Mailvox: Dear sir, I daresay I disagree

Bane comments in his typically pithy style: utter crap

Actually, only the arguments put forth by the Bush administration and its defenders are utter crap. This isn’t that Jean Francois is any better – he absolutely is not – but he hasn’t even begun to make a coherent case, so it’s hard to criticize a nebulous thing of predominantly hypothetical existence. But let’s look at what the Bush administration has professed:

1. Islam is a religion of peace: it isn’t and never has been.

2. We are fighting a war on terror: it isn’t a war, the borders are open to self-declared enemy nations and we’re continuing to provide funding and protection to terrorist entities. Some war.

3. We are attacked because the jihad hates democracy: a blatant lie. The jihad loves democracy in majority Muslim countries. We’re the one’s actively opposing it. It’s a power game, just like almost every war in history. Rome used to get attacked on every side too, in response to its predominance. It comes with the territory.

4. Saudi Arabia is our friend and ally. Right. The global jihad is a Wahhabist one run by Saudis, using mosques funded by the Saudi government as operational centers. Better invade Iraq. By this logic, we should have invaded Franco’s Spain in response to Hitler’s overrunning Europe.

There are two possibilities. One is that the Bush gang bears more strategic resemblance to Clousaeu than to Clausewitz. The second is that it is blatantly and knowingly deceiving the American people about the war that it has unconstitutionally signed them up for. Bane, with all due respect, which is the case?