then discards them like worn dishrags. THAT is the reality. It is not the reverse. The Marxists engage in fantasy delusions when they think that they are using the Muslims. Not so. Never so. And always will be so.
I used to be a Marxist. I know how these people think. It is their belief that the Muslims are primitives who will, given time, evolve into more modern metaphysical materialists (metaphysical materialism itself a tired and outdated reductionism) and cease being believers in Allah. The Left sees the Muslim as the necessary canon fodder in the revolutionary process.
But the reality is that the Marxists underestimate the power of religion in people’s lives and they simply do not understand Islam. I haven’t met a Leftist who has read the Qur’an and any English translations of parts of the hadith Bukhari or hadith Muslim.
No, a distinct possibility would be that the Leftists would be the among the first to have a date with the scimitar and the chopping block. People like me, being a Roman Catholic, would be offered the second-class status of the Dhimma and the obligation to pay the jizya. I am deadly in earnest to convey that I would rather choose martyrdom than dhimmitude.
It is truly shocking to gaze upon how bereft to deep learning and reason all these Obamaniacs are.
Romney? Nooooo. McCain needs to stay clear of picking a religious running mate, as we see with Obama’s poisonous associations in the religious left, you can’t say one or another is righteous, you can’t accept the good and leave out the bad and still call yourself a good Judaist, Christian, or Muslim. It’s wholly the root cause of a loathing, an opposite, with liberalism, rats in the sewer or rats on the street their bucolic capacity suborns division, you can’t separate it, perhaps in a delusional personal way but certainly not in a societal sense, one religion has the same potential as the other, religion applies an unnecessary and corruptible layer to morality. The religious left like to say that classical liberalism did nothing to end slavery, they don’t understand that a notion of a personal god is not going to wipe away the evils of the world, only we can do that. Early liberalism would have been crushed if it had stood up to the economical culture of slavery, we needed time to face that monster, we didn’t start it but we damn sure ended it, though there is still work to be done to attenuate the residual effects. So many stupid people on the left simply go back to square one, and their motivations vary. You hear them saying, “…still in 2008, in 2008, we still have this shit going on!” well welcome to the human condition — by the way your god is NOT going to save you and anyone who promises they can broker that transaction has the moral equivalence of a bad used car salesman, or their naé¯ve, or stupid, but apparently not as stupid as you. We already have a wall of separation between democracy and religion, and we should work to help, as Jefferson put it, “build up that wall!” Nevertheless, I would tolerate a moderately religious candidate, I mean we have to remember we have come a long way as a species but we simply aren’t that far along yet.
Put another way, if the surge hadn’t worked, McCain would be toast right now, beyond question.
His Presidential aspirations would be kaput, but not his Senate status. There are plenty of Legislators and Senators that voted for or were for certain things, that when it crashed, nothing really bad happened to them. They had some consequences, but people usually don’t care about the foreign policy views of Senators or Congressmen, prefering to invest authority and standards in one person, the leader.
The Left made attempts to get Congress to create foreign policy, but I suspect they did it only because they couldn’t control the Presidency.
THAT is the reality. It is not the reverse.
its BOTH ways… i should have stated that better. both sides think that when the time comes, like hitler, they will vanquish the other in a great war, or some such. except that the proginators have the highest upper hand as their destabilization games has insured little growth in their man dupes.
in afghanistan the soviets creates opposition people, let them kill their own people to credential them, then used them to gather opposition to be removed. some of the current gamesters are from this process.
as far as who is pulling whose strings, well who begs weapons from whom? who is the focal point, who is ignored? cui buono?
I used to be a Marxist.
Ouch. welcome to reason.
i am more talking again the real methods, not necessarily if they are in line with marxist thought. as lenin said they would have to be prepared to do literally anything without limits, and so nothing has to be within that line if it accomplishes the end result in material conditions.
I disagree with your take on their desire to reform the muslims over time. there is a large difference between the beliefs of the majority who are useful idiots and the few who are steering the horses where they want them to go for the end result. normal people dont want to think this way, which is why things like hitler, stalin, mao, etc happen. they are protected by doing the unthinkable, and prevented if they dont.
things like hitler, stalin, mao happen because religion prepares entire populations for totalitarianism, take a half cup of rubrical shift and a half cup of rifle butt to the face, and voila!
