Shame on You People

[Overpaid Slacker]

Jonah Goldberg
National Review
10/8/2004

Shame, Shame, Shame
Many of you just don't care about this war.

We should have let sanctions work longer. We should have given inspections another try. The WMDs weren't there so we shouldn't have gone to war. It's a mistake. A grand diversion. The wrong war, the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Shame on all you people.

I don't mean those of you who opposed the war at the time and I don't mean those of you who think Bush bungled the job after the fact. I mean you and you and you — and most especially John Kerry and John Edwards. Shame on you both.

You voted for this war but you voted against the peace you say is so important to win merely because you decided that toppling the tyranny of Howard Dean's high poll numbers was worth paying any price, bearing any burden.

But forget all that. I just watched John Kerry preen in front of the cameras about how "good diplomacy" would have prevented the mistake he voted for. "Good diplomacy" in John Kerry's world would have let French and Russian politicians continue to line their pockets in the name of keeping Saddam in power so he could rape and murder and torture until "good diplomacy" welcomed him back into the "international community" and gave him the weapons he sought. I suppose in John Kerry's world good diplomacy lets the boys in the back of the bar finish raping the girl for fear of causing a fuss.

Okay, that was unfair. It just seems everything old is new again. Bush "lied" because he believed the same intelligence John Kerry believed. Bush "lied" even though John Edwards called the threat from Iraq "imminent" — something Bush never did. No one bothers to ask how it could be possible that Bush lied. How could he have known there were no WMDs? No one bothers to wonder why Tony Blair isn't a liar. Indeed, no one bothers to ask whether the Great Diplomat and Alliance Builder believes our oldest and truest allies Great Britain and Australia are lead by equally contemptible liars. Of course, they can't be liars — they are merely part of the coalition of the bribed. In John Kerry's world, it's a defense to say your oldest friends aren't dishonest, they're merely whores.

Oh, one more thing no one asks. How could Bush think he could pull this thing off? I mean, knowing as he did that there were no WMDs in Iraq, how could he invade the country and think no one would notice? And if he's capable of lying to send Americans to their deaths for some nebulous petro-oedipal conspiracy no intelligent person has bothered to make even credible, why on earth didn't he just plant some WMDs on the victim after the fact? If you're willing to kill Americans for a lie, surely you'd be willing to plant some anthrax to keep your job.

And speaking of the victim, if it's in fact true that Bush offered no rationale for the war other than WMDs, why shouldn't we simply let Saddam out of his cage and put him back in office? We can even use some of the extra money from the Oil-for-Food program to compensate him for the damage to his palaces and prisons. Heck, if John Edwards weren't busy, he could represent him. {my favorite paragraphs -- JP}

I'm serious. If this whole war was such a mistake, such a colossal blunder, based on a lie and all that, not only should John Kerry show the courage to ask once again "How do you tell the last man to die for a mistake?" but he should also promise to rectify the error. And what better, or more logically consistent, way to solve the problem Bush created? Kerry insists it was wrong to topple Saddam. Well, let's make him a Weeble instead. Bush and Saddam can walk out to the podiums and explain that his good friend merely wobbled, he didn't fall down. That would end the chaos John Kerry considers so much worse than the status quo ante. And if the murderer needs help getting back in the game, maybe the Marines can cut off a few tongues and slaughter a couple thousand Shia and Kurds until Saddam's ready for the big league again. That will calm the chaos; that will erase the crime.

Yes, yes, these are all cheap shots, low blows, unfair criticisms. I know. Good and nice liberals don't want Saddam back in power. Sweet and decent Democrats shed no tears for Uday and Qusay. These folks just care about the troops who were sent to die based on a lie. I care about the troops too. But despite John Kerry's insistence that he speaks for the American Fighting Man, some of you might consider that a sizable majority of Americans in uniform will vote for Bush, according to surveys and polls. And since the Kedwards campaign continues to tell us that men who fight and serve cannot have their judgment questioned, that should mean something. Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I forgot. Only fighting men who served for four months on the same boat with John Kerry are above reproach or recrimination. Even if you served in the next boat over, you're just a liar.

