My laughter still hasn't subsided from the last post. I told my research assistant, who happens to be an atheist, that many of his fellow non-believers were too dumb to recognize even the most blatant irony and satire. He refused to believe it, until he saw it with his own eyes. He's a believer now, at least in the fact that there are plenty of atheists who are as clueless as the most ignorant fundamentalist.
Now that I've established that beyond a reasonable doubt, it's time to move on to the latest political news. In his latest speech, Obama confidently declared that America's war in Iraq is a "distraction" from our involvement in Afghanistan.
Leave aside the problem that Obama's Iraq views and policy all seem formulated prior to actually finding out what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is scheduled to go to Iraq later this month on a "fact finding mission." He will also visit Afghanistan for the first time. Couldn't Obama's wisdom on Iraq and Afghanistan have waited for what he might find when he's over there?
Liberal Democrats like Obama keep saying Iraq is the "distraction" when, from the point of view of the Islamic radicals, Iraq is absolutely crucial. Al Qaeda has publicly stressed that Iraq is the global center of the war on terror, the staging ground for the beginning of World War III.
Why is Iraq so important to Bin Laden? Because since 1979 the radical Muslims have controlled only one major Muslim country, and that is Iran. They are desperate to get their hands on a second one. They have already said that if they get Iraq, they will focus next on Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
For America, Iraq is crucial for a reason regularly stressed by real estate agents: Location, location, location. Here are the names of Iraq's neighbors: Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Is there any doubt how important it is to have a pro-American Muslim government (or even better, a pro-American Muslim democracy) in that neighborhood?
By contrast, it is Afghanistan that is quite frankly a "distraction." Afghanistan was chosen as the launching pad for the 9/11 attacks because the Taliban government provided rent-free accommodations there for the Al Qaeda training camps. It was essential for the U.S. to get rid of the Taliban, and I'm glad the international community is keeping an eye on the place to prevent a return of those fanatics. Even so, anyone who thinks Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq needs his head examined.
If Obama's dismissal of Iraq seems like the unserious speculation of a novice, McCain has shown the prudent judgment of a real statesman. When almost everyone was against the surge, McCain pushed it. It wasn't that Bush talked McCain into supporting the surge. The truth is actually the opposite: McCain sold it to Bush.
It is the surge that seems to have changed the facts on the ground, and that is a testament to McCain's political bravery and strategic far-sightedness. Let's hope Obama finds out what is really going on before he issues more pearls of unwisdom.
Reader Comments ( Page 14 of 15)
196. So I take it Mr. D'Souza, yours are words of wisdom. You who blame Americans for 9/11, you have words of wisdom? It's is funny the sometimey nature you display, if that is a word (sometimey). Anyway, you say that the terrorists call Iraq the central warfront, and you hang from their very words. Yet, when someone says that there was no Al Qeada in Iraq because Hussien hated Bin Laden and Bin Laden wanted Hussien dead in his own words. You don't believe it. Why? I figure because to believe these words of a terrorist would undermine your entire tapestry of lies with the tugging of one strand. If you believe Bin Lades hate and contempt for insane Hussien then your claim of colusion is null and void. Mind you it has already been proven but believing Husseins' hatred of Bin Laden then your claims and the Presidents claims that Iraq was in league with Bin Laden just doesn't fit. Simply put, you Mr. D'Souza would agree and defend Bin Laden himself if he said something remotely close to your liking, but you would say it's because you converted vice versa, just a matter of perception I'd say. Therefore, I perceive that you Mr. D'Souza who has been wrong so many times, who would let a neocon kick your wife in the mouth simply because he was in your political spectrum you are allowed the one laugh about satire, but not the critique of someone elses words of wisdom or lack thereof, your batting average is too poor for that.
Words from good ole Logan
Logan at 4:09PM on Jul 17th 2008
197. "Specifically now, in this country it can be nearly encompassed by the acts of omission beginning with Reagan: the non enforcement of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, the vehicles which busted trusts and stabilized the American economy until Reagan and libertarianism." - Clif
Well said. I agree with you on substance but I wouldn't call Reagan "libertarian" at all. The Republican/NeoCon party is actually a party that supports corporations over the common american citizen. They are "corporatists." They favor and provide big business with favorable treatment in subsidies, regulations, tax incentives, etc., all at the expense of small business men and women. A libertarian would defintiely be for less government regulation but they would also not be in the business of providing subsidies and rents for big business.
