Rocco is Right
Rocco at the Autonomist is in Iraq and I thought this would be a good read in it's entirety.
The election was the Republicans to lose, since as far as any worthwhile policy ideas go, the Democrats, except for a loose plan to affect the Vietnamization of Iraq, offered nothing. Now evil rich white men and women (unlike Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry etc.) will soon be toiling to pay higher taxes so corporate and individual slugs can sponge off of us even more than they already do.
Even with the disadvantage of a press that expresses constant, naked animosity towards Bush and Republicans (witness the wall-to-wall coverage of that stupid "macaca" incident from the same gaggle of dishonest hacks who give KKK Byrd a pass, ignore the recent revelation that Ted Kennedy was consulting with and siding with Andropov behind Reagan's back during the Cold War, buried the story about bribe-money-in-the-freezer William Jefferson D-LA and Harry Reid's unethical real estate dealings, totally ignore the racist rants and comments from the likes of Conyers and the rest of the Old Guard civil rights crowd, the Republicans would have won, had they only acted like Republicans, and stuck together.
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats had the ground game down pat, and -- to their credit -- didn't criticize those amongst them embroiled in scandal during the election, as shortsighted Republican and Conservatives did. Then again, errant Democrats didn't have to fret the certainty of Bush-hating "reporters" and editorial boards running story after story on page one when they screwed up in "macaca"-like ways. Nor did they have to worry about having things like the NSA program being labeled as "domestic spying." And they certainly didn't have to worry about being accused of "lying" about WMDs, even though very many of them -- including Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Dean and Pelosi -- made multiple, absolutist statements, both before and after the Bush Administration had, regarding the certainty of their existence and regarding Hussein's aim to use them.
Let's talk about the pivotal Foley debacle: when Gerry Studds got bagged plying a 16-year-old boy with vodka, taking him back to his apartment and sodomizing him, the Democrats circled the wagons around him. Studds literally turned his back on Congress while being censured, and ended up serving twelve terms in Congress. When Foley got pinched talking dirty online with a 17 year old boy, he immediately resigned and both Dems and Repubs gnashed their teeth, wrung their hands and oozed sanctimony. Republicans did the Democrats' work for them by throwing Foley under the bus and pressuring Hastert to resign. What was it that Ronald Reagan said about criticizing members of your own party in public?
Was it morally right to push Foley out? -- sure, unless one thinks that sex-play between two legal-aged males, decades apart in age is OK. (Whoops, I thought Democrats had no problems with homosexuality . . .) But politically speaking it was idiotic for Republicans to showboat over the Foley matter. And incredibly, after the Foley revelations, Republican pundits lined up to publish a self-flagellating stream of articles saying how it might be "good" to lose the Congress, since that would teach Republicans how to be Republicans again.
Well that might be a reasonable strategy in peacetime, but it is madness during war, especially when you are willing to risk having people with a demonstrable, 40-year- long track record of appeasement coupled with an aversion to things military, attain power. So, in essence, though the Republicans rightly stressed that America's first order of businees is successfully waging war against a particularly virulent, widespread enemy, some of those same Republicans were willing to jeopardize this country's safety by handing power over to a group of people who, in their adolescent haze, do not think we are actually involved in a war. These so-called conservatives and so-called Republicans are plain stupid, or utterly hypocritical.
Part of me says, "the people have spoken, so be it." But a bigger part of me says that unless "the people" are provided with a reasonably fair assessment of the goings-ons around them, they have little chance of reaching conclusions grounded in reality. This brings me to a few, final points on the Republicans' loss: The situation in Iraq has been so horribly distorted by most of the press, that most of the locals here (not the ones killing other people) are frightened that we will abandon them. I hope that doesn't happen, but after the Democratic victory, I fear it will.
Contrary to how the press plays it back home, most Iraqis do like Americans and they are thankful we removed Hussein. I here this every day. What most "reporters" in Iraq do is to hang out in their kind-of-safe hotel rooms and (unwittingly?) hire stringers sympathetic to the killers and/or those funding them, to go out and "get the real story." Turn on the nightly news and there it is -- polished propaganda for the scumbags who won't leave the good people here to live in peace. And you know what?, the killers are absolute masters of this propaganda game. They must be, since militarily speaking, they are incompetent. (Ever wonder why car and truck bombs normally don't happen during the (Western) weekends? -- no one's watching the news, that's why.) The terrorists here are betting on Vietnamization, and now they'll probably get it. Shameful.
The biggest problem here in Iraq is not us, it is the Islamists and the common criminals and the psychopaths and those training and funding them. Did you know that the Provisional Irish Republican Army (Jerry Adams's old outfit) has people here teaching terrorists how to set booby traps and construct shaped charges to be used against Iraqi civilians and American soldiers? Now you do. Who pays them for their services? Try Iran and Syria and the Old Guard Baathists. I might be wrong, but I think Adams was once nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. . .
