PDA

View Full Version : Praying for a Terrorist Strike: The GOP's Newest Political Strategy


Taco John
07-17-2007, 11:06 PM
From LewRockwell.com


Praying for a Terrorist Strike:
The GOP's Newest Political Strategy
by William Norman Grigg


Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum made the grand crusade against “Islamic fascism” the central focus of his unsuccessful 2006 re-election effort.


On numerous occasions the preening Keystone State solon – who couldn't glance at a mirror without seeing Churchill's bulldog demeanor glowering back at him – insisted that it was the “destiny” of “this generation” to fight an apocalyptic war against radical Islam. Unlike his more equivocal comrades in the Republican branch of the War Party, Santorum made it clear that his preferred “exit strategy” for Iraq would be to invade (or at least bomb) Iran.


After long acquaintance with, and scrutiny of, Mr. Santorum, Pennsylvania's voters decided he was more Church Lady than Churchill,* and gave him a chance to pursue new opportunities in the private sector. So Santorum delivered a suitably melodramatic farewell address and retreated into a comfortable sinecure as a Washington lobbyist.


Despair not for Rick Santorum during that bleak season when he, like Churchill before him, toils in the exile into which he was cast by an ungrateful electorate. He has never abandoned the hope that the American public will come to embrace the wisdom of a generational war. It's just that Santorum has now invested that hope in the murderous intentions of the Islamic fanatics he has warned about. To put the matter bluntly, Santorum is obviously hoping, and perhaps even praying, for Americans to die at the hands of Jihadists.


How else are rational people supposed to understand the following remarks offered by Santorum during a July 7 interview on Hugh Hewitt's syndicated radio program:


“[C]onfronting Iran in the Middle East as an absolute linchpin for our success in that region.... And while it may not be a popular thing to talk about right now, and I know public sentiment is against it [namely, the war in Iraq and expanding the conflict to Iran] ... between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view....”


As others have pointed out, Santorum is not the only prominent Republican figure to predict that wayward Americans, having allowed themselves to doubt the divine insight of the Dear Leader, will soon be smitten by the chastening hand of history.


Just weeks ago, Arkansas Republican chairman Dennis Milligan, who describes himself as “150 percent” behind Bush and his Iraq war, said in an on-the-record interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: “At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.”


Both of those abhorrent comments are riffs on a familiar Rovian theme: Vote Republican and support the Dear Leader, or die. Speaking of Rove: In the current issue of American Spectator conservative actor and economist Ben Stein, a long-time war supporter who now considers the Iraq venture to be “an unmitigated disaster,” describes a recent dinner at Rove's house with GOP adviser Aram Bakshian. Both Rove and Bakshian were “very upbeat about the GOP and the war,” which to minds as cynical as my own suggests that something Santorum would consider usefully “unfortunate” may soon transpire.


People like Santorum and Milligan (and Dana Rohrabacher, the stupidest consequential public figure not named Bush or Hannity) ache for disaster. They pant after it with vulgar, undisguised lust. They are tremulous with unconsummated desire for validation in the form of dead Americans and ruined cities.


Revolting and vile as this is, it is not unique. In fact, these repellent people are firmly and squarely in the interventionist tradition of American politics, in which cheerfully anticipating the death of Americans has a long and venerable history.


Writing in Foreign Affairs a dozen years ago (excerpt), the late Establishment historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote that “it is to Joseph Stalin that Americans owe the 40-year suppression of the isolationist impulse.”


Stalin's regime slaughtered scores of millions, helped precipitate the Second World War, and (thanks to the connivance of Washington) acquired thermonuclear weapons capable of incinerating much of the world – but at least he wasn't an isolationist. Stalin and his successors were immeasurably useful allies for the American Power Elite against their common enemy – Americans and others who wanted to cultivate their own gardens and live in freedom and peace.


In 1947, Senator Arthur Vandenberg described Washington's foreign policy at the beginning of the Cold War as that of “scaring hell out of the American people.” In the same year, Senator Robert Taft, who yielded to nobody in his detestation for Communism and other forms of collectivism, described himself as being “more than a bit tired of having the Russian menace invoked as a reason for doing any – and everything that might or might not be desirable or necessary on its own merits.”

By 1950, American public sentiment was fiercely anti-Communist and just as passionately opposed to the interventionist foreign policy “consensus.” It was at that moment of crisis, recalled former Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1954, that the Korean war “came along and saved us.”

Saving the plans of Acheson and his comrades cost the lives of more than 50,000 Americans in a war that has never formally been brought to an end.

Interventionists have always known that Americans aren't naturally inclined to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, unless the monsters in question kill a suitably large number of Americans. That's why FDR, Dean Acheson, and people of that ilk offered a prayer of gratitude for Josef Stalin six decades ago, and why the likes of Rick Santorum are praying for Jihadists to strike today.

