Althouse: "What's human sacrifice... if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?"

September 25, 2006

"What's human sacrifice... if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?"

Mad Mel. Not just for right-wingers anymore.

33 comments:

Brian Doyle said...: Um, no, sorry. We're not taking him.

The right cast their lot w/ Mel on the Passion and they're not passing him off on us just because he, like most people, recognizes Iraq was a mistake.; 9/25/06, 8:57 AM
Beth said...: David, what a lot of nonsense, and what a typical, hysterical rightwing response. Doyle thinks Iraq was a mistake. You leap from there to Doyle ushering in the Caliphate in the West. Idiotic. Opposing our war in Iraq is not equatable with supporting, or ignoring, the threats of Islamic fundamentalism.

Invading Iraq has strengthened the Islamist agenda, at the very least by transforming Iraq from a secular tyranny to an Islamic government racked by sectarian rivalry. Iraq was no threat to us, so invading it has done nothing to "protect us"; there's no reason to admire flawed efforts that haven't done a damn thing to make us safer. God bless us, every one.

As for Mel? He's an equal opportunity gadfly. No one need claim him; his ego will expand to fill any available space.; 9/25/06, 9:50 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: "....Iraq was no threat to us, so invading it has done nothing to "protect us"; there's no reason to admire flawed efforts that haven't done a damn thing to make us safer......"

Wait, wasn't Saddam's dream to develop and produce nuclear weapons? With Saddam and his sons in power and with a $30 billion per year piggy bank, Iraq eventually developing Nukes was almost certain. Now, there is no such thing as an Iraq capable of such programs.

How can you say Iraq was never a threat???; 9/25/06, 9:57 AM
Mortimer Brezny said...: Mel's trick might just backfire if he slips up and blames Jewish neocons for the Iraq war.; 9/25/06, 9:59 AM
Tim said...: "But your right that 9/11 should have been a unifying event. Unfortunately, Karl Rove and George Bush didn't.",

Right. They appropriately believe we win wars by taking the offensive, seizing the initiative, taking the fight to the enemy.

As best as can be discerned from the absence of anything looking like a strategy whatsoever from the Left, it would, at best, cede the initiative to the enemy by retreating to secured ports and unified radio systems for first responders to out right appeasement.

Yes, the country is not unified because too many Americans haven't the confidence and the will to fight this war. Yes, the country is not unified because too many Americans believe George Bush and Karl Rove are the enemy, not militant Islamic fascism. But don't blame us who won't join the ranks of the quitters, and don't blame us who believe militant Islamic fascism is the enemy and George Bush and Karl Rove are trying to defeat our enemies. Tell us instead how you plan to defeat the enemy. Convince us instead you hate the militant Islamic fascists more than you hate George Bush and Karl Rove. Until then, look in the mirror for those to blame for opting out of unity.; 9/25/06, 10:19 AM
John Thacker said...: The right cast their lot w/ Mel on the Passion and they're not passing him off on us just because he, like most people, recognizes Iraq was a mistake.

Well, Mel was against the Iraqi War from the beginning. He was born in New York, but his family moved to Australia because his father:
1) Hated hippies and thought that the counterculture was making things go to hell, and
2) Hated the Vietnam War (again, considering that Australia sent men, kind of odd).

Mel's just being like his father. People are always confused that his family is so strongly on the most conservative side of the culture wars, but also in the most paranoid side of the antiwar movements as well.; 9/25/06, 10:24 AM
Troy said...: I thought bloodletting for God was good in Mel's sight?

I love the fact that Mel doesn't even give Bush credit for a flawed reason. After all, Bush is evil and likes to see thousands killed -- why? Perhaps to protect Israel which is filled with oh, I don't know... Jews? They do cause wars don't you know.

This statement dovetails perfectly with Mel's anti-semitism and with the virulent left (not the reasonable left -- yes I do know the difference).

The above comment may be right also about Mel's Hollywood rehabilitation which would go something like this... We know he hates Jews, but he hates Bush too. He can't be all that bad!; 9/25/06, 10:38 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: I don't know about "anymore." Gibson's never been particularly politically conservative, and as others have commented, he's always been against the war in the Iraq.; 9/25/06, 10:43 AM
Beth said...: David, I have plenty of vitriol for Islamist violence, misogyny, and barbarism. That doesn't get in the way of calling you on making bullshit moral equivalencies between opposing the war in Iraq--which was not the frontline for Islamists--and beating the drum for dhimmitude. That kind of rhetoric, claiming your political opponents are lackies for our common enemy, is base and won't go unanswered.