In spite of the complicated situation on the ground here in Iraq, the Bush-hating press deliberately pounds home a simplistic fallacy night after night. That fallacy is: Bush's military machine is the font of Iraq's woes. Unfortunately, most of "the people," in the U.S., worn down by this constant, numbing mantra, now apparently believe that to be true.
Now, there's a good chance that the War on Islamist Terror will be lost, a million Iraqis will die and endless investigations aimed at impeaching Bush and Cheney will soon commence. Aren't you glad you stayed home instead of voting?
The good news? If we rightwingers get our act together in time for 2008, the Left will have only two years to make their Vietnam dream come true. Let's get to work now.
Comment(s) »
| Advertisement | what's this? |
| Your Ad Here with AdBrite | |
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Brooke— 2006/11/12 @ 07:50 AM — (Reply)
I don't think it will take that long brooke
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/11/12 @ 12:46 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/12 @ 01:26 PM — (Reply)
And, of course, there is clamor already over Newt.
The centrists, Giulliani, for example, may be able to carry it off. But that's be a party win not a clear step forward for conservatism.
At this point, though, the field is wide open.
Comment by Cate— 2006/11/13 @ 10:03 AM — (Reply)
xlmcjzrl [URL=http://amqpbftc.com]oiptakgk[/URL] qqveznkg http://efueznjh.com bzvalbbl sqeitfam
Comment by kibwqqdm— 2007/04/14 @ 01:46 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2006/11/13 @ 04:17 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/13 @ 02:23 PM — (Reply)
Deep down I have this feeling that we are headed in the right direction....a sort of 2 steps back before you go forward. The Dems flaws will be revealed....I am energized!
Newt/Santorum....you never know
Comment by Joe Gringo— 2006/11/13 @ 07:44 AM — (Reply)
The Studds/Ryan analogy shows how clearly distinct Republicans and Democrats are. That the Democrats claimed the high moral ground and accused the Republicans of a 'culture of corruption' is a complete joke and a sham...but the press let them get away with it.
Comment by American Crusader— 2006/11/13 @ 08:22 AM — (Reply)
Meanwhile - they've all come out and said they won't impeach Bush and they're all about keeping us at war. In short - nothing has changed.
When will people learn? Two heads - one monster. The two parties are totally in cahoots - using the divide and conquer method. They are all brothers in freemasonry - where their secret oaths to one another supersedes any other obligation they hold.
Vote Independent in 08 and get real change.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/13 @ 09:08 AM — (Reply)
I like Santorum and Tancredo. Tancredo has some good ideas on the border...Santorum is a values man....Romney is an interesting candidate as well...
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/13 @ 11:01 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/13 @ 12:40 PM — (Reply)
that's just it dugg...a lot of people are sick of the same old but what is the alternative? If you don't vote you have no reason to complain. If you vote for a third party you might as well be flushing your vote down the drain.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/11/13 @ 12:45 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/13 @ 02:25 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/13 @ 02:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/13 @ 02:44 PM — (Reply)
Boy - glad I got to have my voice. woohoo.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/13 @ 02:49 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/13 @ 03:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/11/13 @ 03:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/13 @ 04:13 PM — (Reply)
I like Tancredo also but in truth, all I really know about him is his position on border security.
"2 heads of the same monster"..pretty accurate statement.
Comment by American Crusader— 2006/11/14 @ 10:13 AM — (Reply)
Rocco said -
There were the best part of 3 years to find a conservative response to the problem. Simply put when a neighbouring country sends bombers and fighters to attack them a progressive will self assess and try to change to please the aggressor so that they will stop and everyone can then just get along, but a conservative will smack the cr*p out of the neighbouring country to get them to change their ways and never attack again. The Iranians and Syrians are attacking Iraq, a conservative response requires getting them to change their ways and this may require military action - the only military in Iraq for those 3 years was USA/UK, but no response was made to Syrian/Iranian aggression. Unfortunately what the Bush Admin tried was to change Iraq into something peaceful and democratic and asked the Syrians/Iranians to find this acceptable - ie. they went full court progressive. Progressive policy is the policy of failure and surprise, sur-blimin-prise has failed. It is not the media's fault that they report this failure.
Comment by unaha-closp— 2006/11/14 @ 11:05 AM — (Reply)
PS - commiserations on the election
Comment by unaha-closp— 2006/11/14 @ 11:06 AM — (Reply)
their hotel rooms.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/14 @ 01:22 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/11/14 @ 01:49 PM — (Reply)
on a another note Borat announced his intention to start an exploratory committee for '08
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/11/14 @ 02:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ron R.— 2006/11/14 @ 02:16 PM — (Reply)
Has anyone seen Borat? I don't know if I want to, or if I should just flush $8 down the crapper instead.
Comment by Brooke— 2006/11/15 @ 03:15 AM — (Reply)