Harry Reid Takes One on the Chin
John on June 11, 2007 at 12:01 am
Harry Reid used to be a boxer, I’m told. That’s good because it means the uppercut to the chin he just took courtesy of Dennis Miller won’t be his first. But this one’s really going to leave a mark.
And, yes, I do believe Harry is the lifeline for jihadists who are on the ropes in Iraq. His message: “Hold on a little longer.” Like Miller, I find that despicable.
The mullahs are smart enough not to let on, but I guarantee they’re quoting Harry on a regular basis. I think it should tell the left something that their leaders are seen by our enemies around the world as the voice of hope.
Category: Politics |
“jihadists who are on the ropes in Iraq”? I know that they have support from Iran, but the opponents of the American/British presence in Iraq are not, by any means, on the ropes, because they are fighting to remove invaders from their country.
Do you seriously think that America has a chance of winning this war? Did Vietnam teach the world nothing? An occupying force, without the support of the indigenous people, has absolutely no chance of victory in a foreign country. Superior firepower, technology, training, all of this will not counteract the fact that people who are fighting to remove foregners from ‘their’ soil will win.
There is no way on Earth that this war can end in a good way for America and Britain. It genuinely surprises me that intelligent people still think otherwise.
Oh, and if Dennis Miller is a comedian/comedian, why did this routine comprise entirely of insults? No jokes, just below the belt insults, based on the sound of the guys voice and his appearance. Cheap, very cheap.
June 11, 2007 @ 7:01 amAnyone who ever believed that the Sunnis, Shiites, and the Kerds could live in democratic harmony should have taken a drug test. President Bush, a nice guy, must think that world politics are simple and can be planned out on a “Risk” board.
When you remove a weight bearing pillar from a structure you must have something in its place. When you remove a dictator from a ethnicly unstable country you must have a plan. This is what happens when a Christian (Bush) believes that God has called him to spread democracy and that everyone will thank us for it.
Remember, the Great Commission was to spread the gospel, not democracy. Bible 101.
June 11, 2007 @ 8:20 amI really enjoy Miller when he is “off on a rant.” I’ve always been a fan of his acerbic whit and have been pleased over the last year or two as he has moved more and more towards political commentary. Sometimes it is only when they are skewered in the public eye that politicians take a step back and re-evaluate their views and statements.
Keith, am I wrong in thinking that you are in Great Britain? If you are, then this type of humor shouldn’t be new to you. Much of the great humor out of Britain is based on social commentary and observation of human foibles. Peter Sellers, the Python gang (John Cleese, Eric Idle, Michael Palin, et al), Peter Cook, etc have all done amazingly funny stuff working the angle of political and social commentary, taking the appearance of a subject and working it to their advantage as they make a much deeper point.
This particular schtik by Dennis Miller did focus mainly on Harry Reid’s appearance and mannerisms. Miller can deliver solid content as well, but in this short monologue that wasn’t the “angle” he was taking.
June 11, 2007 @ 12:39 pmHi Scott, yes I am in Great Britain. Political satire, social commentary and observational humour – yes, I grew up on that stuff. Pete and Dud, the Pythons and then early Billy Connolly, Not the nine o’clock News, Eddie Izzard (the best observational comedian I have ever seen) The Office. American comedy isn’t new to me, either, in fact it usually makes me laugh. But all of that is very different to just simply insulting somebody, which is all this guy did. To put it in perspective, you could justifiably replace the name Harry reid with George Bush in many instances. I still wouldn’t find it funny, would you?
Maybe this isn’t the best routine to judge him on as a newbie, so I’ll keep an eye out for some other Dennis Miller stuff, but next time I just hope he’s packing some jokes.
June 11, 2007 @ 12:59 pmWell, thanks at least for not calling us stupid.
I think your view is a rather short sighted one. What do you expect is going to happen when we retreat from Iraq and allow Al Qaeda to make it into a new haven for terrorists? Are they going to back off and leave us alone? On the contrary, you can expect a lot more bombings like the one on 7/7 if we retreat from Iraq. Perhaps much worse once Iran secures enough uranium for a bomb.
