Thursday, April 26, 2007

9/11, the Pending Sequel

Rudolph the twice-divorced Giuliani demonstrates what modern day conservatism is all about:

“If any Republican is elected president —- and I think obviously I would be the best at this —- we will remain on offense and will anticipate what [the terrorists] will do and try to stop them before they do it,” Giuliani said.

If he is so good at anticipating what a terrorist might do, one wonders why his city was hit. If you come from the camp of those who believe that the government has the capacity to prevent all terrorist attacks--which I don't--it's worth asking why we should believe that he's going to be able to do as president that which he couldn't do as mayor.

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

Two points here. First, if we're going to defeat terrorism no matter who gains the White House, then we should feel free to choose candidates based on other issues. Which is a bit weird, given that the only reason that the GOP gives for voting for them is that they're tougher on terror. Second, since terrorism has been with us since the dawn of time, it's idiotic to pretend that we will ever defeat it. Conservatives are supposed to understand that human nature cannot be improved upon. Man, though influenced by his environment, is flawed from within. In short, get used to terrorism. It's nothing new and it's not going away. Ever.

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

Goodness I hope so. I still don't understand why invading a foreign country which neither attacked us nor was a threat to attack us, why keeping tabs on the people, why torturing enemy combatants were conservative in nature. This isn't Ike or Goldwater's party. It's not even Reagan's party.

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

And the Republicans do? Listen to some of the remarks Rudi makes in the same article:

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Memo to Rudi: drop the idiotic rhetoric. Please. Eight years of dumbed down platitudes from Bush was eight years too many. I seriously can't take it. So stop. Please.

Two points. First, the terrorists do not hate us for our freedoms. They don't give a damn about our freedoms anymore than most of us care for them. On the other hand, they're not fond of us meddling in their business. We could try to pull out of the Middle East and see if they stop hating us but we sort of blew that chance some years ago.

Has it ever occurred to Rudi and the numb-nuts who support him that our "freedom for women" might not be a good thing when this freedom only means the ability to murder children? Muslims, unlike many of their Christian brethren, tend to be pro-life. And I know they're not big on freedom of religion, not because of hate per se, but simply because they take claims to universal truth rather seriously, and are wont to defend them, if need be with the sword, as Christians once did themselves.

I am by no means an expert on Islam. In fact, I know very little about it. But I know enough about it to know that I am by no means sure that "we... are in conflict with... [a] perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion". Islam has always been militant, as I have mentioned previously. It's entirely possible that what we are confronting in the Middle East is an authentic version of Islam. I am not saying it must be, only that it might. It's worth considering. If the Democrats don't understand the enemy, it's safe to say that neither do the Republicans.

The crowd thundered its approval.

Alas, not for me. The huddled masses no longer yearn to breathe free. But Rudi will make them feel safe. And that is all that matters.

1 comment:

MikeT said...

They hate us because we are not Muslim. The goal of these groups is to wipe out their enemies until religion is only for Allah. The answer is obvious because that is their oft stated goal and what their religion preaches.