Damn, that was another cheap shot, another low blow — one more Dick Cheneyesque distortion. We soulless warmongers sometimes forget ourselves. I realize now that you forces of truth and light are nothing like me. If only Bush had justified this war in the high-flown language of liberty and justice he uses now, then you better angels of the American nature would have supported the toppling of Saddam.

Of course, Bush did exactly that. He spoke of the lantern of liberty lighting the Middle East long before the Iraqi Statue of Tyranny fell down in that Baghdad square. But he was lying then, of course. He only said that stuff to please those bloodlusting neocons who didn't care about Bush's vendetta to avenge his father and were too rich from their access to Zionist coffers to care about the Texas oil man's plot to capture the Iraqi oil fields and earn Halliburton the worst publicity any corporation has received in American history. Of course these neocons knew Bush was lying about democracy and WMDs alike, but they too didn't care that they would be found out. After all, that's a small price to pay for Mother Israel, where Jewish-American loyalties check in but don't check out.

Damn. Once again the gravity of Bush's villainy has pulled me off the trajectory of honest debate. I'm not making any sense. I'm not consistent in my "rationales." Indeed, John Kerry said it so eloquently when he noted that George W. Bush has offered 23 rationales for the war. Heaven forbid the International Grandmaster of Nuance contemplate that there could be more than a single reason to do something so simple as go to war. Let's not even contemplate that the ticket that says this administration hasn't "leveled" with the American people should have to grasp that sometimes leveling with the public requires offering more than one dumbed-down reason to do something very difficult and important.

Ah, I know. The problem isn't that Bush has offered more than one reason, it's that he's changed his reasons. That is the complaint of those who would otherwise support the war. Alas, that's not true, he's merely changed the emphasis. After all, what is he to do when he discovers there are no WMDs? Violate the "Pottery Barn rule" and simply leave a broken Iraq to fester? But let's imagine for a moment that he has "changed the rationale." Isn't that what Lincoln did when he changed the war to preserve the Union into the war to free the slaves? Isn't that what the Cold War liberals did when they changed a value-neutral stand-off into a twilight struggle between the human bondage and the last best hope of mankind?

Ah, but in the Cold War we never fought the Soviets, we merely leveled sanctions. Couldn't we have done the same to Iraq, since Saddam was no threat to America? I'm sure all of the people asking this asked it already of Bill Clinton when we toppled Slobodan Milosevic, a man who killed fewer people, threatened America less, and violated fewer U.N. sanctions than Saddam ever did.

I'm tired now. But the sad news is I could go on.

I'm not saying there are no good arguments against the war. I am saying that many of you don't care about the war. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore had conducted this war, you would be weeping joyously about Iraqi children going to school and women registering to vote. If this war had been successful rather than hard, John Kerry would be boasting today about how he supported it — much as he did every time it looked like the polls were moving in that direction. You may have forgotten Kerry's anti-Dean gloating when Saddam was captured, but many of us haven't. He would be saying the lack of WMDs are irrelevant and that Bush's lies were mistakes. And that's the point. I don't care if you hate George W. Bush; it's not like I love the guy. And I don't care if you opposed the war from day one. What disgusts me are those people who say toppling Saddam and fighting the terror war on their turf rather than ours is a mistake, not because these are bad ideas, but merely because your vanity cannot tolerate the notion that George W. Bush is right or that George W. Bush's rightness might cost John Kerry the election.

I get e-mails from you people every day and I see your candidate on TV every night. Shame on you all.

[dd74]

"It just seems everything old is new again."

Ain't that the truth. How about a viable exit strategy?

[MichiganMat]

{whoosh} somebody turn the hot air off, jeez

That guy needs to learn to condense. Short, quick, pointed, statements. I don't have time to dive into his blathering rant. He should take some blogging pointers from Mike Moore, that guy knows how to write an interesting tirade.
out.

[techweenie]

Spin and spin and spin.