We are at war with Al Qaeda and, effectively, with Iran. If we go on the defensive against these people it will be far worse for us in the long run. The bad outcome you forsee in Iraq is much better than the alternative.
June 11, 2007 @ 7:55 pmJohn ….. Apparently you don’t understand the nature of the enemy. This is an existential threat that we face and to the limited extent you are possibly right about things turning out bad, such result will be a proportional function of the comfort and encouragement that of the likes of Harry Reid and apparently you John and others are able to provide the enemy conveying false assurance that they are not only winning (which they aren’t) but that they are on the moral high ground (which is a term that may not be in your vocabulary) which is fatuous idea that would appeal only to the traitorous left in this country. …….. steve
June 11, 2007 @ 10:20 pmCorrection Above: Not John (sorry) but Keith, my error….. steve
June 11, 2007 @ 10:24 pmJohn,
I’ve read enough of this blog to know that calling you stupid would make me look stupid. You are clearly more intelligent than me, or well educated, possibly both.
That doesn’t mean, however, that you will always be right and I will always be wrong, and I think this is a case in point.
The al-qaeda presence in Iraq is a direct result of the US led invasion. There was no al-qaeda in Iraq before, Saddam, evil despot though he was, could not stand them. Iraq is now, under US occupation, the training ground for the terrorist killers of more Westerners than any other country. the 7/7 bombers you cite trained in Pakistan. There can be few more pro-Western regimes in that area than Pakistan. Your proposition, that remaining there increases our security, is a false one. I don’t expect them to back off nad leave us alone if we get out, but there will be fewer martyrs to attack the ‘great satan’ of the West in the West than to ‘remove the occupying forces from your homeland’. I honestly believe that our security forces would be in a better position to monitor this threat after a withdrawal.
If History can teach us anything, it is that an occupying force, without the full support of the local population, is doomed to failure. Invading Iran, stretching troops over three fronts, is just going to make the situation worse – especially since the Iranian people, for the most part, already hate America.
The problem with being at war with al-qaeda, like being at war with terror, is that the enemy is impossible to identify coherently. Thus we end up with something like the invasion of Iraq. Iraq had no prior knowledge of or involvement in 9/11, but Saddam was a convenient bogey man, allowing Bush to exorcise a family ghost at the same time.
To explain my remark, I am surprised that intelligent people still think otherwise because, in Britain, it seems that Tony Blair, some time this year, became the last person in the country to arrive at that opinion. That’s not a biased liberal view on things, most people in this country would call that a fair assessment. Expect British troops to fulfil existing commitments in Iraq and then quietly reduce in number to a token presence by the end of next year.
June 12, 2007 @ 1:46 amSteve
with respect, lets let the turnout of events decide which of us is right on that one, but if I were a gambling man, I’d back me with all I’d got.
It’s certainly a term that’s in my vocabulary – was that a shot at me? If so, it was pretty cheap. Also, please point out to me where I have attributed the moral high ground to al-qaeda. If I have done so, please accept my apology, it was certainly unintentional, since that would run contrary to my beliefs. If you can’t, please apologise.
Keith
June 12, 2007 @ 1:52 amBy the way, John/Scott – my post to John failed to post twice, until I previewed it, copied what I’d written, pressed post (it didn’t) then pasted it into the reply box (without using the quicktags buttons, in other words) and then pressed paste. Just thought you might like to know. I’m using the latest version of Firefox on Win XP pro, if you need to know.
thanks
Keith
June 12, 2007 @ 1:55 amKeith,
Sorry about the posting problems. We don’t approve or disapprove posts, but occasionally one will get stuck in our Akismet spam filter. It has even happened to me a few times. Sorry about that, I know how frustrating it can be.
On Iraq, I guess we just disagree about the situation. You’re correct that there were probably few if any Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war. I still believe there were biological and chemical weapons which were likely evacuated to Syria immediately prior or after the invasion. In any case, we are certainly fighting Al Qaeda and Iran, the number one state sponsor of terror, now. If we retreat, they win. Winning will only embolden them, as we should have learned from the series of attacks that began in 1993. History, if it teaches us anything about militant jihadists, teaches that the only way to put and end to their violent expansionism is the Charles Martel method.
