Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Dear Bruce,

It seems our views are close on this one point of which candidate would be better, so to speak, for OBL, though not at all the same when you get down to basics. So let’s do that.

I think your prescription for what we ought to do is mistaken in its implicit endorsement of an active US role in the region very similar in its professed aims to GW’s neo-con Wilsonism.

And I think it is based on the faulty and strategically mendacious diagnosis of the region’s problem bruited by Democrat liberals and GOP neo-cons, tailored to serve their common Likudnik Zionism, that Muslim terrorism is mostly incited by “totalitarian,” or at least bad, regimes in the area that the US has supported in the past and must now get rid of.

The truth of the matter, I think, is that our primary aim in the region – which our leaders have always allowed to be trumps over our only interest in the area, our need for a quiet, steady flow of oil – has for decades been and is now to guarantee Zionist aggression and that, recently, we have chosen to be the principal policy tool of Ariel Sharon and his neo-con mouthpieces.

And, in response, as he and they have repeatedly said, OBL and the Muslim fundamentalists have attacked us in our homeland, and may do so again, pretty much solely on that account.

Note well, liberal friend: the only reason Al-Qaeda has to attack us, and the only reason anybody of a Muslim persuasion has to dislike us and perhaps decline to sell us oil on good terms, is that we are violent, aggressive, and pig-headed supporters of a violent, aggressive, and pig-headed Zionism.

It follows that what we really ought to do, post 9/11, is what we ought to have done as soon as the complicating factors of the Cold War went away (if not sooner), and that is to rapidly draw down our support for Israel, our military presence in the area, and our direct interference there to pretty much nothing at all.

As to the more activist role in the region still urged – and urged jointly - by the neo-cons and the liberals aimed at regional destabilization ostensibly to overthrow “totalitarian” and other bad regimes but fundamentally to install governments serving the interests of Israel, this relies on the absurd notion that, in the clear sunshine of democracy and liberty, the unhealthy mud of Islamic fundamentalism and its terrorist armies would dry up and blow away like dust.

But Muslim fundamentalism has grown and spread in the lands of Islam from the earliest days of the 20th century, before any significant US influence in the Mahgreb, the Levant, or Central Asia, bitterly opposing modernity and secularity, and violently hostile to Zionist colonialism even at that early date.

In recent decades, its hostility has been directed at these same targets: Zionism and all who support it, and modern secularism and all the regimes of the area that defend it.

As for the relation between democracy and Muslim fundamentalist terrorism, consider the story of the FIS in Algeria. Consider the overthrow of the Shah and the radically anti-Zionist regime of the Mullahs that was swept in democratically to replace his.

And look, while you are at it, at the assassination of President Sadat and what the fundamentalists want to do to the Egyptian state, apart from Turkey the most friendly to Israel in the whole area.

For Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism, destabilization, revolution, and democracy are the royal roads to power. And their real aims remain to destroy the secular liberty of bourgeois modernity in their lands and end the aggressions of, if not extirpate, the “Zionist entity.”

Like the Mullahs before them, Al-Qaeda and fundamentalist movements throughout the Muslim lands do not fear, and would not evaporate under, a democratic regime. Far from it! They themselves long for and work toward democratic revolution as an opportunity to crush liberty and fight more openly and powerfully against Israel.

As for us, we have foolishly stirred the pot as nothing Al-Qaeda could have done would, and if we pursue a policy of destabilizing the undemocratic but peaceable and relatively secular regimes in the area in the name of democracy we will be weakening the Muslim fundamentalists’ blood enemies and empowering their friends from Morocco to Turkey.

And as for the fate of Israel, always the number one concern of duopolitan policy, GWs response to 9/11 has been to endorse Sharon’s every move and ambition in Palestine, and to act out his desire for vengeance on Saddam Hussein for his endorsement of specifically Palestinian terrorism against Israel.

But this has been a stupid policy, both for Israel and America; and while it has done nothing to make Israel safer or more secure, it has done wonders to strengthen the conviction of Muslims everywhere of the Great Satan’s unrelenting wickedness, and has renewed their hatred of us and their respect for OBL and Islamic fundamentalism in consequence.

