September 30, 2006

Killer:

"Spiller!"

12 comments:

Simon Kenton said...

Done a mind-meld with Howard Dean, has he?

JorgXMcKie said...

I mean, it's not like jihadist of one stripe of another seize soldiers and/or non-combatants and hold them in 'secret prisons' and saw off their heads or anything, is it?

Danny Pearl was treated by Khalid as an honored guest or noble enemy, deserving of the hospitality of Islam right?

Actually, I believe that Zawahiri and the rest want to treat us all like they did Danny Pearl.

They get zero sympathy from me.

Doyle said...

It is I think unquestionable that he has spilled a great deal Muslim blood. Whether or not the bloodshed has been "murder" or "birth pangs" is a matter of interpretation.

Believing that Bush is a "deceitful charlatan" does not make you a terrorist, or sympathetic to terrorists. It just means you recognize he's been constantly wrong and often lying outright about Iraq for years.

But by all means, try to sell the "Democrats agree with terrorists" idea. I think it's pretty risky, personally.

Did you hear about Bob Woodward's book whose thesis is that Bush is a deceitful charlatan? Selling like hotcakes.

Jim H said...

But by all means, try to sell the "Democrats agree with terrorists" idea. I think it's pretty risky, personally.

Not nearly as risky as engaging in rhetoric indistinguishable from that of the terrorists.

Doyle said...

Of course the terrorists hate Bush! They hate America!

Democrats love America and hate what Bush is doing to it.

To imply they're identical because they are both "Bush opponents" is willfully stupid.

Palladian said...

They're playing you, Doyle. Don't you see that? Just like they convinced lefties all over the place to do their dirty work smearing Israel or how a cheap military dictator from Venezuela convinced liberals that his dickless machismo strutting is a preferable alternative to American exceptionalism. This is a massive game of psy-ops. Don't let them drag liberalism any further through the mud. Show us why you're different than them. Distance yourself from the crazies and killers in a convincing way and more Americans will be happy to vote for your party.

Doyle said...

Palladian -

You don't understand. Liberals are not terrorists, or sympathetic to terrorists.

Bush is a terrible president, and one of the ways in which he's a terrible president (i.e. in his conduct of the War on Terror), incites the hatred of Muslims and especially the fanatics who already hated us.

That's a bug, not a feature.

It's such a ridiculous argument, I'm going to let the accusations of disloyalty slide.

Doyle said...

One other thing:

The fact that, with regard to the war on Iraq, the terrorists have a legitimate beef, is not Howard Dean's fault.

The administration did willfully misrepresent the threat that Iraq posed, and its involvement in 9/11.

That decision has made America less safe, and the people responsible should be held accountable.

George said...

Found in my grandmother's attic:

TV Guide, issue of August 13, 1968, p. 47:

Channel 3, 10 p.m.: Star Trek.

A disembodied pediatrician (William Windom) threatens the Entreprise; Kirk is stranded on the planet Decolletage with Yeoman Rand.

Revenant said...

Done a mind-meld with Howard Dean, has he?

Yeah, it always amuses me when al Qaeda's latest video sounds like something from Democratic Underground.

Jim H said...

Doyle unintentionally conceded the issue when he accused Bush of inciting the hatred of "fanatics who already hate us."

Fanatics who already hate us don't need incitement. They're fanatics after all.

As for the rest of Doyle's claim:

Of course the terrorists hate Bush! They hate America!

Democrats love America and hate what Bush is doing to it.

To imply they're identical because they are both "Bush opponents" is willfully stupid.


I'll not generalize about Democrats as a party because many of them speak and behave responsibly.

The complaint about leftists is not they're identical to the terrorists. They're not. Their goals could not be further apart. But they both want the United States to install an executive who will appease: the left believes the "fanatics who already hated us" can be mollified--and the terrorists would like the opportunity to regroup.

As badly as Al Qaeda has been damaged in the field in Iraq, its members have no need to pursue a victory there when they've been told that they merely need to survive for a U.S. election or two and have one handed to them.

So don't talk to us about "willfully stupid", Doyle, when the left's rhetoric emboldens those who kill our troops. When was the last time an influential liberal used the word "win" outside the context of an election campaign?

Doyle said...

Ok, jim. I'm willing to concede that the stupidity might be accidental.

Invading Iraq made the terrorism problem worse, not better. There was really no reason to go into Iraq, unless you're really, really into defending human rights everywhere in the world. And the Right isn't even interested in defending them at home, so there goes that.

There's nothing exclusively "liberal" or "left" about realizing how horrendously incompetent Bush's foreign policy/War on Terra has been. Lots of conservatives have seen the light.