*I do not want to leave the impression that Churchill himself was an entirely commendable figure.


July 11, 2007


http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w24.html

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 11:24 PM
What a piece of shit article.

HolmeZz
07-17-2007, 11:27 PM
What a piece of shit article.

Very.

Logical
07-17-2007, 11:29 PM
What a piece of shit article.Hopefully you can level a more thoughtful criticism than that.

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 11:29 PM
Very.

For the record, I didn't really like Rick Santorum when he was Senator but I doubt he wishes attacks on the US.

ChiefaRoo
07-17-2007, 11:30 PM
Hopefully you can level a more thoughtful criticism than that.

I used up all my thoughtful criticism last night. :)

Taco John
07-17-2007, 11:35 PM
For the record, I didn't really like Rick Santorum when he was Senator but I doubt he wishes attacks on the US.



He should quit predicting them then.

pikesome
07-17-2007, 11:42 PM
He should quit predicting them then.

Figuring it'll happen and hoping it'll happen aren't the same thing.

The asterisk at the bottom kinda gives you an idea where this author is shooting from. I'm not surprised at the conclusions.

Logical
07-18-2007, 12:18 AM
I used up all my thoughtful criticism last night. :)Well I will come back tomorrow for some inspired rhetoric.

Taco John
07-18-2007, 12:21 AM
Figuring it'll happen and hoping it'll happen aren't the same thing.


It is when you expect you'll gain political benefit out of it.

ChiefaRoo
07-18-2007, 12:34 AM
It is when you expect you'll gain political benefit out of it.

Taco, if you believe that then you conversely have to believe the Dems are trying to gain power by sabotaging the troops in Iraq. Guys like Kerry, Murtha, Schumer, Levin and Durbin have actually called our troops thugs, idiots, Nazis and murderers in the well of the Senate or on TV. You project your bias onto Santorums (who is an ex-Senator) words yet you ignore the LEADERS of the Democratic party.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b7FaSEQ-fKc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b7FaSEQ-fKc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6CKOHiT8vr0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6CKOHiT8vr0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zo-lyc4tcsM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Zo-lyc4tcsM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

No Taco, it's the Democratic leadership who wants us to lose in Iraq for political gain. Wake up, whose side are you on anyway? By the way those marines Murtha are talking about two of them have already been cleared and the rest will most likely get cleared.

I detest these men.

Taco John
07-18-2007, 02:53 AM
What do I care about the Democratic party? I'm voting for a Republican this upcoming election.

And the people sabotaging the troops in Iraq are the folks forcing them to extend their combat tours indefinitely, insurgents, and Al Qaeda.

ClevelandBronco
07-18-2007, 03:31 AM
It is when you expect you'll gain political benefit out of it.

And how does that differ from what you do here nearly every time you post?

BucEyedPea
07-18-2007, 07:09 AM
And how does that differ from what you do here nearly every time you post?
Not much different than others.
Shame on you CB. I expect more than ad hominem from you.

Velvet_Jones
07-18-2007, 08:17 AM
What do I care about the Democratic party? I'm voting for a Republican this upcoming election.

And the people sabotaging the troops in Iraq are the folks forcing them to extend their combat tours indefinitely, insurgents, and Al Qaeda.
I call BS.

Taco John
07-18-2007, 09:19 AM
I call BS.



I call my congress people too.

Taco John
07-18-2007, 09:22 AM
And how does that differ from what you do here nearly every time you post?



Bah... Please.

The inspiration for posting this came from the patteau types, who don't get any condemnation for saying thing along the lines that those who disagree with them are praying for defeat at the hands of al queda.

The shoe gets on the other foot, and all of a sudden the practice is outrageous.

Cochise
07-18-2007, 09:36 AM
Predicting, or saying that one would change perspectives again, = praying and hoping for one. :rolleyes:

As usual Rockwell never fails to disappoint.

Mr. Kotter
07-18-2007, 10:20 AM
Hopefully you can level a more thoughtful criticism than that.

What more is there to say? Thoughtful criticism of an article claiming that the ANY mainstream/average group of Americans (GOP or otherwise) is truly "praying for a terrorist strike"....would be a waste of time and effort. It is so far beyond the pale, to seriously entertain the notion, and it's beyond pathetic and insulting--it's moonbat crazy.

In other words, this article is absolutely a POS. Period. End of discussion. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
07-18-2007, 10:26 AM
...who don't get any condemnation for saying thing along the lines that those who disagree with them are praying for defeat at the hands of al queda....

Who is doing that? :shrug:

Can you provide some specific examples? :hmmm:

go bowe
07-18-2007, 10:40 AM
What more is there to say? Thoughtful criticism of an article claiming that the ANY mainstream/average group of Americans (GOP or otherwise) is truly "praying for a terrorist strike"....would be a waste of time and effort. It is so far beyond the pale, to seriously entertain the notion, and it's beyond pathetic and insulting--it's moonbat crazy.