Monty at 4:19PM on Jul 17th 2008
198. "I would love it if DD would engage in a well-thought out discourse with us, however I dont expect that to happen anytime soon so I will stop holding my breath, lest I pass out."
Of course he won't, and for two good reasons:
1. See the last blog he wrote on 'modesty,' and read most of the responses to it. Res ipsa loquitur.
2. After you've debated Hitchens, Shermer and Dennett, what in the world is to be gained by debating the likes of William Hays, Knight_of_BAAWA or Peter? That would be like the heavyweight champ challenging a slob at the bar after beating the number one contender. Sorry, but it just doesn't make any sense. And, of course, how much of a challenge would someone like Peter be after facing a world-class intellect like Dennett? Again, it just doesn't make an ounce of sense.
Renzo at 4:57PM on Jul 17th 2008
199. 189. 186. "Renzo
Where did you get your info that DD was not serious about his modesty???? Do you speak for him or to him or are you him?"
Jerry Brown, for goodness sake, *read the darn article*!! It's as obvious as a punch in the nose. If you think that anyone who writes, "Modesty is one of my great virtues..." is being serious, then there's little hope for you.
Renzo at 5:46PM on Jul 15th 2008
I have worked with delusional people before, and DD fits the bill on many of his comments. You are making an assumption, and treating it as an absolute.. I have to wonder about your stability or ability to tell fact from fiction.
Jerry Brown at 5:56PM on Jul 1
I feel I owe you an apology. Not because you were right about your take on the issue, but because I was looking at DD's neurosis , and in a way expecting you to see it also. There is no reason for you to look at it that way, and after thinking about it I realized how far out of line I was to expect you to. You were right on from your viewpoint that, as you said, is an obvious viewpoint. Sorry about that.
Jerry Brown at 5:18PM on Jul 17th 2008
200. Bravo Dinesh, you've now reduced our Lord and Savior to someone who's apologists are simply elitist trollops only willing to debate for hire, status or book sales. How about a book called, "What's So Great About Christ." But I doubt that in your state of pride you could refer to Jesus as anything but the founder of a religion.
Your astounding ego is in direct contrast to our directives from the God Man who forgave us our sins.
oneblood at 5:49PM on Jul 17th 2008
201. The only way that "Modesty is one of my great virtues" makes sense as irony, is if the author is aware of his deserved reputation as an egotist, and is PROUD of it.
Godless Heathen Brian at 6:07PM on Jul 17th 2008
202. Renzo:
Please see my earlier post regarding the ongoing compulsion of Christian supporters of DD to presume, as he does, that non believers follow the thoughts or "teachings" of ANY "leading" atheist. Because traditional believers rely on the Bible or, more to the point, the "teachings" of a Pope or some other "recognized" church leader, does not make the belief that atheists have a similar organized hierarchy or dogma any more true. There is no such organized hierarchy! Whether or not you think that Dawkins is a "leading" atheist or even if you believe that DD has somehow refuted his viewpoint, it has no bearing upon either my belief or unbelief or, very likely, any other non-Christian. Furthermore, the results of ANY debate are only pertinant to those who "voted" on whose argument was better presented. You simply cannot apply the same belief that you might after a discussion between two religious leaders (i.e. the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury) which may have led to agreement on some point of Christian doctrine) to these "debates", since atheists have no common dogma oher than, perhaps, disbelief or lack of faith in the existance of a deity of any kind.
Harvey at 6:13PM on Jul 17th 2008
203. Oneblood:
Well said! It seems that some real Christians can see the total lack of what we are told Jesus tired to teach people in any of Dinesh's posts.
Harvey at 6:17PM on Jul 17th 2008
204. An interesting book in an election year...
Hate to admit my age but some of my earliest memories as a child were of overhearing my parents deciding not to complete a bomb shelter at the start of the Cuban Missile Crisis because they decided what would have been the point. I lived about 30 miles (down wind) from where an F-106 interceptor crash landed carrying a live nuke at a tiny regional airport as part of combat dispersal. I'll never forget those images from the newspaper and the new TV set - missiles, bombers and nuclear explosions. Nice images right before you go off to bed.
That's probably why I tend to check out any new book on the subject. It ain't history to me.
