Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Politicizing 9/11

Apparently, the wanks way up in the Democratic Party have decided to try and increase the divisions in this nation by accusing the Bush Administration of politicizing 9/11. The argument is that 9/11 is a sacred thing, and that including words of support for the troops in Iraq in 9/11 sullies this sacred event. (Fox News. These are the words to which the Democrats object:

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad."

This Democrats claim that such words don't belong in a 9/11 address is bogus. Harry Reid and the wanks at the head of the Democratic party are trying to create division by projecting their intentions on the president.

"Bush's saying that we must stay unified in our efforts in Iraq is an attempt at maintaining." Harry Reid's babble is the disunifying speech.

The whole notion behind the Democratic argument is absurd. 9/11 is not a sacred event. Asking people to support American troops in times of war is not a divisive act.

For those who've studied progressive political theory (i.e., Marxism). The 9/11 attacks were a thing called a "praxis". A praxis is an action taken to precipitate a chain of political events. A praxis is an inherently political act. As a political act it calls for a political reaction.

The neocons in the Bush administration have studied Marxist theory along with the rest of us. They looked at the terrorist act. They knew that the worst possible reaction to a praxis is to let the praxis drag the nation into a mode of action and reaction.

The Bush Administration decided that any reaction to the praxis would be decisive. Above all, Bush had decided that he would not let the revolutionaries choose the battlefield.

I disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq. I felt both in 2003 and today that the invasion was a mistake. However, I also understand the logic. In 2003, Bush chose to make Iraq the battlefield. When Bush chose the battlefield, it became the battlefield. That is the way the world works. Our political system puts the decision to chose the battlefield in the president's hands.

The ongoing effort by Democratics intellectuals to deny that Iraq is the battlefield is an act to undermine our nation in a time of war.

I felt in the invasion was a mistake. I have openly said this hundreds of times. The fact that Bush did something that I disagreed with does not mean that I should actively work to sabbotage the efforts undertaken by Bush. We are but three years into a process that really requires a decade. The Bush Adminstration has done a superb job of accelerating the development of a democracy in Iraq. We are doing things right like training Iraq troops and security officials before putting them in action. Bush is smart for avoiding deadlines, while maintaining an accelerated pace for transitioning control to the Iraqis.

The biggest problems is that political concerns outside Iraq have been pushing for sectarian division to make the American efforts a failure.

I don't like Bush and Rumsfeld makes my stomach crawl, regardless, I think Bush is correct to call for support of American troops during a 9/11 speech. 9/11 was a praxis. By both definition and intent the event was a political act. The destruction of the world trade center was not a sacred event as Democratic leadership contends. It was an act of thugs who've studied progressive revolutionary theory and killed people in a quest for power. The fact that a president is trying to use the anniversary of this praxis to support the troops fighting against the adherents of the ideology that committed the praxis is well and good in my book.

The world's struggle with radical Islam is far from over. The best path to win war is to find ways to support moderate Islamic regimes. I disagreed with the Iraq invasion. I agree 100% with the statement that, now that we are in Iraq, we have a moral obligation to support the new representative government that we've been working to establish.

Bush chose to make Iraq the battlefield. This spittle dribbling out of the mouths of Harry Reid and cronies is plain wrong. It undermines this country. It undermines our military, it is helping fan the sectarian violence in Iraq. The thugs of the middle east read the western press, just like our leaders read the arab press. Hell, half the leaders of the radical islamic movement learned revolutionary theory at American and French universities.

Dammit. I don't like Bush! I agree that we need an opposition party. The monstrosity that the Democrats are putting together ain't it.

No comments: