You Grow Up, I'll Move On
Tigerhawk responds to Josh Marshall's exhortation that "dingbats" to "Grow Up" and welcome Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero. Marshall says,
A president with some dignity and sense of the greatness of his country would say, good he should go there. Maybe he'll learn something about us and our loss. If we as a country were a person, I'd say grow up. Act like a man*. Have some self-respect. * Yes, outdated language. But I know no non-gendered language that conveys the same meaning.
To which Tigerhawk says, "get a clue".
Technically, of course, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not have anything to do with the attacks on 9/11. There is more than a little circumstantial evidence, though, that Iran did. So much so, in fact, that the 9/11 Commission specifically called out the possibility that Iran was an accessory, via Hezbollah, and wrote that it believed that "this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government" (9/11 Commission Report, 241). Notwithstanding lefty claims that the Bush administration has been promoting war against Iran, there is no public record that it actually followed up on this recommendation. Of course, one rarely hears this criticism from Democrats who otherwise remind us that the Bushies "ignored" the advice of the 9/11 Commission.
The circumstantial evidence supporting Iranian involvement in 9/11 is only one small part of its extended alliance with al Qaeda. Righty bloggers and their readers are very familiar with this history, but it is virtually ignored on the left. We at TigerHawk, however, are blessed to have a loyal stable of lefty readers with open minds. If you are one of those and are interested in Iran's involvement with al Qaeda, start here.
So when Josh Marshall tells us to "grow up" and "act like a man," my retort might be "get a clue," or at least read the 9/11 Commission report before declaring that the president of Iran, who underwrites Hezbollah to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, has "absolutely nothing to do with 9/11."
There's little I can add to Tigerhawk's riposte other than to notice the sudden preference in the Left, amounting almost to an epidemic, to a pretension to maturity and wisdom, even when it is clearly masochism in disguise. We are told to "put the adults back in charge"; to shrug off Iranian attacks on US soldiers with the world-weary maturity of experienced diplomats accustomed to a dirty game. We are told to "move on" and not to linger on morbid thoughts like striking back at an enemy who every week or thereabouts, goes on video to threaten us with destruction. We are told that any attempts to treat the enemy with justifiable harshness amounts to a "hatred of America", a lowering of its moral standing in the world's eyes. And now we are asked to "grow up" and share our pain with Ahmadinejad, as if by making ourselves pitiful enough before enough people we could prevent our enemies from striking us again. There you have the attributes of Leftist adulthood and maturity: cynicism, forgetfulness, vanity and self-pity. They are welcome to them.
I hope it is not out of place to observe that none of those attributes have anything to do with survival in wartime. I know there will be objections to that statement, but not to which aspect: the "survival" part or the "wartime" part.
posted by wretchardthecat at 9/21/2007 05:31:00 PM
31 Comments:
Both Wretchard.
The Dems (who are the left) are like Chris Crocker "Leave Britney Alone!!!111!!" or that "don't taze me bro" guy.
Pathetic. And overtly allied to NutJob and Osama.
Making that alliance out of mutual hatred for GWB is going to cost them.
"Survival"? "Wartime"?
Are those concepts "outdated language", too?
Hewitt had a caller who graduated in 1963.
She said the Muslim Profs told the Jews that if what they said offended them, they could leave the class.
It was so bad that the Jews made a movie about it:
Columbia formed a committee to investigate the matter.
The committee included those same Muslim Profs!
---
They also have a history with Hitler's Germany in the late 30's.
Hewitt did a great job of outlining Ike's actions on seeing the concentration camps.
Went out of his way to make sure all his troops saw them, and asked generals to get as many Senators to come as possible.
Very explicit about the reason:
To do as much as they could to avoid the possibility that those who would want to bury the matter would not succeed.
---
Ike was once President of Columbia!
That was then.
doug:
Eisenhower explicitly foresaw a time when people would deny that that ever happened. He did his best to make damn sure as many people as possible saw it with their own eyes.
I didn't know he became President of Columbia U.
Not for long, but then he found other things to do!
---
The Decline of Truth
Columbia University:
Ahmadinejad Yes, ROTC No
Wretchard - it's that psychological projection thing again. THe moonbats know that we think they're mostly students and academics hiding in their ivory towers, and therefore, they haven't had a to face the real world and actually ever earn a living. In other words, they haven't grown up yet.
They look around and see either young unlined faces or aging tie-dyed hippies, and KNOW that this is not a good representation of All America (or All World, for that matter), so to deflect criticism of their tantrums and playground namecalling, they tell everyone else to grow up.
It's sort of funny, actually, because it means they understand how little we think of them as thinkers, movers and do-ers.
Whiskey:
Maybe
"Don't Nuke Me Bro might work?"
Josh Marshall obviously has a non-judgmental thing for the midget mufsidun. Were he into making judgmental assessments he might make a feminist judgment, a HRW judgment and others. Too bad he's only judgmental when it comes to his opposition.
That Iranian nutjob wants to visit Ground Zero to "pay his respects." Why is it so hard to understand his intentions? He wants to be able to return home and tell the world that he honored the 19 fanatics who CREATED Ground Zero, and killed 3,000 of us in the process. And how spineless the Americans were for letting him do it...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Great point and so revolting to think of him secretly celebrating there.
To echo Hitchens, this is a course of masochism. Which is being proposed to us by sadists.
Meanwhile, Columbia U, preening themselves for their devotion to "freedom of speech" for inviting this foul creature to orate on their campus, have cancelled the appearance of the fellow who was going to speak in support of enforcing US border laws. Because he was physically attacked at this bastion of "free speech" last year, doncha know.
To quote Joan Rivers, "gag me with a spoon."
CLIOMAN: That Iranian nutjob wants to visit Ground Zero to "pay his respects."
He's welcome to go to ground zero in NY, so long as he also pays a visit to the Nevada Test Site crater field for additional food for thought before he goes home.
If Ahmadinejad visits anywhere in the US other than the UNGA, my recommendation is that his security detail be made up only of women, that all the cops along the route be women, and that if he goes to Columbia U the hall be packed with women. Let him see that we do not hide our women under burkha or push them to the back. F
Tall Women.
Tall women.
With big guns.
And bigger knives.
I suppose we could endlessly debate “The Iranians did it”, “Saddam did it” Move On did it” alternative conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 but at the end of the day there is no denying the substantial evidence that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was behind 9/11. And what is not up for debate is the path our political elite, fully supported by the right wing blogosphere, took in response to the attacks that September day that killed 3000 people. The humiliating need to yield to perceived economic realities (and long standing elite family relationships) and not pursue justice against the KSA for their obvious official support for the 9/11 attacks has carved out a self-destructive void of cowardice within the soul of the American elite that is fuelling further and wilder outbursts of impotence.
It’s like a grieving widower who continues to dutifully show up to work at his factory with the full knowledge that the Boss ordered the brutal rape and murder of his wife. He needs the job, he has bills to pay, and besides another perp (who fled and remains at large) is popularly blamed for the crime. But everyone in town knows the factory Boss ordered the deed and our poor widower has to not only deal with his loss but every morning he has to look himself in the mirror and feel that gnawing in his gut as he gets ready to go once again kowtow to the man truly responsible for his wife’s fate.
What is astonishing about the debate about denying the Iranian President the privilege of visiting Ground Zero is silence about the fact that Rudy Giuliani actually escorted Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud on a tour of the site barely a month after the Prince’s government gave the final go ahead for the attacks to occur. While on the visit the Prince justified his government’s participation in the attacks of 9/11 and Giuliani was forced to turn down a donation. In the same vein our widower gave his boss an honoured seat at his raped and murdered wife’s funeral but angrily threw away a funeral wreath after the Boss eulogized his wife as a whore who deserved her fate.
This small gesture of defiance against the forces that ordered and paid for 9/11 ended there, but the shame of cowardice is eternal. To help stem the feeling of flowing cravenness, Iraq was invaded in 2003. But shame is so ravenous because it is our natural internal reaction to our cowardly acts just as pain is the reaction to getting punched in the face and Iraq has proven not to suffice at all to stop the gnawing. The Boss is still there laughing it up with his foremen; are they joking about the rape of his dead wife?