Why bring this up? There is a new book out called "One Minute to Midnight" by Michael Dobbs which is useful (in my opinion at least) reading for anyone who plans to vote for the next President. This book may help to refocus some of the conversation on what is important in a national leader. When choosing a candidate I tend to care less about their stand on family values, religion and flag burning and more on whether I think they'll get us all killed.
I'm not the first to note it but I was struck by the thought of imaging how Bush, Cheney, McCain or Obama would have reacted in Jack Kennedy's shoes.
I leave it to all of you to decide for yourselves but as for me, I don't think we'd be here today if 3 of the 4 had been in the hot seat. Plus, it's a pretty suspenseful book and I knew how the story ended ;)
Steve at 6:39PM on Jul 17th 2008
205. Why do liberals not understand that Afghanistan is getting worse BECAUSE Iraq is getting better? We are killing and capturing them in Iraq in huge numbers so they are sneaking back to Afghanistan! These fanatics have only one allegence and that is to their deadly religion. A religion which says that all infidels must die...and that means you and me! And if you are already a Muslim you should be ready, willing and able to go down with us, praising Allah as you lie dying.
falling at 7:11PM on Jul 17th 2008
206. Why don't liberals get it!
First of all it isn't a problem of liberal politics (never was). What I don't get (because no supporter of the war has ever been able to explain it in a convincing fashion) is how, after spending trillions, losing thousands, killing thousands more, grinding our military into the dust in a war that beyond any shadow of a doubt had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons we were all given , we are safer in the world. I'm willing to hear the answer to that one. Personally I'd like to think of a reason that explains this smoking hole of a national policy other than all of the profiteering and clueless attempts at nation building that we know without doubt has occurred.
Steve at 7:30PM on Jul 17th 2008
207. Falling; there is not one monolithic enemy that we are fighting. Yes, in Iraq and Afghanistan our enemies are Muslim, but that is as much similarity as they have. The Taliban and the Pashtun tribes have little to nothing to do with the Shia militias in Iraq.
Now, I can only assume that you will say they are all under the thrall of Ahmadinejad, but again, that's just not true.
Ryan Anderson at 7:50PM on Jul 17th 2008
208. A libertarian would defintiely be for less government regulation but they would also not be in the business of providing subsidies and rents for big business.
xxx
This is true, but still the objective of the republican party is to destroy government by causing it to malfunction.
Presumably the end result of the destruction of America would be 'libertarianism'. However, unless laws are made to enforce lawlessness, this merely results in corporate government, or fascism. Money has gravity.
It's the same way with communism.
Communists instead of infiltrating and sabotaging the gobvernment like the mcbush did with brownie or the FDA ,directly confront and overtrhow the government and replace it with a permanent 'temporary government'.
The libertarian rebublicanist route has historically been to infiltrate and destroy the government from within or cede it to elements of the global marketplace instead.
Of course what really happens is what's happening now. When government becomes small, we're governed by the corporate interests that wanted and lobbied their way into the same power.
There is no such thing as small government.
Both small state philosophies, communism and libertarianism are utopian in that they share the same obvious flaws in thinking and neither has ever resulted in a stable government.
As you have correctly noted, libertarianism just cedes to corporatism, and corporations will certainly practice socialism to benefit the wealthiest, like all the financial crises and bailouts in the news every day right now.
Voting for a government empowered to regulate business and complete the constitutionally ordained functions of government is the best way out of the mess the mcbush wants to perpetuate.
Clif Kuplen at 10:05PM on Jul 17th 2008
209. Voting for a government empowered to regulate business and complete the constitutionally ordained functions of government is the best way out of the mess the mcbush wants to perpetuate.
Clif Kuplen at 10:05PM on Jul 17th 2008
-----------------------
Completely agree.
Godless Heathen Brian at 11:00PM on Jul 17th 2008
210. That would be like the heavyweight champ challenging a slob at the bar after beating the number one contender.
xx
based on what he writes here, more like neil patrick harris having to do an actual organ transplant.
ANY debater worth his salt is prepared for both sides of any 'resolved:' I don't think gonesh has any negative chops at all. He's never made the case for 'atheism' and doesn't even know what it is. No, he's not ready for debate yet.
Clif Kuplen at 11:05PM on Jul 17th 2008