Neoconservatism: A philosophy based upon science fiction.

Saturday, November 17th, 2007 @ 2:13 am | Barack Obama, Clueless Conservatives, Politics, War on Terra

I’m not sure if there’s a shred of rational thought in this paragraph from a reader’s letter to Andrew Sullivan:

I fear Obama/Paul, not because they too would suspend liberties, but because their inherent lack of aggression, their disinclination to use force pre-emptively, is more likely to create a situation that permits the horrendous attack, which then ushers in the new leaders who ‘will keep us safe.’ We don’t need nice people who will do the ‘right thing’. We need a man like McCain who will fight hard, cleanly but hard, and who won’t flinch. The best defense against an attack is to attack the terrorists everyday, to kill them and to make their lives so miserable and so difficult that they are perpetually on the defensive.

I think 2008 is a little too late for this comic book vision of foreign policy. How can this reader really believe George W. Bush has been tough on terrorists? President Bush II has been Osama bin Laden’s wet dream idiot president come true. I mean, that’s from a fact-based realistic foreign policy perspective, one employing clean reason as opposed to jingoistic sludge.

To this guy, I must say: Man, I understand you got the fear. Fear is a son of a bitch. We’ve all got our fears, but Bushism has given you nothing but PR slogans, torture, dead soldiers and many more dead innocents. Dead terrorists? Eh, you know. They seem to enjoy committing suicide for the cause and have great recruitment ratios (George W.’s face on a poster is all you need). So you gotta ask yourself what it means to kill a terrorist if it gains the terrorist boss two new recruits. Oh, and by the way, they’ve all received excellent training in Afghanistan and Iraq whacking our soldiers who get sent out to patrol until somebody gets blown up.

Is he really sure Obama is going to do worse? By what, not invading countries? By what, stepping down international efforts to bring in terrorists? I mean, what policy? What plan? Or is this simply manipulated fear? Is this a narrative sold to this fella by used car salesmen? I have to ask if this guy buys into the unspoken Republican belief that Al Gore would not have responded to 9/11 with force (this translates, of course, into not invading Iraq…it’s all the same to them).

In other words, this whole narrative about Republicans being tough and Democrats being soft has always been about Iraq. It clearly had nothing to do with the Cold War. It obviously has nothing to do with Clinton’s pursuit of Al Queda during the 90’s which nobody really cared about back then, since George W. Bush entered office and did radically less than Clinton (his eyes were set on Iraq and Missile Defense). What did George W. Bush do about the USS Cole? Excuses about Bush’s first months are the usual remedial treatment this stunted man receives. When exactly was Bush going to begin defending the country, eh? Is that not an obligation the first year?

Bush fans really hate answering those questions, btw. They tend to get really angry to make up for their purely irrational dismissal of George W. Bush’s colossal failure to protect our nation from Al Queda before 9/11.

If this person really concerned about doing something about Al Queda, the rational, sensible, wise choice is Obama. We’ve got to return to foreign policy realism. Drop the slogans and start doing some damn thinking.


4 Responses to “Neoconservatism: A philosophy based upon science fiction.”

  1. John Luc deMeyer Says:

    “The best defense against an attack is to attack the terrorists everyday, to kill them and make their lives so miserable and so difficult that they are perpetually on the defensive.”

    Wasn’t it these actions that caught, tried, convicted, and executed Sadam Hussein? We too capture our enemy in the middle of night, fly them off to who knows where, and torture them. We go into their cities and kill them and their families to show them who is boss. According to the Kernerman English Dictionary, terrorist means, “a person who tries to frighten people or governments into doing what he/she wants by using or threatening violence.” Who exactly are the terrorists we are fighting?


  2. IowaVoter Says:

    Why does our President have to be an unintellectual cro-magnon?

  3. mike Says:

    Most Presidents are.

  4. Tom Tom Says:

    Every intelligence agency working the beat predicted that the invasion of Iraq would result in an increase in terrorist activity. We invade Iraq, terrorism escalates, and “conservatives” get to posture like they’re tough on terrorists. I ask you, how the fuck does that work?