Best Comment Ever... (A continuing Series)

Fannie's Room: Christian Warriors Soldier On!: (Via C&L)

A very good article discussing the Evangelist Air Force, and why it might not be a good idea to be so well prepared and so dedicated to the proposition of conversion by the sword.

And upon that thread was bestowed what may be the Best Comment Ever about such things.

Mark Twain's "The War Prayer"

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them!

With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

"Why Do You Hate America, Mr. King?"

We are all used to idiotic remarks such as this public appeal to panic from Bush right now. But it's the sort of post that draws Bushista apologists like flies. The trouble is not in finding them, it's in finding one articulate enough to serve as a deserving target for a proper response to their rhetorical question, "why do you hate America?"

clipped from www.abc.net.au

Bush likens 'war on terror' to WWIII

He said he agreed with the description by David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month the act was "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war - World War III".

Mr Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.

Needless to say, much less cite, the general consensus was that Bush was a few bricks shy of a hod, a couple crayons short of a box, or in other words, as delusional as is possible to be without actually being in six-point restraints.

But there's always a shill - it's become so predictable that I imagine a Haliburtan subsidiary operating a boiler room in Nigeria filled with failed scammers and talking-point flipcharts.

clipped from clipmarks.com

5-22-2006 6:46 PM

willhelm60

Some of us have been saying this is WW3 for years. This is not new. As much as some of you hate this country.. We are not the bad guys here. You can have your consipicy theories, hatred for the president, digust for American values, and at the same time stand up for all that is disgusting and sinister in society. I thank God for those in America that still know our place and make this country work and defend it, while this clipmarks forum occupies those of you who can do and will do nothing great in your lives.

So I said (without spell checking, which is why I'm not using clipmarks...)

We don't "hate America," Willhelm. There are certain people who claim to be patriotic Americans, while disparaging the values expressed by our Constitution and the Inalienable Rights recognized by it, that we could frankly do without.

Yourself, for example. [There's more...] You are not representative of core American values, as expressed in the Federalist Papers, the letters of Franklin, the writings of Adams, or worthy of citizenship when you can speak about "knowing our place."

Sir, "our place" is in the Militia, defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. You - and your self-deluded, authoritarian ilk - are precisely such a threat.

THIS - right here - IS such a "well regulated militia," using the power of the press under the aegis of the First Amendment. But if need be, we citizens are charged to do the same under the Second, should it come to pass that our government is suborned and becomes indistinguishable from any other Tyranny.

A Militia is any group of citizens coming together with their skills , talents and ability in common cause and without need to be told by some self-styled "Commander in Chief" what to do or how to do it.

However, I do not actually hate you. Strong emotion can spoil your aim. Besides, anyone stupid enough to state that Libertarianism is "Socialism without Morality" knows absolutely nothing about any of the three concepts involved.

That's where I ran into a comment limit. But there's no such limit here, so I will observe that comments far less insulting to the honor of patriotic Citizens have resulted in "affairs of honor," both formally and informally.

The Internet makes it possible to say such things in the public realm without the prudent restraint that might exist in person. Since the gloves ARE off, I shall respond in kind, not merely to this particular waste of skin, but to all such miserable little cowards, sellouts and chickenhawks who have courage enough to snipe with words - but not enough guts to walk into a recruiter's office and do the honorable thing.

Collectively and individually, you are all completely dispensable - and not just to me. Your politicial inspirations and paymasters (for I'm sure at least half of you ARE paid trolls, using scripts and search engines to drop your little rhetorical turds in the punchbowl of public discourse) consider you completely dispensable. I mean, do you get health insurance with that?

Nope, you are condemned in their minds as 'true believers' or corrupt cowards like them. And believe me, those smart enough to take over this nation from within at the head of willing tools, shills and sycophants such as yourselves are far to intelligent to delude themselves entirely.

But my contempt for you does not derive from shame and self-hatred. Unlike your leaders, I hold you to scorn as a matter of principle.