Now the Boss is not a physically imposing man. In fact he is a scrawny and sickly wimp. But he has an amazing psychological hold over the widower that comes from having the Boss’ ability to keep those vital paychecks flowing. Could the widower survive without them?
But the widower sees his financial prospects dip in with this the widower’s secret dreams of one day striking his Boss down grow more remote, so the widower, in a pathetic attempt to regain his lost honour, decides, with the utmost resolve, to police his wife’s gravesite from unworthy visitors. And who among us can say this is wrong? Perhaps some of the potential visitors have in fact been involved in rape and murder, albeit not his wife’s, and perhaps these unsavoury visitors would indeed crack a knowing grin while viewing the grave.
But as the Boss continues to yuck it up with his buddies, surely there is only one way for our widower to regain his lost honour, one coarse of action to tame that monster in his gut. And that way is most certainly not in policing his wife’s grave. We all know what that widower must do. But the option of attacking Saudi Arabia is not even on the table.
So why not, let’s very carefully inspect the credential of all visitors to Ground Zero instead.
Those of us who have combat experience (wearing an American uniform) will never forget the moment we had our "wake-up" call. It was at this moment we realized that someone out there was in fact trying to kill us!
The game forever changed. As we looked out onto the battlefield, we knew we had to learn who our enemies were or we were going to get hurt and die.
These boys from Iran are not our comrades, friends, etc. They are our enemies. It is that simple for me, until they prove different.
Those in Columbia who invite such are within a group who wish to remain stupid, really stupid. Problem is, from this group will come energies that will kill other Americans fighting to protect our country.
The humor is that when you wade through all this bullshit coming from that Columbia president, you discover that he is in fact a real coward: He expects someone else to do the fighting for his freedom, he's too scared to move; he hides within his words!
This is just one way an enemy flanks you, probing for that weak spot then attacking through it.
Personally, I have always preferred Princeton over Columbia.
Thought number 2 about this coming event at Columbia.
Seems to me that if our dear and smart president of Columbia is going to play fair, he will create an environment where the president of Iran does in fact get forced to answer a host of questions, many of which one might say are hostile...or should I say direct in demanding that this leader clarify his country's intentions on those issues Americans find important.
If he gets shielded or is allowed to wander easily away from such answers, then we as observers will know the real game that is being played at Columbia: America is bad! Others are good.
Kevin, you're terrible at analogies. Grief.
kevin
To help stem the feeling of flowing cravenness, Iraq was invaded in 2003.
You're on to something. I am very comfortable with going into Iraq for the oil {extraction technology} that we own, but I always felt there was more to it than that.
You have articulated the more
ADE
Kevin,
In one sense, I agree with you about the culpability of KSA in 9/11. But the culpability was broadly shared across some subset of the populations of most of the ME Arab countries plus Iran and Pakistan. And via the liberation of Iraq we now have an army on the ground, allied with a large Arab army, right next door to KSA. We are in a great position to attack KSA if the need arises. Or would you advocate rolling them up right now?
the fact that Rudy Giuliani actually escorted Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud on a tour of the site barely a month after the Prince’s government gave the final go ahead for the attacks to occur. While on the visit the Prince justified his government’s participation in the attacks of 9/11 and Giuliani was forced to turn down a donation.
Kevin, if you're going to attempt to write literary satire or fable, kindly don't use the word "fact" in it. It just makes you look like a raving moonbat if you act like you believe the tripe you're putting down, when you may very well be just a lousy writer.
Marshall is a putz. Not only is he incapable of distinguishing between good manners and poltroonery he finds it necessary to apologize for the genderness of a common term.
Kevin has a similar problem. He cannot distinguish between historical fact and ideological narrative.
My take is that acting like a man, would involve arresting Ahmadinejad, telling the "international community" to shove off if they have a problem with it, and simultaneously arresting any other terrorist inhabiting the UN.
Then we should announce that was FDR's plan all along, to create a fly trap that a future president could spring once and only once on all our enemies at once.
"Some of the missile trucks were painted with the slogans "Down with the U.S." and "Down with Israel." The parade also featured unmanned aerial surveillance drones, torpedoes, and tanks."
