September 5th, 2013

#3960: I think "bizarro-world" covers it.

Democrats who were anti-war from 2001-2009 are suddenly all about bombing foreigners. Howard Dean is saying we should trust Obama because "he knows more than we do."

Oh! Does this mean we should have trusted Bush because he knew more than we did? Does this mean all those leftists are going to scrape the "Bush Lied, Kids Died" stickers off their BMWs? Or does it just mean, "Well, of course we can trust Obama! He's a Democrat!"

I'm kind of thinking it's the latter.

Howard Dean in 2003: "Even the largest, most sophisticated military in the history of the world cannot be expected to go to war against every evil dictator who may possess chemical weapons."

JayG talks about the hypocrisy of Democrats who were against any kind of war (or "kinetic action") initiated by a Republican President suddenly deciding that a civil war in Syria demands US intervention because one side used poison gas.

Advice Goddess points out the obvious: it was all about opposing Bush, not the war itself.

Vox Day uses Barack Hussein Obama's very own words against him in an extremely racist fashion. (I am being sarcastic; I know that Democrats will say that raising Obama's past quotations to demonstrate his waffling is racism in action.)

Munchkin Wrangler says that John Kerry--who voted for war in Iraq before he voted against it--is now trying to tell us that the proposed action in Syria is not "war in the classic sense."

Okay, so let me get this straight:

Bush waged a declared war in Iraq with international support, but that was illegitimate because "Bush lied, kids died."

Obama has waged undeclared "kinetic actions" against a country which had nothing to do with US security or its interests, and assassinated American citizens living abroad, and now wishes to engage in "non-classical war" against a country which has also not done anything to us, and that is just fine with the left and we're all being racist and obstructionist for getting in the way?

[see post title]

I'm going to say it again: in 2003 I was whole-heartedly against going into Iraq. If anything, I thought it was a better idea to go into Iran because that's where most of the terror funding comes from, that's where most of the training camps are (that aren't in Saudi F-ing Arabia, that is) and that's pretty much the focus of anti-Americanism in the middle east.

Ultimately, I was proven wrong for several reasons. The main one was that the war in Iraq forced islamic terrorists to focus their efforts closer to home, rather than attempt to do something in America like they managed on 9/11/01.

But that has been the only real benefit of the war in Iraq. It has not made the middle east less of a shithole, either economically or politically. It has not led to any serious reduction in the capacity of islam for horrific crimes against humanity. It hasn't even limited the ability of international terrorists to function.

Yet that single benefit is more than anything produced by Obama's entire foreign policy.

In every single case, Obama's actions abroad have made things worse rather than better. Egypt is a mess. Libya is a mess. Syria is a mess because of Obama's interventions in the latter two places.

Karl Denninger explains why: "A military strike at Assad's government IS ACTING AS AL QAIDA'S AIR FORCE."

The rebels in Syria are not--as John F-ing Kerry insists--moderates; they are radical muslims who wish to install an oligarchic government and subjugate yet another country to sha'ria. Assad is a bastard with no redeeming qualities whatsoever but for the fact that his government is a secular one and not the result of a death cult. The same was true of Egypt under Morsi and--in fact!--of Iran under the Shah, back before Carter screwed him over. The Shah of Iran was also a cast-iron SOB but his government was arguably better for US interests than what came afterwards...yet Carter thought it preferable, somehow, that radical islamists be allowed to take over the government of Iran, because the new totalitarians are so much more preferable than the old totalitarians. I mean, at least the new guys kill you for being Jewish instead of killing you for opposing the government. Democrats could never support someone who kills his political opposition, you know! (Except for Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh and the Sandinistas and....)

Meanwhile, in the real world, Obama and his cronies continue to try to drum up support for their war, because Obama ran his choppers about "red lines" and doesn't want to to be obvious to everyone in the world what a weak fool he is.

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Pity no one ever told Obama that.

* * *

Bluesun reveals that the failed culvert only failed because someone put a grate over the mouth, and it clogged. I would have to say that particular test was a failure.

* * *

Vox Day wonders how long conservative/libertarian readers will continue to read authors who denigrate their political views.

Me, I've long since given up bothering with any author, artist, actor, or musician who insults me and my opinions. I don't care what their privately-held opinions are, but if some celebrity speaks up in public with nonsense like, "I think Republicans all should be lined up and shot," I'm going to avoid his works and
take my entertainment dollars elsewhere.

(When I have them to spend, I mean; I am speaking generally.)

As for John Scalzi, I find it interesting that I was right about him from the get-go. While I was wrong about his commercial success--I had never heard of him nor seen his name on bookstore shelves!--I was not at all wrong about his politics, even though my guess was based on nothing more than the fact that he wins writing awards.

...and I still have not read his reboot of Little Fuzzy because I have had more important things to do...like anything else.

* * *

Last night Mrs. Fungus and I played "Monopoly" (WoW edition) and she stomped me. Everything was more-or-less okay until I landed on Orgrimmar (the WoW edition's equivalent of Boardwalk) and had to pay some $2,000 in rent due to the city (hotel) she'd built on it. Shortly after that--before I could recover from mortgaging half my properties to pay the rent on Orgrimmar--I found myself in another built-up area where the rent was nearly as horrific and that was it for me.

To be fair, I think that was the first time I played that game against a human opponent since before she was born. I'd forgotten about half the rules (the other half are part of the American culture) and ended up playing too cautious a game.

Though I was not cautious enough in one respect: no matter how sweet the trade may be, never ever allow your opponent to build a monopoly. That was my undoing; if I'd stuck to my guns and refused to make any trades, I might have avoided the killing blow.

At least until the next time I landed on "Boardwalk" or "Park Place". But I might have been out of debt by then...and maybe not, considering how my luck goes.

* * *

Fortunately for my pocketbook, I was able to switch my motorcycle insurance to "monthly" rather than "yearly", which means I can actually afford to pay it for a few months. That might let me ride the thing until the weather becomes prohibitive.

Heinlein said it best: "Money is the solution to all your problems...when you haven't got it."

*sigh* Really need to find a job, damn it....