In other words, this article is absolutely a POS. Period. End of discussion. :shake:period, end of discussion??

who appointed you to be a decider instead of a divider?

i thought that was limited to democrats...

oh wait, YOU are a democrat... :p :p :p

Taco John
07-18-2007, 11:16 AM
What more is there to say? Thoughtful criticism of an article claiming that the ANY mainstream/average group of Americans (GOP or otherwise) is truly "praying for a terrorist strike"....would be a waste of time and effort. It is so far beyond the pale, to seriously entertain the notion, and it's beyond pathetic and insulting--it's moonbat crazy.

In other words, this article is absolutely a POS. Period. End of discussion. :shake:



Here's what's moonbat crazy: believing that we are going to get attacked by terrorists this fall and Americans are going to be championing Republicans by springtime because of it.

Mr. Kotter
07-18-2007, 11:29 AM
Here's what's moonbat crazy: believing that we are going to get attacked by terrorists this fall and Americans are going to be championing Republicans by springtime because of it.

If some individual, like Santorum, believes that....I'd agree.

But to paint an entire group, as "praying for a terrorist strike?" That's just way over the top....IMHO.

period, end of discussion??

who appointed you to be a decider instead of a divider?

i thought that was limited to democrats...

oh wait, YOU are a democrat... :p :p :p

Only for a little longer, probably. I've decided that if Hillary wins the nomination, that is God's way of telling me what some of you in DC have been sayin' for years....."you ain't a Democrat, anymore."

I'll mark the occasion by officially changing my registration. :p

stevieray
07-18-2007, 11:40 AM
If some individual, like Santorum, believes that....I'd agree.

But to paint an entire group, as "praying for a terrorist strike?" That's just way over the top....IMHO.



Only for a little longer, probably. I've decided that if Hillary wins the nomination, that is God's way of telling me what some of you in DC have been sayin' for years....."you ain't a Democrat, anymore."

I'll mark the occasion by officially changing my registration. :p
over the top is an understatement..it's just more of the same divisive crap that this country is obsessed with...

memyselfI
07-18-2007, 12:30 PM
It worked for PNAC when they said what was needed was a Pearl Harbor type of attack...

why wouldn't these war mongers believe it would work again?

Mr. Kotter
07-18-2007, 02:11 PM
It worked for PNAC when they said what was needed was a Pearl Harbor type of attack...

why wouldn't these war mongers believe it would work again?

Ta-Dah! ...right on cue.

Like I said. :shake:

ClevelandBronco
07-18-2007, 02:50 PM
Not much different than others.
Shame on you CB. I expect more than ad hominem from you.

Then I'm sure to disappoint you. I have no problem with ad hominem.

patteeu
07-19-2007, 06:30 AM
...It's just that Santorum has now invested that hope in the murderous intentions of the Islamic fanatics he has warned about. To put the matter bluntly, Santorum is obviously hoping, and perhaps even praying, for Americans to die at the hands of Jihadists.


How else are rational people supposed to understand the following remarks offered by Santorum during a July 7 interview on Hugh Hewitt's syndicated radio program:


“[C]onfronting Iran in the Middle East as an absolute linchpin for our success in that region.... And while it may not be a popular thing to talk about right now, and I know public sentiment is against it [namely, the war in Iraq and expanding the conflict to Iran] ... between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view....”

:rolleyes:

I guess you have to be a little off your rocker to see what this guy sees.

patteeu
07-19-2007, 06:35 AM
Bah... Please.

The inspiration for posting this came from the patteau types, who don't get any condemnation for saying thing along the lines that those who disagree with them are praying for defeat at the hands of al queda.

The shoe gets on the other foot, and all of a sudden the practice is outrageous.

Haha. The differences between what I actually say (as opposed to what you say I say) and what this author says is that this author's allegations don't follow from his evidence and his conclusions don't ring true.

KC-TBB
07-19-2007, 09:41 AM
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they usually cant tell how much they stink.
My opionion if anyone cares, is that there are a sh_t load of people out there they would love to pull off another 9/11 type event...so far we have disrupted them enough they havnt pulled it off here in this country...but anyone who really thinks they wont when they can is being somewhat shortsided me thinks. HOWEVER, I surely don't want one regardless of how it would help/hurt politically...and the war MUST run to it's conclussion, how ever unpleasant it is...because if we 'cut and run' we will be sending one hell of a defeatest message out to the beasts that want to eat us up AND having been through this 35 years ago in Vietnam, I can tell you, what people say back here is felt OVER THERE...so these people that are using the war as a political platform are sending our troops and their families a very poor message. NO ONE likes war, but I think it beats having to learn how to speak IRANIAN or worship in a mosque, because that is pretty much what our enemy wants.