"American Values" are those of the Founders of America; Those who had the guts to sign the Declaration of Independence, pledging "their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor."

Well, a lot of them had to give up two of those three. For myself, when I think of what "American Values are," I think not of George Bush, but of Nathan Hale.

I will not dishonor them by failing to stand up on behalf of my forebears with safe words what they faced bullets and bayonets to establish. And those who would undermine their achievements, betray their ideals, corrupt the rule of law and dismiss the Constitution as a mere "scrap of paper" are my enemies.

And if I must choose between the values of founders who from principle opposed one of the most competently administered, successful and benevolent Empires in the history of the world, and the values of George Bush, Dick Cheney and the authors of The Project for a New American Century¹, the choice is not difficult. Indeed, if one attaches one's honor to patriotically upholding the Constitution, not merely when convenient, but when it might actually require some personal risk or inconvenience, there is little choice in the matter.

"Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."

1 I love the irony of linking to a BBC article on this matter.

Chickenhawk excuses.

"I'm fighting the cultural war. Both need to be fought and both need to be won by Conservatives."

What an astonishingly stupid thing to say. What the hell would a "Conservative Victory" in IRAQ look like? Seems to me it would involve the disenfranchising of women, the suppression of religious and political dissent, a government unwilling to consider evidence that "contradicts scripture"... Or in other words, a "Conservative Victory" seems a hell of a lot like turning over the keys to the Taliban and doing the Baghdad boogie all the way home.

Idiot.

Of course, that's exactly what a "Conservative Victory" in the "Culture War" would look like, so why don't we all just convert to Islam and get it over with?

"I'm fighting the "Cultural War." You gutless no-neck twerp, you who wish you HAD the guts to be a pansy, you phony, with your GI haircut and 'tude - I have these words for you.

Oh, please Jesus, SOMEONE take them!

From the "and you thought Islamist Fanatics were scary stupid department."

LiberalsMustDie.com - Reports Coming In That Iran War Beginning!!! YES!!!

This could be the beginning of the End Days!!

"We are beginning to move aggressively to try and identify and root out the networks that are involved in helping to bring Iranian-supplied [bombs] into Iraq," Gates said. If you can't solve Iraq, enlarge it. While you were sleeping, the war with Iran might have begun.

I am so excited!

Take me Jesus, I am ready for you to come back to Earth!!

Zibiggy has a plan:

Expressed in an address to Congress, the sum of which is "DO YOUR JOB."

But seeing that it's Zbigniew Brzezinski (May St. Vidicon of Cathode be praised for clipboards), there is a great deal of the precise and the specific in support of his blunt "suggestions."

It's amazing how much a mind can be improved by a prolonged lack of power and patronage.

Blog For Arizona: Brzezinski's Warning to the Senate

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran—though gaining in regional influence—is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about “a new strategic context” which is based on “clarity” and which prompts “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles’s attitude of the early 1950’s toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.

One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichaean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture.

Zbiggy needs to include footnotes! But the essay, in the whole, is well taken - it does not take a giant, pulsating brain such as Brzezinski's to see what rough beast is shambling toward Persia. But he does name that beast more fully and damningly and publicly than most in the political establishment would dare.

The Administration clearly wishes to cast us into a protracted war with Islam in general - World War III is terminology that the Right Wing has floated several times to describe it, as well as the term "clash of civilizations."

I would call it a clash of realities - the term "civilizations" is a bit oxymoronic in my view, considering the leading proponents for this clash on both sides of a divide that I see as being both intentional and convenient to the Idiologues of Islam and the Chickenhawk Castastrophizers of Christianity. In fact, there's little support for either group among the religiously moderate or the moderately religious - in either religion. Sojourners criticizes the war, while Liberal Islam Network cautiously explores the possibility of religious dissent. Interestingly enough, when religious conservatives of all sorts thump their scriptures, yelling loudly about what "The Good Book" has to say, reading the book itself brings a new, and far less "conservative" perspective on the original intent.