Sloan, my reply to David was about what I state above. If you want to argue about what Saddam was dreaming, go ahead. I'm used to the mental gymnastics the right engages in to get from 9/11 to invading Iraq. I doubt we'll discuss it any more fruitfully than we've done in the past, anyway, so I'm not going off on that tangent. So, other than world peace and such, how're things with you?

Freeman is correct; Mel G. has been opposed to the Iraq war for a long time now, and has made statements to that effect preceding his arrest for drunk driving.; 9/25/06, 11:21 AM
Beth said...: David,

I missed the "gaussian blur of latte steam" image the first time around. Kudos on that. But make mine cafe au lait, if you don't mind.; 9/25/06, 11:23 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: Elizabeth, some people believe that the war on terror (against Al Qaeda) is interconnected to the terrorist states and failed states in the muslim world. Thus, the invasion of Iraq makes a lot of sense to them in achieving a comprehensive victory. These same people see your opposition to Iraq as an opposition to the entire effort.

You obviously do not see the connection between Iraq and WOT. I am not sure why you don't? Perhaps it is your way to oppose Bush and support the war, I don't know....

It reminds me of the argument that Bin Ladin thought Saddam an unbeliever so therefore Bin Ladin and Saddam would never cooperate. This appears to be a good logical argument, except that there are hundreds of historical examples disproving it - the most famous of course being the 1939 pact between Hitler and Stalin.; 9/25/06, 11:34 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: Despite Gibson's outrages, I am interested in seeing the movie. I heard on Drudge last night a critic who saw a pre-screening and said that the movie was outstanding.

It is an intriguing question as to why certain civilizations just cease to exist. I wonder who was the last person to turn off the lights as they abandoned Tikal and the other cities.; 9/25/06, 12:23 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Despite Gibson's outrages, I am interested in seeing the movie.

Same here. Passion of the Christ wasn't given its artistic due because of its religious content. It was an excellent movie. I'll definitely be seeing his next movie no matter what sort of political message or content it includes.; 9/25/06, 12:47 PM
goesh said...: The Brits just killed a senior AQ commander in Basra name al-Faruq, which despite having a name that sounds like a cigar brand, is quite significant since he has origins in the Philippines and Indonesia and was a key player with the Moro islamists. Of course Iraq is drawing them in. Why does the Left think the Iraqi borders were left so porous? When 1500+ are killed in a place like Fallujah alone, their ranks are seriously depleted. The Left persists in laboring under the false assumption that trained, blooded fighters arise from the slums of Damascus and Cairo and West Bank and instantly morph. From the ol' used shoe stall in a Cairo back alley to a highly competent urban fighter in a matter of days. You can do that when you wear a Che t-shirt and suscribe to the notion that radical chic is a viable political statement. 3rd world countries do not teach guerilla/urban warfare tactics, so let's not hear the contention that former military are filling the ranks of terrorists by the thousands every day. There is a reason the US does not list enemy KIA rates in countless actions that have occured and are occuring, and it's not because we are the good guys and don't brag about such things. Many a blooded fighter from Chechnya, Gaza, Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, West Bank, Kasmir, etc have come to Iraq to die and we have obliged them, by the thousands. The Left would have us believe that Abdul the coffee server can cross the Iraqi border and instantly take command of men and logistics and engage even our Special Ops forces. Attrition is a real bitch when all you get for your effort is some virgins in the sky.; 9/25/06, 1:11 PM
Beth said...: Goesh, you should go into writing thrillers. I don't know where you get your fantasies about what "the left" believes, though. I don't have any misconceptions about who is pouring into Iraq through the borders we opened after our invasion. I think it's morally outrageous that we chose this country to fight our battles in, putting the people of that country in great jeopardy. Of course, as Fen says, Iraq is the frontline. Now. Not before 2003.

Sloan, I replied to you as well, but blogspot ate it, and as of 1 pm, I am preparing for tonight's football game, so I'm going to have to beg off yet another repeat of Iraq: Yes or No? I must don my black and gold, and go mingle with my people in search of beer and a good defense that can stop the run. I'll be way up high in the cheap seats; I'm sure you'll see me wave if you watch carefully.; 9/25/06, 1:26 PM
goesh said...: I have no fantasy about the Left since the Left suscribes to the Law Enforcement model to address terrorism, believing terrorists are so stupid they had to use box cutters to kill 3,000 of us with. How many of the cigar man's (al-Faruq) aides were with him do you suppose? What do you suppose they were trained in? How many taken alive and interrogated by Iraqi forces who probably think John Roberts is an American goat herder? How many laptops were taken do you think and what would be on them? What about cell phones? What about collateral logistics, i.e. those harboring him, providing a home and car? What do you suppose they can tell when questioned by Iraqi intelligence agents who think the Geneva Conventions are a brand of tampax? Stick to hugging your whales and petting the spotted owl and leave the killing of our enemies to those best suited to the dirty task at hand. I have no fantasies about that, young lady.; 9/25/06, 1:49 PM
Revenant said...: There have been plenty of high-profile conservatives who have been against the war, or at least skeptical of it, from the beginning. The right isn't like the left -- you don't get thrown out and ostracized, Hitchens/Lieberman style, for having the temerity to hold a heretical belief or two.; 9/25/06, 2:05 PM
Sigivald said...: Off topic, every time I load the main page here, I see the "Despite its pedigree, the programming remains anodyne and apolitical." post from last Tuesday; to get current posts I need to go to the Archives.

Is this happening to anyone else, or is it just me?; 9/25/06, 2:21 PM
AST said...: What interests me is Mel's claim that sending troops to Iraq is "human sacrifice."

I've thought that sending young men and women out to blow themselves up along with as many Jews, Americans or Sunnis/Shiites as possible in the name of Allah is far more like sacrifice than sending the Army into Iraq. The military doesn't glorify its casualties. All that armor, training and technology is aimed at protecting our own troops and non-combatants. Although we honor those who die fighting to protect and spread liberty, we try to keep our own folks unharmed.

Mel has become a pinball. When he speaks, people should avert their eyes and pay him no attention.; 9/25/06, 2:38 PM
Harkonnendog said...: I wonder if it is just a cynical way to enter the left's good graces. So much of the left is already anti-Semitic. Surely they'll forgive his comments if he does a little Bush bashing.

The right already forgave him because of Lethal Weapon and Mad Max. (No, not because of The Passion. That might have worked on the Christian Right, but the gun-loving, take no crap right is all about Mad Max and Lethal Weapon.); 9/25/06, 3:03 PM
Pat Patterson said...: So Mr. Gibson makes an anti-war comment in front of a room full of Trekkies. How exactly is that either important or interesting? Producers, directors and actors can, with tear stained faces, lie, lie and when the applause abates lie some more. It is their inclination and training to say whatever is needed in hopes that the audience will buy tickets.; 9/25/06, 3:51 PM
Harkonnendog said...: "The current administation combines the diplomatic instincts of Sonny Corleone, the smarts of Fredo, the ruthlessness of Michael and the respect for law of Tom Hagan."

This is a neat idea.

Clinton combined the diplomatic instincts of Fredo, the smarts of Tom Hagen, the ruthlessness of Michael, and the respect for law of Sonny.

Reaganed combined the diplomatic instincts of Vito, the smarts of Sonny, the ruthlessness of Hagen, and the respect for the law of Michael.

Carter combined the diplomatic instinces of Sonny, the smarts of Sonny, the ruthlessness of Sonny, and the respect for the law of Kay.; 9/25/06, 4:34 PM
Revenant said...: What's human sacrifice... if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?

Sending your only begotten son to die in order that others might have eternal life? :); 9/25/06, 4:56 PM
The Exalted said...: here's something i find strange in the "iraq is the key in the GWOT"

1. the bush crowd wanted to invade iraq since day 1.

2. there was no GWOT on day 1.

3. in fact, the bush crowd wanted nothing to do with any fight against terror pre 9-11.

4. yet, iraq is some mythical key to the GWOT.

explain, discuss.

also, are all tinpot dictators worth $300 billion and 2k+ american lives to remove?

just askin'; 9/25/06, 5:36 PM
Richard Dolan said...: So it's "sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?" There are many good reasons to have sent the "guys off to Iraq," which is why in 2003 almost every major politician, including Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Gore and HR Clinton, supported that decision (she and Lieberman still do). Support has waned because the task is difficult and expensive, and many former supporters of the Iraqi policy only have the stomach for things like this when they are relatively cheap and easy. Sorry, but life is more complicated than that.

