Where The Left Takes A Turn For The Worse

I just heard a piece on the BBC World Service online that featured an interview with some knucklehead from Human Rights Watch. The last question of the interview was, "Do you think Saddam Hussein can get a fair trial?". The guest thought not. My question is: WHO CARES. What kind of Bizarro World do we live in where people actually worry whether genocidal monsters get a fair trial?

This piece was followed by one concerning the enormous amount of firearms floating around Iraq, one for every third Iraqi. I don't know whether the trial will be fair or not, but the amount of guns in that country almost guarantees that Saddam will get what he's got coming, regardless of the sentence.

There was a great show on the History Channel a couple nights ago, about the post-war Nazi resistance in Germany, made up of former SS called Werewolves. Whenever an American GI was killed by one of these guerrillas, our troops would round up 13 Nazis and, regardless of their involvement with the incident, would line them up and shoot them all. The Brits preferred using Nazi guillotines for this same purpose. Now THAT'S counter-insurgency.

John Kerry is so boring he's not even fun to campaign against. I can't even get frightened about the prospect of him winning, he's so milquetoast . His domestic policy wouldn't be that different from Bush's, except for repealing the tax cuts. Like Bush, he says he wouldn't pull out of Iraq until it was stable. His main difference on foreign policy is that he would involve the UN; well, they're involved now, and so is NATO. The main area in which he could cause damage would be social issues, primarily through the Left-of-Castro judges he would appoint. But his personality is such a wet-blanket he can't even get me riled-up about that. At least Gore was fun to make fun of.

It's true - I was a teenage Clinton-hater. I spent my early twenties in the bleachers rooting for the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. I was mad at my Senator for voting to acquit Clinton in the impeachment proceedings. My ravings about Bubba disrupted many a friendly social gathering. I didn't get a truly good night's rest until Inauguration Day 2001.

But when Clinton recently returned to the public foreground, my blood pressure did not rise the way it used to. He's just so insignificant now. The critical reception to his bloated memoirs seems to have cut short the much-predicted "Clinton Summer" by a couple of months, and his TV appearances promoting the book made him look ridiculous, not sinister ("That's when I became a secret-keeper, Oprah").

Conservatives have to admit it: the nineties were pretty good. I myself have had to come to terms with that fact. Sure, we helped to make North Korea a nuclear menace, and we let Bin Laden go free to plot 9/11, but there was a new Seinfeld every week and the whole world loved us. (Getting a hummer in the Oval Office was probably the last US action the French actually approved of). In this Brave New World of global Jihad, I would gladly put up with the President getting head if it meant more Americans abroad got to keep theirs.

It is apparent that the Clinton Legacy will forever be (of course) Lewinsky, Lewinsky, Lewinsky; the name that became a euphemism. There will be footnotes about the economy, Welfare reform, and Kosovo. But the caption under the photo in the high school textbook will be Bill Clinton, 42nd President, impeached by the House of Representatives over a sexual affair with an intern in the White House. That's it. That's not scary. Just sleazy.

Lately when I think back on my hysteria in the Clinton years, I feel a little embarrassed. It was silly that with so much death creeping over the horizon, I was losing my mind over the popularity of a cad President. How unimportant perjury seems now, compared to global jihad. How unimportant the Perjurer seems now, compared to the man currently making war on jihad.

When I hear the things said today about Bush by shrieking Leftists, I can't help but feel a little sympathy with their hair-pulling. I've been there. I've watched in disbelief as the approval ratings of my nemesis remained inexplicably high, despite all my rantings. I too have thrown my hands up in frustration, trying to convince friends that the country was going to hell. I too believed the worst about a Commander in Chief, exasperated that the American people refused to recognize what was so plain to me.

We conservatives believed that Clinton's slimy immaturity was dangerous to the country. We had no way of knowing back then how right we would turn out to be.

