|
|
|
November 12, 2005
Missing lots of details . . .
Because I spent most of yesterday shopping, I missed two events which occurred in my state: Bush's speech in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, and Rick Santorum's simultaneous criticism of Bush in Philadelphia. Remarkably, the Inquirer's report on latter was headlined "Santorum: White House stumbling in war of words -- It could do a better job of making the public understand the stakes in Iraq, the GOP senator said at the Union League." (Such seeming clairvoyance is remarkable considering the simultaneity of the speeches....) What this means is that Senator Santorum's avoidance of Bush earlier this week was no coincidence. Except he's gone from avoiding to attacking. Here's his argument: Americans have soured on the war in Iraq because they do not understand it as part of a long and necessary fight against "Islamic fascist forces" bent on destroying democracy - and the White House is partially to blame for not articulating the stakes, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said yesterday.While I agree that the Islamofascism is the enemy, I'm not sure how many Americans there are who've actually "soured" on the war have done so because Bush has failed to use the correct terminology in describing it. I think Santorum is trying to position himself to the right of Bush in the hope of winning the election. Whether it's a working strategy remains to be seen. Santorum ought to consider himself lucky that Bush has not singled out Islamic fascism as the enemy (although "Axis of Evil" comes close). Because if he had, then in order to position himself to Bush's right, Santorum would have to claim that this is a war between Christianity and Islam. Regardless of who might agree, a "Christian Holy War" is a hard sell to your average voter. In what may have been just another coincidence (one can't be too sure these days...), Classical Values had another mini-summit at an undisclosed location. Here's an altered picture of a blurry Dennis in a sighly altered state, with a deliberately blurrier companion):  The topic was "reconstructing the classics," and it was resolved that he deconstructionists have failed due to a complete failure of logic and reason (things they view as sexist and unnecessary). That their failure doesn't bother them and they are talking only to themselves only highlights their plight. (I just returned from a long drive to New Jersey, and right now I'm so caught up with details that I can't catch up with the rest of them.) posted by Eric on 11.12.05 at 12:21 PM
Comments
Holy War it undeniably is, but I won't call it a Christian Holy War, nor do I think that's advisable. Christians might think of it as a Holy War, but it's really a war waged by radical Muslims against Western freedom, which includes Christianity in all its variants, plus a lot more. (Not that I mind using "inflammatory" language like Crusade....) Eric Scheie · November 12, 2005 03:18 PM I thought my opening sentence "I agree with Santorum" was pretty inflammatory, since it even outrages me. Ultimately, this is a Holy War for Western Individualism, Polytheism, and my Most High Goddess, but Christian, particularly Catholic, theology is the closest approximation we have today. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · November 12, 2005 09:01 PM If Senator Santorum is supportive of the war, AND he feels that people are confused, then as their elected representative HE better get on the stump to educate his constituency, since HE as an elected Representative is responsible for giving/taking War Powers to the President--NOT, as a "True Conservative" pass it up the Federal chain of command. Next he'll complain about federal bureaucracy of some sort that should be handled by the states, thus assuring that he is capable of talking out both sides of his ass...err... mouth simultaneously. Grand Stand · November 12, 2005 11:44 PM Well, in fairness to Santorum, he's facing an uphill battle for his seat against a pro-choice Democrat. Triangulation tends to cause panic. Eric Scheie · November 12, 2005 11:58 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Holiday Blogging
• The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I agree with Santorum. This is a Holy War, a Crusade, to defend Western Christian-style civilization against the Muhammedans (and the Communists). I am Politically Incorrect.
My question is: Is this President Bush like his father? (He had better not be.) Does he intend to win this War? (He had better.) Never enter a War unless you intend to win.
I'm currently reading Alan Stang on John Foster Dulles. Alan Stang is just a brilliant writer. He should have been a prosecuting attorney. He builds his case superlatively, with one damning fact after another, until the verdict is inevitable.
I have concluded that this War Against the Muslim Terror Masters is but a subset of the continuing series of Communist "wars of national liberation" to bring down the West. China, Korea, Cuba, Algeria, Suez, Viet Nam.... The list goes on and on. And in every one of these wars, there were two enemies, the enemy without and the enemy within. We, the United States of America, the mightiest nation in history, lost every one of these wars. It was not the enemy without that defeated us, but the enemy within.