Bush was given support to go to war because that was a message Saddam would see clearly. The Congress (reasonably) assumed that war was a last resort, and that troops would not be committed without clear evidence. Congress did not declare war. Congress gave Bush the power to declare war, assuming certain conditions were met.

I doubt many people outside of the white house and pentagon knew that GWB had already diverted $700 million from the war in Afghanistan to plan the war in Iraq.

[Aurel]

I think JP enjoys reading his own writing, very much like others enjoy the fumes of their own farts

Aurel

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Aurel
I think JP enjoys reading his own writing, very much like others enjoy the fumes of their own farts

Aurel

I don't see a lot of original thought from the right -- just cut-and-paste junk from the web or wacko publications.

So I guess, Aurel, you're implying that some of these knee-jerk posters are enjoying the fragrance of other folks' farts?

[Aurel]

Yep, and that is even worse

Aurel

[tabs]

Hey Techie...Everybody with half a brain that wasn't dead in this country KNEW Bushy was going to stomp Sadam into the dust...sooner than later...Simple reason BUshy didn't want Irwreck to be a mess at reelection time..he thought it would be all smoothed over by now...little did he know...

BTW: Everything I post is orginal...I do gather from other sources and synthesize....

OPS my point with U is I can't read through the novel length discourses....you not Grisham....synthesize ....boil it down...and if someone wants to go lookit up...well it's their own time...

[singpilot]

Compared to some of the liberal crap I see in here lately, my own farts smell good by comparison.

Right on (pardon the pun) Slacker!

Keep up the good work.

[tabs]

Hey Singalong...is your SC Metalic Blue Grey Targa...

[singpilot]

Sorry, not me. Both of my p-cars are Guards Red.

[island911]

Originally posted by techweenie
Spin and spin and spin.

Bush was given support to go to war because that was a message Saddam would see clearly.
. . . .

Well, CLEARLY, Saddam did NOT see that message clearly. Think about that for a moment.

Yet Kerry; he saw that Saddam would fold, if we said bbb'but this time we really really really mean it . .. really.

yep, and now Kerry "has a plan" . . .a plan to bring the French and Germans in. Yeah, Kerry really knows how to read the situation . .. he woulda done "better" with Saddam . . and will "do better" with the cheat eating surrender frogs. . . .cuz that will fix everything. What a plan!

[tabs]

As the Chief Editor of News and World Report said laughingly on C Rose this week "Kerry's plan is pure nonsense."

1. Being a fresh face , he will have more credibility than Bush....Oh thats nice I think I like his face ... I will send my troops into a mess to get killed and spend my money on a quagmire, when I could be improving roads at home, providing jobs for my people so they can buy wine and cheese to eat... Yep right ...Real Politik says....the only way your going to be abole to convince anybody to shoulder the burden in Irwreck is to PAY THEM OFF....get it?

2. I will have a Summit....I will get support from more countries ....yeah right name ONE Summit that was anything more than a photo op....Real Politik says all the real work gets done behind the scenes and the Summit is for the leaders to sign the previouly agreed upon document ...and thats the best case scenerio...most Summits are dismal failures...a veritable vacation for the Bureaucrat for some time on the beach...

3. I will step up Irwreckie Training.....Yep...and don't you think if Bushy could do the same he would...after all with more Irwreckies doing the guarding the better it looks on the TV news and he is looking down the barrel of a Re election campaign...what more motivation do you need than that.....Real Politik says where is the $$$$ and facilities going to come from to step up training.

4. Kerry says, "I will send more troops if I have to, to secure the borders and provide security." Yep and where is he going to pull those troops from? Real Politik says DRAFT!

5. Kerry says', "I would make it clea to the Irwreckies we ain't gona say forever."....easy to say...Real Politik ....Yeah it makes sense to make your goal obvious....if that is our goal...but the truth is we need a base in the center of the hornets nest called the ME. and we will need to protect our investments in country...

Oh well it Real Politik says the outcome of all Kerrys grandious plan will be tto live in the White HOuse for four years and to continue on with MORE OF THE SAME in Irwreck or...much to the chagrin of the establishment/system to withdraw leaving Irwreck to Al Quedea...