And this is why, if OBL has a preferred horse in this race, it is GW by a nose, as GW is marginally more likely to do more of a helpful nature for him and Al-Qaeda.

Either of the duopolitans is certain to continue to play a provocative, Zionist role that will serve him as a recruiting theme. And both are apt to try to shove the area’s regimes along in the direction of democracy, gambling they can somehow make that safe for us and for Israel, though “the Islamofascists” know better.

But GW is the one likely to do big, splashy, violent stuff that outrages the Muslim masses the world over to fever pitch. And that, of course, is very helpful and very destabilizing, indeed.

What election result would least serve Al-Qaeda’s turn, and most serve both Israel’s and ours in the region? A victory for Ralph Nader. Or the Libertarian candidate. Or the Green candidate.

A victory for any candidate at all committed to peace, non-intervention, and America’s withdrawal to a role in the world more in keeping with her moral obligations and her actual interests and power.

Too bad that won’t happen, eh?

Bruce, I don’t think it’s helpful to push the idea that bin Laden is a madman. He’s not. And the fact is, throughout the Muslim world he is preceived to be a pious and humble defender if Islam.

You are right in stating that Bush is bin Laden’s indispensible ally. It’s a fact that Bush’s full support of Sharon, his hand’s-off approach to the Israeli/Palestinian problem, and his unnecessary invasion of Iraq has given credence to bin Laden’s call for ‘defensive’ jihad in the Muslim world.

Because of Bush’s policies, al Qaeda’s has been transformed from a relatively small organization to a global anti-American Islamic movement.

I don’t think we really need to propagandize bin Laden to convince Americans he must be destroyed. Let’s be clear-eyed about who our enemy is and what their goals are. Otherwise, like Bush, we’re boxing shadows.

Bin Laden built his reputation on his ability to pull of some deadly operations against the U.S. and its allies. It proved his ruthlessness, funding and logistical abilities, but let’s not overestimate his grasp of history or strategy. He forgets nothing in history and learns nothing. As for strategy, if he just wants to kill randomly, he succeeds. If he wants to effect real change along the terms he advocates, he is an abject failure.

He doesn’t understand the U.S. Bin Laden evidently thought that the U.S. would react to the 9/11 attacks the way we reacted to the first Trade Center bombing, the Embassy attacks and the Cole. According to captured Al Qaeda leaders, he was surprised by the ferocious U.S. response. Then he predicted that, if the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, we would be bogged down for years in the mountains, the streets of American would run red with blood and the Muslim street would rise. A few months later, he was running away from his stronghold and his infrastructure was in shreds. Why did he send this tape? Because he couldn’t send a bomb. Why hasn’t he followed up his attacks on the U.S.? Because we stopped him. He looked healthy on the tape. I wish he didn’t, but consider this: none of bin Laden’s predictions and hopes he expressed on his various messages since 9/11 have come to pass. He now must rage impotently on tape.

Bin Laden is like a person describing a fight like this: “first I brought my face down on his knee. Then I pummeled his fists with my stomach. Finally, I used my ass to injure his foot.” I don’t think bin Laden can be happy that the government he helped control in Afghanistan is gone, that women are voting and returning to school and jobs, that elections held and all his threats to disrupt them came to almost nothing. Is his defeat complete? Almost, and bid Laden is taking consolation that we scuffed our shoes while kicking his ass.

Bin Laden plays on the Arab world’s fantasy that its problems are external and that they can be addressed only by returning to a fantasy past that never was. It is easy for hate mongers to whip up support among those who feel that history has passed them by, but it translates into more hate, not effective action. People like bin Laden are helping keep the Arab world from developing and becoming prosperous. That is certainly evil. Osama bin Laden’s image can continue to create hate, intolerance, poverty and ignorance among the people he purports to represent.

Bruce,

Are you kidding me?

Self determination is the middle east?

I guess the Taliban let the women of Afghanistan if they wanted to wear the Burka’s and gave everyone a vote on the rule of law.

And I am sure that Sadam asked all those people in the mass graves if it was OK if his murderous regeme shot them in the back of the head.