Lord becomes Great Leader, Worship become adoration of the State, Heresy Hunts become Show Trials, Disciples become Heroes of the People, Hell becomes the Gulag, Satan becomes the Outsider … the good thing is when you die the State is done with you, for Religion the fun has only just begun.
Romney has been wildly successful in the private sector. McCain wouldn’t know a market if it stepped all over him. McCain is much more religious than Romney–he’s got that good ole political religion. Power politics–the strongest religion of them all.
McCain can only be called a good candidate in comparison to the abysmal losers the US Democrats are trying to run this year.
McCain can only be called a good candidate in comparison to the abysmal losers the US Democrats are trying to run this year there’s definitely some truth to that! 😀
Artfldgr,
Any serious analysis of how the Left has behaved, vis-a-vis the recrudescence of Islamic jihad, will reveal that both share totalitarian instincts and both think of themselves as the end of history. But, only one can prevail. In terms of demographics, the Muslims have an awesome advantage. Remember this: a true Muslim will die without hesitation for Allah, to fight in the way of Allah. It is my experience with Leftists, and my observation of them, that very, very few of them are willing to die for their utopia. For them, death is THE END. Muslim shaheeds believe they have 72 virgins awaiting them.
As for the other rambling comments from another poster above, which trash and disparage religious faith as some kind of foundation for totalitarianism, there is not much one can say in such a brief forum to persons whose worldview rests upon some kind of reductionism. Clearly, I consider Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins entitled to their opinions, but their taunting mockery of ALL religion is too much like the defiant adolescent who has not yet taken in any new material from physics, astrophysics, and mathematical theory. Furthermore, the case can be made that BOTH Athens and Jerusalem share credit for the foundations of our civilization’s evolving sense of the worth of the individual human being and the rationality of inquiry and learning. For this process has been a kind of cultural-political evolution, full of progress and regression, two steps forward and sometimes one step back. There is a huge gulf between the outlook, worldview, ethical standards, and rationality of a Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Jew and that of the minions of Allah. A very stark difference, for those who have really gone deeply into the books and traditions of these respective faiths.
I am always stunned, whenever I encounter it and wherever I encounter it, by the vitriol and anger of anti-theists. Unfailingly, I have always been civil and intellectually respectful of atheists I know in public forums. I never make a judgment that they are somehow the progenitors of evil. Yet, this sort of thing is more and more observed in recent years, and I wonder where it comes from.
The mistake that utopians of all stripes make: that somehow in history in this world we can arrive at the end of history, where everything will be made right and there will be no more suffering or evil. And they are willing to commit whatever crime it takes to make this state of affairs come to pass. They have a completely unrealistic grasp of the human condition and of the fatal flaws in this dimension of our existence. I’ve been down the road of plunging deeply into the philosophical and theological quest for an ideology that provides a rational foundation for utopian thought. Reality, experience, and rationality having defeated my quest, and to my satisfaction (since I hunger for the truth and followed it where it led me), I made a break with that sojourn through Marxism. I don’t see having been down that fork as a mistake; I benefited from the journey and I understand the personal and intellectual reasons why I went there.
Politics and the contests of ideologies are a state of war. Leftists who think they can eventually co-opt devout Muslims with the blandishments of hedonism and the dismantling of Islam on the rocks of 19th and 20th century Marxist and later Deconstructionist currents are living a delusion. Like I said: what would snap them back into reality will be their heads on the block and the scimitar held in tension above them.
It happened in Iran. It can happen elsewhere.
It happened in Iran. It can happen elsewhere.
Iran it’s aspacial “deforemd version” case of what Mulah believe and parctis.
While Khomeini shortly after coming to power announcing that he will exporting his “revolution” to neighboring countries and “liberation of Quddis from Zionists through Baghdad”.