When you think of it - all this "clash of cultures" nonsense may well bring to pass the exact opposite; two cultures, so long completely and blissfully ignorant of the values and tenants of the other, discovering that what they have "always known" about the Infidel Other is in fact nonsense, and their greatest threats and foes are those who make a fine living pointing out the Evils and Dangers of the Others.

tag: Christianity, Red Letter Christians, Islam, Religious Fundimentalism, Clash of Cultures, WWIII, armageddon, Unintended Consequences, antiauthoritarian, Iran, Iraq War, Bush's Agenda, Planned Iran War

The Rise and Fall of the American Empire

Thanks to Wot is it good 4

Demise of GOP just took turn for the worse - Scarborough Country - MSNBC.com

Republican senators are now turning their rhetorical guns away from Democrats and toward one another. A few conservative Republican senators, whose votes usually cheer me up during bleak political times, are actually accusing Virginia’s senior senator, John Warner, of providing comfort to terrorists. The White House even got involved in the name calling when Tony Snow suggested Warner’s actions could embolden the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Story continues below ↓ advertisement The message from the Bush administration seems to be this: “Thanks for carrying our water on this miserable war for four years. Now we’re going accuse you of helping terrorists.”

How pathetic.

The entire strategy of the Bush Administration - from day ONE - has been to vilify critics rather than to engage them - and by "critics," I mean anyone who disagrees to the slightest extent. Joe Scarborough places himself squarely in the terrorist/liberal/peacenik camp with the following accurate observation:

Even if you agree with me that this war was worth fighting as long as we believed Saddam Hussein had WMD’s aimed at America, at some point you have to face the facts: the Bush administration was wrong about those weapons, wrong about the nuclear program, wrong about their refusal to quell rioting early, wrong about Bremer’s gutting of the Iraqi army and police force, wrong about refusing to kill or capture al Sadr in 2003, wrong to tell the generals not speak of the coming insurgency, wrong to stubbornly refuse to give generals the troops they needed to win this war, wrong to make the “Mission Accomplished” declaration, wrong for the VP to claim that the insurgency was in its death throes and wrong to push a surge plan that the president’s top generals opposed.

The list could continue for pages but I will be generous to the White House and leave it at that.

At some point, GOP senators and congressmen need to understand that this war is no longer a battle between Republican war heroes and Democratic 60s hippie freaks. The lines have now been blurred by Bush’s bungling war strategy. Now we find ourselves in a fight between war heroes and war heroes. Former secretaries of Navy and former Vietnam POWs. Conservative Republicans and protectors of the president.

And as I recall observing on my radio show Saturday, Download wma file even if you agree with the "Project for a New American Century's" "Rebuilding America's Defenses", there is a right way and a wrong way to go about creating an American Empire. It was not the Legion's might that established and maintained that empire; it was good roads, reliable commerce and general prosperity that made it's more oppressive aspects tolerable to most folks.

In order to build and maintain an empire that is more than fleeting, one has to be clearly superior to the alternative. In that we have failed utterly.

I of course oppose the idea of empire - the time for empires is long gone. They bring no benefits to the table that are not better achieved in simpler, less expensive and far less violent ways. In point of fact, there is no great profit in supporting an empire - and a great deal of both tangible and intangible wealth to lose.

This stark reality overcomes all else; if more than 70 percent of the privileged citizens of the Empire's heart disapprove of it's running, then I'd say that the rest of the world has every reason to be skeptical about joining up. And I would add that should we be so foolish as to continue, the empire might become manifest - but the capital might well be in Europe, South America or China.

tag: American Empire, miserable failure, George W. Bush, PNAC, Neocons, unitary executive, commander in chief, cause for impeachment

Regaring KSFO "HOT TALK" Hosts

"Eef ju are gonna shoot, shoot! Don' talk!" - The Good, The Bad and the Ugly.

One IS tempted to suggest that all such pointy-headed pea brains be encouraged to go put their pale white asses where their loud mouths are. On the other hand... maybe NOT such a good idea.