The Iranian gnome gave a military parade at home before heading off to Columbia to enjoy the hospitality of some of our academic traitors.
I guess for lefties like Marshall and Bollinger "acting like a man" means not pissing down your leg in public.
Here is the moral bankruptcy of Kevin:
He would oppose ANY military action against the KSA.
He's fine with Iran killing our soldiers in Iraq. Responsible for Khobar Towers. Beirut Barracks. Involvement (along with Saddam, Pakistan, KSA) in 9/11.
Kevin won't stand up for America against ANY enemy -- he's a true Democrat.
Kerry could have won decisively in 2004 by offering to invade Saudi, pump the oil dry, and leave them nothing as punishment for 9/11. With a side order of strikes against Pakistan's nukes and carpet bombing Waziristan to kill Osama.
That like a true Dem he offered apologies for America's existence is why he lost against perhaps one of the most politically inept Presidents in recent memory.
[Bill and Shrillary are of course like most Dems deeply in the Saudis pocket. Same for Obama the Messiah, etc.]
Whiskey,
Here you go again Whiskey. Read me piece, did I make a distinction between Republicans and Democrats? No, I referred to “our political elite” and then simply “elite” That was actually on purpose. Because unlike you, I stopped believing in the “polling booth fairy” long ago. In other words, outside of the types of appeals they make to their potential supporters (ignorant emotionalism for Republicans, bland, poll-tested, vacuous non-sense for Democrats) there is actually very little difference between the political parties. Both chase and are corrupted by big money, including Saudi big money. I know this is heresy for you denizens of the rightwing blogosphere where daily you are drilled and indoctrinated with the dogma of a difference between the saintly Republicans and the proto-Islamic Democrats. Traditionally the Santa Claus myth has also held long sway, at least until critical reasoning abilities are well enough developed to allow children to perceive the truth. It’s only when forced to accept the fantasy that a right wing conservative Senator was not actually soliciting a blow job but really did have a “wide stance” that some of the more mentally agile among you start to see the truth.
But I digress. I would enthusiastically support military action against Saudi Arabia. It would indeed be very popular if the mountains of evidence were available to the public about Saudi complicity in 9/11 and not classified to hide the truth as our political elite has done. And I agree that Kerry would have won big if he advocated such policies. But that is where the problem is. Our political elite are not there to be popular; they are not tasked to do the people’s bidding. They are there to make the very unpopular desires of their big money clients reality. And only the blinding shield of the myth of partisan competition can allow our wealthy betters to get away with this.
Nahncee,
I see very little difference between the Prince’s statement after visiting 9/11 with Giuliani and OJ’s recent book, both were confessions of murder distorted enough to supply the skimpiest fig leaf of plausible deniability. But fair enough I should have modified my statement about the Prince justifying his nation’s participation in 9/11 by pointing out is was stated in diplomatic code.
Buck smith,
I would indeed advocate rolling them up today. But having a huge army in Iraq is hardly helpful towards achieving that goal. And herein lies the problem. I highly recommend Edward Luttwak’s “Strategy” where he elucidates the paradoxical nature of military thought. This helps explains why the popular American mind, so wedded to the notion of “common sense”, has so much difficulty grasping military strategy and could actually believe that having troops in physical proximity to a theatre of war automatically means that they are more available for action within that theatre. In fact the opposite is true. Our troops in Iraq are tied down, locked in a stalemate battle of attrition and the very last duty they are available for is an invasion of KSA. They would be far more available to wreak havoc on the Wahhabi nutjobs if they were sitting in their bases in the States. The question is whether their lack of availability in the Arabian desert is considered a feature or a bug by our political elite.
Kevin, for what it's worth, the Prince's name *is* one of the big contributors towards terrorism coming out of Saudi Arabia, known as the Golden Chain. He was a contributor towards terrorism at that point in time, and the last update I saw of the Golden Chain, he's still a contributor. I
've never been really certain that these Arab oil ticks understand where their petro-dollars are going, or if they just think they're being really good philanthropists (like the Koran says they should be) and helping lots of poor little people around the world who have the interesting hobby of building bombs in the basement.
Post a Comment
<< Home