Iranians Mullah failed to librarian “Quddis” in 1980 sadly in 2003 US gave Baghdad “Iraq” to Mullah on ” a “Golden Plate”
nyomythus,
thats the myth.. remember america itself disproves that myth as its foundation was puritanical.
its a convenient myth since it justifies removing religion to save us from the totalitarians, who always remove religion.
if its so conducive and helpful to them, then they would use it more.
religious fanatacism has a limit, and thats a limit where people imagine the kind of god they are getting for their time.
the framework does NOT lead to the assertions you made, it can’t unless thats the framework of the religion. in this way ‘religiosity’ applies when there isnt a real relligion around (and there is a difference – just as there is a difference between porn and art).
so they remove the other religions because it then makes the minds seek out the state as their religions.180 degrees around the other way, removing them prepares them for the new religion of a brave new world.
religions uplift. they promote contemplicative thought. the idea of deeper meaning and what morals are when one thinks deeper about them.
religion is responsible for our conversion from philosophical knowing, to scientific knowing. to their realization that god created everything (so a book by a man technically is not separate from that which is what is required to think that way), and so if we study how everything works. the principals behind how things are, we would know the mind of god.
the game is to make you hate and misunderstand the things that would help, in that way you run into the burning building to save yourself
Fredjr,
the muslims only have such an advantage with a state that does not wish to remove them. i thought i made it pretty clear that the other side is very ready to use nuclear weapons to clear things. the ONLY thing that stops them, and barely, is that there is another state that has them that can oppose them.
their new tanks, new ships, and such are nuclear ready. all of them. its been known for a long time that in the 80s they were going to use nukes. you can read archive entries and defectors (of which the latest one comrade j is really interesting).
ceucesciu (cant spell that name for my life), as well as others wrote in their biographies that they re-instigated things taking off where the nazies started.
as i have said before, if you draw arbitrary limitations, and ignore history and what their ideology shows them, you will not end up where pragmatism will lead you when it has no morals behind it in any form other than to win.
I am extremely excited about your explanation of McCain’s agenda. ie: his courage,competence etc. This election the Democrats will win even if Rex the dog is the candidate what you guy’s don’t seem to understand is Republicans are going to have a hard time keeping a position of public defenders. republicans = Bush. That is not going to win elections. I know your answer to that, Bush is not on the ticket. But, again, Bush = any republican. And one more thing, I seem to be reading on how ALL deaths, including Americans, are going up each and every month. That doesn’t jive with “the surge is working”.and as one of the other posters have written in 6 months things will be different. again not good for Mr McCain
Artfldgr remember america itself disproves that myth as its foundation was puritanical
That’s true but it doesn’t disprove the correlation, there are so many reasons why colonial America can’t be compared to the ancient civilizations like Russia, Germany and China. I don’t have to list them, it will be obvious with some more critical thinking. Nevertheless, nice try.
religions uplift. religion is responsible for our conversion from philosophical knowing.
Religion has been the obstacle to uplifting the human spirit and for advancing philosophical reasoning; it has been at odds with, one pushing against the other, the judge, jury and executioner. Religion gives us a so-called word of god that ordinarily good people to wicked things; genocide, slavery, hatred of women, homosexuals, the non-believer, etc… and interestingly a hatred of science, but not what science produces that advances religions ultimate goals, Armageddon.
Replace both instances with “science” as in ‘what science produces’.
and interestingly a hatred of science, but not what science produces
Obviously you talking about Catholic Church” Christianity” not Muslims/Islam.
Read the history of the Islamic empire and how Baghdad was the centre of all type of sciences and also remember Andalusia the road that in lighting Europe and mad them discover what Islam and talking abroad most the Islamic sciences knowledge and start teaching in their land where 1700 where all Islamic/Arab medical sciences book
was being handled, and hammered home the necessity to institute a new policy that turned out to resemble the surge that has been successful there.
Iraq is a country no more
Baghdad was the centre of all type of sciences thanks to dhimmi Byzantine scholars.
and interestingly a hatred of science, but not what science produces
Obviously you talking about Catholic Church” Christianity” not Muslims/Islam.
Just look at the results of the last 600 years, to see which had a larger hatred of science. Oh I see: you love science, you just don’t practice it.
nyomythus don’t forget Babylonians/Iraqi who taught you how to write and read “thanks for them made you commenting now” with your science and calculations..