We are losing about 100 soldiers a month, most to roadside bombs and ambushes. These are being assembled by semi-professional militant groups like the Mahdi army and various factions both Shiite and Sunni. The moment we vacate Iraq, we’ll see something very much like what happened when we vacated Vietnam. Moqtada al Sadr or the Quds Force out of Iran or some other strongman will try to fill the power vacuum. The result will be a bloodbath in which tens and probably hundreds of thousands die. All the progress we’ve made in stabilizing parts of the country will have been in vain at that point.
Iran will no doubt attempt to dominate its neighbor, possibly even invading the south and lay claim to some of Iraq’s pipelines. Turkey may invade in the North and attack the Kurds (as they’ve already done at least once this month). And the Taliban will likely begin moving West from Afghanistan along with Osama bin Laden who has been under increasing pressure in Waziristan. In short, Iraq will become a boiling cauldron of insurgencies that makes what is happening now look like a birthday party by comparison.
Most insurgencies fail if resisted. They can not continue to recruit if we continue to capture and kill their leaders. But retreat now will become the best ad campaign for Al Qaeda the world has ever seen. Once the bloodbath in Iraq ends, all those fighters will turn their attention on the real enemy. Monitoring all this from afar is not going to stop the next 7/7 or 9/11. We’ve not had another attack here in the US since 9/11 precisely because we’re on the offensive. Once we retreat, that will change. Horrible as it is, we must win this battle or we’ll wind up losing much more in future.
Do you think a nuclear Iran will hesitate to use the bomb in Tel Aviv or London or New York? I don’t.
June 12, 2007 @ 9:54 am“We’ve not had another attack here in the US since 9/11 precisely because we’re on the offensive.”
Partly true. The sophistication of the terrorists is vastly overestimated, 9/11 was carried out with box cutters and was mostly due to the stupidity of the governemnt and not the intelligence of the perpetrators. The main reason for no more attacks is because it is extremely difficult to get explosives into the country, not because we are on the offense around the world.
Al Qaeda remains a mostly overseas problem. Iran is significantly different. They will attack Israel when they are ready. Do not worry though, the Jews will strike long before that happens.
June 12, 2007 @ 10:15 amJohn,
thanks for that – I understand about the posts thing. Yes, I think we will just have to disagree. One thing though – Charles Martel was resisting an invasion, wasn’t he?
keith
June 12, 2007 @ 12:37 pmKeith,
Yes, Charles was resisting an invasion.
I read this week that “Mohammed” will be the #1 boys name in England soon. And earlier I saw a British survey which suggested 15% of British Muslims find terrorism acceptable.
This is an invasion. The problem is that intelligent people like yourself (sincerely) don’t seem to recognize it as such. Are you familiar with this book?
June 12, 2007 @ 4:40 pmHi John
Mohammed is on an upward trend in the UK, but it’s as much to do with the fashionability of names (in Moslem populations Mohammed is becoming more popular, in Christian/Nothing Much populations there are no stand out most popular names, everyone wants to choose something a bit different for their child these days). To give an idea, we do have quite a sizable Muslim population, but it’s not even 5% nationally.
That’s quite a high figure, I’ve not heard that 15% stat before. It does surprise me, but please believe me that it will be much higher because of the war in Iraq. The war is incredibly unpopular with British muslims, and I know we have had a problem with extremist clerics preaching hate in British mosques. It’s not hard to make young men feel that the world is ordered against them and violence is the answer. But until 2 years ago I lived in one of the most heavily Muslim parts of Britain (Tooting – one of the few areas with a Muslim MP and felt very safe and comfortable there. I used to know Muslims who went to regular mosques there, and they didn’t hear the ‘hate the West’ message preached. In fact, the Muslims were amongst the most vocal opponents of the Christmas lights having their Christian content removed by the council!
I have heard of Lononistan, and am familiar with Melanie Phillips. Although still a respected voice, she is becoming known for a slightly hysterical Jewish/Israeli paranoid view of the world. The things I have read that she’s written about Palestine, for instance, are often simply untrue. She does have some very good points to make, but she never stops when she’s made them. I will check the book out, though. Thanks for the recommendation.
keith
June 13, 2007 @ 6:04 am