I must admit, the first time I viewed the new Bush ad with the MoveOn.org Hitler footage, I chuckled. I always like to see the excesses of the Left thrown back in their face. On second thought, however, I think the ad does little good. The inclusion of the Hitler footage just adds more mud to the slinging going on right now.

The Bush campaign could've stayed above the fray and still made its point in a far more cutting way - by using almost the exact same footage without the Hitler part. Show Al Gore screaming like a fool, with the on-screen text "This man was the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2000". Cut to Howard Dean hollering on about Bush, with the text "This man almost became the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2004." Cut to John Kerry and his baffling Ratheresque comment, with the text "Both of them support this man for President of the United States". Enough said. Leave out the Hitler stuff; it's not necessary to show how hysterical and ridiculous these people are.

Lately I have given a lot of thought to the logic of Michael Moore's conspiracy theory concerning the Bush Administration, and I have come to a shocking realization: Michael Moore and George W. Bush have conspired together to enrich themselves through the War on Terror!

Just take a look at the facts. Who has benefited financially from the mishandling of the war? Moore has made millions in the first weekend of Fahrenheit 911's release, millions he would never have made without the war - millions he would never have made without the election of Bush. Who did Moore publicly support in 2000? The spoiler, Ralph Nader, the man who handed Florida to W. Coincidence?

Note how much free publicity this film has received from right-wing talk radio and Fox News. Would Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and their ilk devote so much air time to something they didn't want people to see?

But what does Bush have to gain from a box office hit which rips his own policies to shreds? That's easy: by filling the film with easily-refutable assertions about Bush's corruption and ineptitude, Moore can be discredited by the Right as a far-Left extremist, thus inoculating Bush from all valid criticism.

The end result? A second Bush term and a very rich Michael Moore.

Now - if I can just get Mirimax to pay me to make a documentary about all this...

I love it - the early transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis. Now the Jihadists are put in the position of trying to bring down a society of free Muslims. These are the kind of suprises I like. From a domestic political standpoint, the administration needs more bold action like this, to control the news cycle and keep critics on a unsure footing. But more importantly of course, we've taken one more step towards the self-determination of the Iraqi people, and towards bringing our forces home.

The Michael Moore movie was number one at the box office this weekend. After this morning's announcement about Iraq, maybe the media will have something else to chatter about rather than giving Moore free advertising. You know, that guy who made the fast-food documentary Super-Size Me could have saved himself a lot of grief had he simply followed Michael Moore around and filmed HIS eating habits.

This is my first attempt at blogging. In order to get things started, I've posted a piece below which I wrote last month. More posts will be coming soon.

It may go without saying that the terrorists believe they can defeat the United States. However, in the present chaos that is Iraq, we are in danger of proving them right.

Osama Bin Laden has long believed that the American people have no stomach for casualties; that we do not have the will to fight. While we are the most powerful nation in the history of mankind, Bin Laden thinks we have grown decadent and soft and will not wield our power in our own defense.

He may be right. After the national embarrassment of the Iraqi prison scandal (and the incessant television coverage of it), recent polling shows public morale slipping, along with support for the war. Headline after headline, column after column, editorial after editorial, the implication has been: we cannot win in Iraq, and that to try to do so is to also lose the War on Terror. Having declared "Mission Accomplished" before the worst killing had even started, and with pre-war intelligence on WMDs now discredited, the President’s poll numbers have fallen, and the once strong and determined tone of the Bush White House has been replaced with apologies.

Bin Laden could not have scripted it better himself.

He was in Afghanistan in 1984 to help fight the Soviet invasion of that Muslim country. Seeing the Soviets defeated, he first tasted victory against a superpower. He saw that it could be done. What's more, Bin Laden saw that the Russian disaster in Afghanistan was a very large domino in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the end of their superpower status. He believes that the same could be done to the United States.

