Saturday :: Jan 7, 2006

No proteins for wisdom, it seems


by eriposte

I suspect Steve (Soto) may be on the way back from the east coast, so I'm going to post a quick note on this and let him respond further if he deems it appropriate. Yesterday, in the middle of a round-up post, Steve posted this brief note (emphasis mine):

I have to admit it is fun to see Al Qaeda play Bush like a violin. But at least Zalmay Khalilzad is doing the right thing by meeting with local insurgents and split them off from Al Qaeda.

Jim Geraghty at Notional Review (TKS) deliberately ignored the second sentence (which provided complete context to the first sentence by showing that Steve is happy that Khalilzad is trying to prevent Al Qaeda from getting support in Iraq), and simply posted the first sentence with the note "revealing". With the first sentence taken out of context and presented in a deliberately misleading fashion, it should be no surprise that it would get picked up by someone else fishing for the next round of BS to print on their blog. In this case, that someone would be the enterprising Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom. Perhaps he wanted a well-earned break from his relentless BSing on King-George-gate, but in any case, he uses Geraghty's citation of Steve's post to write an entire post constructing nonsensical claims about the "left". For example, he says (emphasis mine):

Then today, we find that Left Coaster actually enjoys that the US Commander in Chief in a time of war is supposedly being “played like a violin” by al Qaeda—that those who have vowed to kill us and who slaughter civilians on a whim have supposedly outmaneuvered the President and the military in Iraq, the proof being that Zawahiri appears to be following the Democratic-narrative that any withdraw of troops should be seen as a defeat for the US, an acknowledgment that we are losing the war, and are so succumbing to pressure both from the insurgents and the Democratic party leadership (who, on this particular issue, seem to be on the very same page).

"Zawahiri appears to be following the Democratic-narrative that any withdraw of troops should be seen as a defeat for the US"????

Please. That is not the "Democratic-narrative". That is Bush's narrative. That is also the narrative of those have been trying to clean up Bush's wide-ranging crap all these years, peddling the same bulls*** talking points that Bush utters every time he opens his mouth. When Jack Murtha called for a troop withdrawal, who said that a withdrawal is the same as conceding defeat to the enemy and the terrorists? It was Bush and his patsies. It obviously was not the Democrats (more on this below). (If they had said it, it would have been political suicide and even the Democrats are not that dumb.)

That's not all. Goldstein also says:

And now that al Qaeda’s number two has adopted their talking points, hyperpartisan anti-war advocates like Left Coaster pretend to prescience rather than soft complicity (of the kind long assigned to useful idiots); that is, they use Zawahiri’s public parroting of their very own cynical propagandistic talking points as proof that they were right all along. 

Zawahiri's claim, of course, is in the context of the Bush administration's recently announced plans to reduce American troop strength in Iraq. So, you can only imagine the rage that the Freepers and the MensNewsDaily-ers are going to feel when they learn that Protein Wisdom is upset that Al Qaeda has used their own talking point (about Jack Murtha) against their very own Dear Leader King George:

This vermin’s [referring to Murtha - ed.] demand for retreat, surrender and negotiations with the enemy is so committed to assisting al Qaeda in their efforts in Iraq that he has posted his unspeakable demands on his website in the form of an official statement.

Indeed, when Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha called for a troop withdrawal, Bush and his pack of fraudulent jokers on the Far Right questioned Murtha's courage and patriotism and claimed that he is advocating surrender because, in their view, a troop withdrawal would be nothing short of conceding defeat. In other words, it was the belief of Bush and the Far Right that a troop withdrawal would signal to the world that America is admitting defeat in Iraq. The American left actually challenged that pile of horse manure by pointing out that withdrawing troops does not mean we surrender or lose but that withdrawal may actually help the situation in Iraq by drastically reducing the insurgency and saving the lives of American troops at the same time. As anyone who has even glanced at the reasons why Jack Murtha called for a withdrawal would know, the "Democratic-narrative" is that a troop withdrawal is desirable to prevent the insurgency from using Americans as the reason to keep Iraq unstable - that the withdrawal may actually help salvage a bad situation and increase the likelihood that we would win in Iraq in the longer-term.