BTW, in 1969 when you man on the moon they measured the distance between the Moon and the Earth with all advance equipments they had in 1069 they find the amusement strikingly very close whats the Babylonian measurements (difference in few meters).
Ask you NASA will tells you if you still in doubt.
You should look no further those last 400-500 years most Arabic books in taught in Europe’s schools were translated from Arabic sciences and references.
You either idiot or you tries to be funny.
Go do your homework before come arguing facts and truths.
We saw your experts and you inelegant guys like “Thief Bremer” with others how they are smart and geniuses how they destroyed Iraq state, you better of educate yourself how to respect others. Science in hands of idiots means destructions.
Note: The above comment for Gringo
nyomythus,
what correlation? more than 150 million by socialism.. if you tack on abortion worldwide then 250 million for socialism…
how many for the US?
add up all the wars not communist related, or socialist related and what do you have?
meanwhile i can show you that the MOST murderous states were secular.
most prisoners and criminals are secular.
the gunmen who ahve recently gone in and shot up thir contemporaries, from klebold on, are all secular.
the crusades people propagana about, they seldome get the facts straght at all… (or else tye woud have rembembered what sept 11 1683)
if you want to track war, and strenght of war, the more secular humanist we have become the more we use war because people are worth nothing under groupism.
show me how you devine the religious from those who had to pretend to religion during such a time? or are you simply just assuming that everyone was, and that sociopaths didnt exist nor seek power?
please lay out these critical links… and remember, calling yourself something and not following it, is not being that something.
and you also will end up discounting millions, while focusing on a few.
meanwhile, i can point out that athists, or anti religionists have actually been more murderous and harmful.
hows this.. i will put up my ten most murderous secularists.. and you can put up your ten most murderous ‘religous’ people
oh.. and by the way… the vatican opened up their archives for the inquisitions.. the millions turned out to be less than a couple thousand. so use real numbers.
even without trying my number will be over 50 million civilians… for the top 5 on my list.
and before you start really knocking judeo christian, check out thte thuggies, moloch, mithraism, the south americans, etc.. all those wonderful places were people ate each other too..
and of course you probably hate these moreal people for stopping the practice of sutti in india
the commander came out, and the natives wanted their sutti… and he said they could ahve it. but that the english had a custom too. and when they will pile their wood for a sutti, the english will build a gallows. and custom shall follow custom.
sutti is the practice of putting the living wife on the funeral pyre of her husband.
you see moral christians thought such things barbaric… as do we think how women are treated
after all, was it no christ that pointed out you dont mistreat any one? evne a whore.. islam onthe other hand says you can do what you want with a woman not wearing the veil…
so gangbang rape in secular malmo sweden are at record levels. and the men just dont protect the women. manywomen are now converting to islam (even feminists) cause their biology is kicking in and the invaders are winning.
by the way.. just wait till there arent judeo christians… we are the ones that brought the industrial revolution, science, renaiisance.
there wa nothing stpping htat from happening 5000 years earlier in china… except that it took that certain frame of mind, moral teachings, and society culture to do that.
by taking it apart, we are left will all the other lesser ones… and they all resulted in mass starvation..
in fact, since america has beome more socialist, we are actually heading towards the starvation train again..
and chavez has a malnutritioin problem as powdered milk is so expensive the kids do without now…
the secular gave us eugenics, abortion, euthanasia, and more.
nyomythus,
its up to you to prove the correlation… to insure that all your examples were true men of the cloth, and not lying… (you know.. the way harry dexter lied about himself)
i can make the same correlation between people in the west and toilets… the sit toilet was created and populat around the same time your expressing, and only tho same cultures used them extensively… the chinese and asians, didnt have that yet…
so really, it wasnt the church, it was the toilet…
the romans were warlike for having them… and so each culture… with the french at the french revolution the technology was at its highest.
so you cant deny the correlation isnt there, please prove to me that the concept of the western toilet isnt to blame since this is the method of argument
Artfldgr — you just need to stop and listen, i’m not going to repeat myself, it’s tiring.
Truth — if you were any more incoherent baboons would flock to you with hands cupped to their ears.
nyomythus, you mirror yourself.
When I’m looking in the mirror I suppose I do.