So BOyz Kerry really does present a new begining over what that lying mthr fker Bush says...RIGHT

[Overpaid Slacker]

Well, guys, it's good to see the level of discourse and principled response to Jonah's points is as strong as ever. Yeah, it's kind of a rant, but I like Jonah's prose even when he's all worked up.

As far as cut-and-paste, don't throw goats if you live in a grass house, Tech. Why summarize/distill Jonah when he writes very well? Just to make it look like it was my idea? I don't see a lot of originality from slathering W haters who buy every bullshyt BUSH LIED!!!! story that comes down the pike, so I can't take that knock too hard. I'm also not sure how it's any less valid if it's from the "web" and from the website of a respected publication ... but you obviously couldn't muster any rebuttal and just had to say SOMEthing about the article.

I, personally, can't speak for what 535 people assumed, but I'm not possessed of clairvoyance. My primitive neocon brain says if they authorized declaration of war they did so knowing that it was a real possibility. That, or they're negligent in the discharge of their obligations as legislators.

I'm frankly not sure what "diverting" money from the war in Afghanistan means... whether you agree with W or not, he sees these efforts as part of a whole in the battle against terrorism and its Mother Church Islamofascism. If he believes that $700 million is better spent to achieve his goals somewhere else, then so be it. He could be right, he could be wrong, but I believe he did what he thought was best to achieve his goals, given the evidence he had at the time.

And, Tabby, you layabout bastard -- is it SO hard to read a coupla pages of text? Reader's Digest, are you out of your gourd, man? Really, what else have you got to do? Print it out and take it to the buffet with you.

JP

[tabs]

I don't want to have to tote the fking telephone book to the buffet, my own a$$ is heavy enough allready...All those pages could mean an end to my Sominex addiction.....Hmmmm....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[tabs]

Really what it comes down to is how much time do you have to capture the imagination of the reader on this Board...you gotta be quick or else risk that person being bored and moving on...I just don't have the patience to read your epic novels...I wind up wanting to move on to the next post...

[Overpaid Slacker]

Tabby, I've never played to the lowest common denominator. Not that you are, it's just that's not my target demographic, so to speak.

At least you admit you don't read what I post; rather than not reading it and making some loony comment as though you had and you had a point to make in response.

JP

[MichiganMat]

OPS:
its really simple, you gotta sell it or nobody is going to give a crap. Something like this:

Title: "Nat. Review: 'Shame on you people'"

Content:
{linked pictrue of Jonah}
Jonah Goldberg of the Nat. Review says what I've been thinking all along and tears in the war-haters and their faulty premises. This guy deservces a Peabody. BC04!!!!

{link to article}

[Overpaid Slacker]

Mat -
Thanks for the advice (sincerely). But I'm a "National Review" kind of reader (meaning plain presentation and substance over, if not to the exclusion of, gloss) and I'm not trying to pitch a "Newsweek" audience who wants glib soundbites and cutesy little graphs. Substitute "Wall Street Journal" and "USA Today" for NR and Newsweak, respectively, if you're not a magazine kind of guy.

Having linked to Jonah's column wouldn't have changed its substance; I assume you'd have still found it long-winded and unsatisfactory. Or, ifyou weren't inclined to read it (for whatever reason -- National Review is EVIL, Jonah Goldberg is EVIL, it's too looOOOOooonnnnnng) you wouldn't have read it once you linked anyway. That's not my loss.

At the end of the day, I can't (and wouldn't try to) convince someone who is not interested in a topic to read something of any length about it. If you're interested in a topic, or if you, having read pieces I've written or seen the nature of what I copy/paste/post, give me some benefit of the doubt and give a piece I write or post a few minutes of your time -- great. If not, I'm cool with that. I'm not even trying to lead the horse. Let him find his own damned water.

I might just add BC04 to everything from now on, though!

JP

[nostatic]

I'm still pondering the goats and grass houses...


I'm doing a lot of pondering lately.