This is a "narrative" based not on stuff pulled out of someone's a** (which seems to be Protein Wisdom's idea of a "narrative") but based on more reliable sources (emphasis mine):

General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.”  General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.” 

Indeed, the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia has long been offered by the Right as a reason why Islamic fundamentalist sentiment (support for Al Qaeda) was on the rise in the Middle East and even used this - after the fact - as a pretext for the Iraq invasion (that it would allow American troops to leave Saudi Arabia; where's the talk about "retreat" or "surrender" there?).

So, let's be clear. Goldstein claiming that "Zawahiri appears to be following the Democratic-narrative that any withdraw of troops should be seen as a defeat for the US" is simply dishonest - the kind of claim that he and his ilk have been churning out for years.

Here's what Goldstein should really be upset about, if he really cared about winning the war against terrorism.

His Dear Leader and King George's brown shirts. Why? For churning out unmitigated horse manure in the form of a talking point that claimed that calling for troop withdrawals is equivalent to saying that we admit defeat or that we are surrendering. After all, Al Qaeda/Zawahari are now simply using the Far Right and Bush administration narrative against them - after Bush, His Royal Incompetence, once again demonstrated that he is fully capable of being a tool for the enemy who hands out easy PR victories to them by issuing talking points that he and his patsies in the media and blogosphere spread moronically without any thought given to the eventual consequences. Bush and his patsies must have known that troops will eventually have to be withdrawn; Goldstein says so himself: "...even while they knew such a draw down was inevitable (and was tied to a position of strength, and to conditions on the ground, rather than some arbitrary time table)..."; so why invent and spread a fake talking point that anyone with a pea for a brain would have known would later be used by Al Qaeda to portray any withdrawal as admission of defeat?

So what we have here folks is simply the Far Right, again trounced in the PR battle by the enemy, thanks to the very talking points they handed over freely to the enemy (purely in an attempt to win a political battle at home at the expense of American troops), directing their attacks against Steve for a sentence taken out of context in a broader narrative on a single blog post.

Let me also emphasize the following about Steve's post. Steve was clearly not expressing joy at Al Qaeda (his second sentence made it clear he was happy someone was trying to prevent Al Qaeda from gaining a greater foothold in Iraq) but in the fact that Bush's BS talking point - invented solely to falsely tar Democrats with being enablers of the enemy - deservedly got slapped back on him by the enemy themselves, revealing him for the incompetent tool that he is - perhaps the biggest tool that the enemy could have dreamed of (for there's also the invading and occupying the wrong (Muslim) country part, the part about authorizing torture, secret prisons, unconstitutional and dictatorial power grabs, and so on...). Not to mention, between the Left, and Bush's ardent supporters in the Far Right, guess who's got a lot more in common with the "enemy"? It's not the Left.

Finally, anyone who actually reads the Left Coaster regularly would know it has been the position of most, if not all, of us here that Bush played into the hands of Al Qaeda, that Al Qaeda is a scourge on civilization that Bush largely ignored prior to 9/11 while taking extra-long vacations, that after a brief and appropriate focus on Al Qaeda in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 he wrongly shifted focus away from them and incompetently diverted antiterrorism and military resources to a needless and unplanned war (in Iraq) that had a substantial risk of increasing terrorism and serving as a gift to Al Qaeda (which it turned out to be). After all, we supported John Kerry in 2004 and Kerry's position was that Bush's shifting focus away from Al Qaeda showed he could not be trusted to manage America's national security. So, to insinuate otherwise about the Left Coaster's position on Al Qaeda is egregious.

As far as I can tell Protein Wisdom seems to be seriously lacking in proteins for wisdom.

eriposte :: 10:43 PM :: Comments (16) :: TrackBack (1) :: Digg It!