Since we dealing with people in the arts, I thought the following report (courtesy of lgf) was apropos:

"A Berlin opera house has canceled a performance of Mozart’s Idomeneo, after German police warned of possible Islamic attacks—because in the opera’s epilogue, the main character enters with a bloody bag and triumphantly pulls out the severed heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha, and ... you guessed it ... Mohammed.

The opera house did not receive threats or demands to cancel the show; they did it preemptively, out of simple fear. Welcome to Mozart Year 2006.

The original article in German: Oper aus Angst vor Anschlägen abgesetzt. (Hat tip: DHH.)

UPDATE at 9/25/06 1:11:34 pm:

I should point out that the severed head scene is not in Mozart’s original opera; it’s an addition by the director of this production.

UPDATE at 9/25/06 1:15:37 pm."

If that's the reaction to Idomeneo, wait till one of the jihadis figures out what Abduction is all about.

If you want a reason to support the fight against Islamofascism, here's an idea: do it for Mozart. Even Mel might get in line with the good guys if it's framed that way.; 9/25/06, 5:58 PM
Revenant said...: 1. the bush crowd wanted to invade iraq since day 1.

Some of Bush's advisors did, yes.

2. there was no GWOT on day 1.

We weren't fighting back yet, at any rate.

3. in fact, the bush crowd wanted nothing to do with any fight against terror pre 9-11.

They pursued terrorists in the same halfassed way Clinton had, yes.

4. yet, iraq is some mythical key to the GWOT.

Replacing Muslim dictatorships with democracies is key to the GWOT. Iraq was the best target because (a) it was in open violation of UN resolutions, (b) it had been in a state of war with America since the early 90s, and (c) there was a nearly-unanimous bipartisan consensus in Washington, dating back to the late 90s, that regime change in Iraq was in the best interests of the United States.

also, are all tinpot dictators worth $300 billion and 2k+ american lives to remove

Removing Hussein from power cost a few tens of billions of dollars and 140 American lives -- a trivial cost for the removal of an enemy.

What's been expensive has been the attempt to establish a democracy in its place. Whether you think that cost has been worth it depends on whether you think it is in America's best interests for Iraq to be a democracy.; 9/25/06, 6:13 PM
shergar said...: "So Mr. Gibson makes an anti-war comment in front of a room full of Trekkies. How exactly is that either important or interesting...."

It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead Jim, dead Jim
It's worse than that, he's dead,
Jim, dead Jim, dead.; 9/25/06, 6:13 PM
knox said...: Mel Gibson is no different from any other celebrities who think we actually care what they have to say about well, anything serious, and who revel--in a shamefully masturbatory way--in their counter-cultural bravery and rebellious criticism of an American president. [ clarification: republican president. ]

Of course, these are the same chickenshits who had exactly *zero* to say about the assassination of one in their own ranks, Theo Van Gogh, by radical Muslims.; 9/26/06, 9:22 AM
Beth said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 9/26/06, 10:36 AM
Beth said...: Goesh, were you wagging your finger and looking over your glasses when you lectured me and called me "young lady"? I'm 46, so that makes an old broad. Get your sexist, demeaning terms straight. Thanks for the entertainment; I'm particularly amused when you completely ignore my comments and just rant on about "the left" and what "it" believes. Rage on, old fart.; 9/26/06, 10:36 AM
Beth said...: david, the seats were much better than I'd thought, and we had a great view. Thanks for asking.

All I have to say now is "Who Dat!?"; 9/26/06, 10:37 AM
Sigivald said...: He makes his living portraying characters with beliefs he can never be himself i.e. Patriot, Lethal Weapon, Mad Max, etc.

Well, he is an actor, is he not? That is typically what actors do.

(PS. My site loading fixed itself, though I'm sure nypundit's idea would have worked, and thank him for providing it.); 9/26/06, 2:37 PM
Revenant said...: They secretly wish they could get away with it like Mel did - and get an anti-Communist or pro-business movie made that would never get the Mogul's assent.

Uh, yeah...

See, the problem with your Protocols of the Elders of Hollywood theory there is that the "big six" movie studios in Hollywood (News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Sony, Time Warner, and NBC Universal), have only two moguls between them -- Murdoch and Redstone. And I wish you lots of luck explaining why the latter two might have communist or anti-business sympathies.; 9/26/06, 5:34 PM