The left needs to come to grips witht he fact that the goal of the Osama Jihadists is a world devoid of anyone not a Muslim. We can pull a Neville Chamberlain and pretend that if we just stay here in our little bubble maybe the bad man will let us live in peace. Chamberlain was wrong, Kerry is wrong to preach his “Global Test”.

We must continue to show the world that the US will no longer be a doormat for the terrorist bullies. Bush 1 and Clinton made at best feable responses to Kobar, Trade Center Bombing, Embassy Bombings, USS Cole and Somalia. When you let a bully punch you in the face over and over his attacks only increase. George Bush has finally shown Osama, Sadam and the other Jihadist bullies that the US is going to fight back, and we will win.

People like bin Laden are helping keep the Arab world from developing and becoming prosperous.

Jack, I was ready to discount your entire post until you got to the last paragraph. While I think your portrayal of bin Laden is wholly inaccurate, that sentence is undeniably true.

The problem is, bin Laden is preaching a message that - no matter what you or I personally think about it - resonates in the Muslim world.

Most Muslims don’t seem to be as impressed by bin Laden’s prowess as a military leader, as by his religious message of holy and righteous jihad in the defense of Islam.

You and I may think it’s a crock, but we’re not his target audience. The real question is, how do you defuse that message?

AP

Please see my message under the Osama Sends an election bomb post. It answers essentially the same question.

Gas em all and let allah figure it out. Heck, God did it with 40 days and nights of rain and let Noah live… which begs the question, who would be the modern day Noah and the deciples for the Muslims… Louis Farrakahn, Michel Jackson,Cat Stevens backed by the Pointer Sisters? the mind bogles… Kerry is toast thank God…the real one, not some god born from a camel herder’s mirage…

Now that the election is only days away, it looks like WatchBlog is being overrun by the wackos, screamers, bigots, juveniles, and trolls that populate most other political message boards.

WatchBlog, watch out!

-Cf

I don’t agree that obl wants bush. I also don’t see iraq as a failure,,,yet. There are only two provinces in iraq that are still a problem.
The entire 911 debacle can be laid directly at the feet of the previous administration. They cut defence and intelligence spending to the bone. They also did not pass along intel about a plan to use passenger planes as bombs.
Many posts talk about the saudis, zionism and the palestinians.
The saudis like the US, regardless of who is president. Why? Years ago a saudi prince was kidnapped. The US was insturmental in his rescue. That prince is now the ruler of saudi arabi.
The israeli-palestinian situation could be greatly helped with a signature on a peace treaty. After the six day war a treaty was drawn up that would give the palestinians much of the currently contested west bank along with joint rule of the holy city jeruselam. The palestinians refused to sign as they will settle for nothing less than the complete destruction of israel. The israelis have shown tremendous restraint in not wiping the palestinians out.

I don’t agree that obl wants bush.

al Qaeda has already endorsed Bush:

An al Qaeda spokesman, quoted on the Arabic news Web site www.elaph.com, said the organization hoped George Bush would win re-election, “because he acts with force rather than wisdom or shrewdness, and it is his religious fanaticism that will rouse our (Islamic) nation, as has been shown. Being targeted by an enemy is what will wake us from our slumber.”

And then,

I also don’t see iraq as a failure,,,yet. There are only two provinces in iraq that are still a problem.

Four provinces, actually. And they account for about 80% of the population of Iraq.

…I just don’t have the patience for this anymore. The rest of your assertions (except for the very last one) are nothing but misinformed opinion. Whatever.

Unfortunately for “American Pundit”, the positions taken by FreedomFocus.Org are well researched prior to posting. Just because you do not agree, or do not have a competent response, does not bean they are “misinformed opinion”.

And for the record, as for myself and most other contributors to FreedomFocus.org, we ARE CONSERVATIVES. We just do not fall down drunk over everything spewed out from the Republican right wing fringe.

And by the way, as a personal note, I wrote the key analysis accepted by the Reagan White House in late 1986 - early 1987 which defused growing calls by the media for an impeachment inquiry.

Of course, in 1988 I also wrote the analysis that led to the final defeat of the final Contra funding bill before Congress which was argued by Bill Press in open-air forums just prior to that vote.

So YES, the little guy, with good research… CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Thank you,
Bruce Senator, Director
FreedomFocus.Org