The Bush Administration's response to 9/11 was no doubt the exact response Bin Laden had hoped for: to draw us into the trap of Afghanistan. The plan was to wear us down, break our will to fight, and then drive us back out, defeated, drained, and demoralized. Once defeated in Afghanistan, we would not attempt to stop them from spreading Islamo-fascism over the rest of the region. If they could also destroy our economy with cataclysmic attacks on our centers of finance, and wreak havoc on our populace with mass murder, then the end of American superpower would not be far off.

Of course, it did not work out that way. Afghanistan is now free, with a Western-style republic, and can no longer be used as a home base for terrorism. So far, all other terrorist attempts on American soil have been thwarted, and the economy is slowly recovering from the shock it withstood three years ago. And until recently, the majority of American people have remained united and resolute behind the Bush Doctrine.

That is why the situation for the terrorists is so desperate, and why the fighting in Iraq has been so intense as of late. We are rapidly approaching the handover of basic governance to the Iraqi people, thus planting the seed for another secular democracy in the Muslim world.

If the US succeeds in Iraq, it will be a disaster for the terrorists and their dream of fundamentalist tyranny across the Middle East. If we fail, the terrorists will have a new base from which to operate. With both Iran and Iraq in the grip of ayatollahs, and with the West's will to resist broken, Saudi Arabia and the rest would not be far behind. Factor in real weapons of mass destruction and the end of Israel, and the horrible equation is complete.

In other words, we must stay the course. We must keep fighting. We must think less of winning the PR campaign and think more of winning the military campaign. We must stop apologizing for liberating over 20 million Muslims. We've never been closer to winning, or closer to losing, the War on Terror, than we are right now.

"Democracy is the worst system devised by the wit of man, except for all the others."
- Winston Churchill

Welcome to Right on Red. My name is Johnny Walker Red and I'll be your blogger. I am a twenty-something male of Appalachian Scot descent, born in East Tennessee and currently residing in Birmingham, Alabama. My faith is backsliding Southern Baptist and my politics are pretty much what people call neoconservative nowadays. I am right-of-center, but it is my goal to help bring the center over to where I am.

Why is this blog called Right on Red? Several years ago, the major networks began showing electoral maps which featured Democrat-held states in blue and Republican-held states in red. Of course, it should be the other way around; no one is more red in this country than the Democrats. It is my belief that this switcharoo was intentional, in order to avoid the subconscious association of the American Left with Communism. (I also have a feeling that red, the color of Mars, war, and blood, was placed on the Republican states to give the subtle impression of aggression and violence). Since it appears that this arrangement is now a permanent fixture of Election Day in America, we on the right should embrace the red, and take it back from the Communists.

In Case You Missed It
New Address
Swift Resignation
More Kerry Idiocy
Still Alive
Light Blogging
Swifties Take ANOTHER Hit
Reporting For Duty
The 411 on the 527s
More Euro News

June 2004
July 2004
August 2004


* = recently updated

Blogroll This

News & Opinion
American Spectator
National Review
Weekly Standard
George Will
William F Buckley Jr
Charles Krauthammer
Christopher Hitchens
Political Wire

Declaration of Independence
US Constitution
Project Vote Smart
Electoral Vote Predictor
CIA World Factbook

W 04
Alabama Constitutional Reform
Forces International
Bill Monroe Stamp

The Left
The Spin Zone
Daily Kos
The Agonist
Eric Alterman
Talking Points Memo
Democratic Underground

Modern Times
A History of the American People
A History of the Twentieth Century
All The King's Men
Band of Angels
Absolom, Absolom!
Mere Christianity
Mystery Train

Mojo Magazine
Rock's Back Pages
Country Music Hall of Fame
Memphis Rock N Soul Museum
Sun Studio
Stax Museum of American Soul Music

Protest Warrior
Robert Penn Warren
Dreamland BBQ
Milo's Famous Tea

About Me
Mission Statement



Powered by Blogger

Subscribe with Bloglines

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

Content Copyright 2004