The link: http://www.vicegrip.net/blog/articles/233.aspx
A couple weeks ago, Ian signed me up for ZNet so I could taunt Noma Chumsey on his own blog. Now, it goes without saying that I have no interest in talking to Noma Chumsey, unless the linguistic form I utilize is composed of uppercuts and/or haymakers, but that doesn't prevent ZNet from sending me emails every day, which are truly marmalade sachets full of stupid. Sometimes I read them, sometimes I don't, but I always forward them to Ian, so he has to suffer through them as I do. But the article I linked above is different. It's stupid in a way that cannot be described by any language Noma Chumsey knows of. Read it, it's just fucking magic.
“So why are we suddenly so surprised now when the similar situation occurs in Iraq; previously independent country that we ruthlessly overrun, after some false presumptions and outright lies?”
Here's the bias. Mr. Vltchek wants to vomit up his personal slant, as if it was the only real truth, early in the article. We are “ruthless.” We “overran” Iraq. We based it on lies. Awesome. But I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised by Moqutada al-Sadr, and I'm not surprised by how ruthlessly fucking stupid Vltchek is, nor how he bases his attacks on lies. I'm not surprised that there's petty dictators struggling for power in Saddam's vaccuum, and I'm not surprised that leftists like Vltchek think they're heroes. They thought Saddam was a hero, and they think his replacements are too. Nope, not a surprise.
Another thing I find charming about this is the childish glee with which Vltchek “sees through the lies.” Anybody with even a tiny clue knows that the WMD issue wasn't why the Bush administration chose to invade Iraq. The reasons were far larger, far more strategic, and yes, to some extent tied to our quest for cheap oil. The WMD issue was just what the administration peddled to the people, in an attempt to distill the issue down into sufficiently simple and binary terms, and unfortunately it backfired. What's comical, is how Vltchek fails to get it. When the cover story is blown, Vltchek doesn't see that it was just a cover story. He thinks that it's still the story, only he's seen through it. And this is what we call a “political analyst” over at ZNet. A guy who can never raise above the simplified version of things that governments manufacture for the masses to slobber on in coffeeshops, and over the water cooler.
“Al-Sadr called on his supporters to fight against the occupation and to defend their city promising to lead personally the revolt and spill his own blood.”
Not only is Mr. Vltchek a poor political analyst, he's a poor writer. What sort of gibberish is this sentence? He can't think, he can't write. Sounds like ZNet material to me. Anyway...
Let's be clear what “defend” means to Mr. Vltchek. It means “hide in the Imam Ali Shrine, and try to use it as a political pawn in your rise to power.” Let's also remind ourselves that “personally lead” means “drive poor, ignorant, lightly armed Iraqis to grind themselves to dust against the American war machine, and then put some bandages on your hand at a speech.” Again, how surprised can I be to see a leftist back anyone and everyone that fights against the US? As I read this article, and watched the trainwreck unfold, it was truly depressing to see how utterly predictable this response is. There is no tyrant too wicked, no dictator too self-serving, to gain the unconditional support of the left the very second the come into opposition of the US. To a leftist like Vltcheck, there is only one truth in the world: The US is evil. All other facts, opinions, truths and realities orbit around that central anchor. Hatred of the US is truly the light in Vltchek's life. It blinds him from noting that al-Sadr could easily defend Najaf from somewhere other than the Imam Ali shrine, and the fact that he does so points to a number of conclusions: One is that he doesn't care at all about Najaf itself, or about Shia Islam. Another is that al-Sadr understands that the “ruthless” American military is too respectful of the significance of this shrine to attack it directly. After all, a hallmark of all ruthless aggressors is their respect for their victim's holy places.
Those of us with any degree of objectivity can see that al-Sadr is a tin pot dicator, trying to rally the poor and disenfranchised of Iraq to kill themselves in his name, and thus to elevate him in prominence. He also knows that his army will not survive for long without a strong shield, and he feels no compunction about using the Imam Ali shrine as that shield. I'd be interested to see Mr. Vltchek converse with an educated, pious Iraqi, and hear that person's thoughts on al-Sadr, and his noble defense of Najaf.
“Who could ever forget that long and embarrassing silence when the US President and Commander-in-chief learned that our country had been attacked on September 11th? He finished his infantile reading and went to hiding, becoming virtually incommunicado. Have we ever heard from him that he is flying immediately to New York City or Washington, ready to spill his blood to personally supervise the defense of the cities so dear to this nation?”
One of the hallmarks of the leftist diatribe, is the accelerating descent into madness it follows from the first word to the last. Start out speaking matter-of-factly about some historical event, make some partisan comments, then about halfway through you start in with the Marxist/Stalinist shrieking. This quote is where Mr. Vltchek starts to really drop the hammer. He first pretends like Bush's response to the news of 9-11 was a universally accepted mistake, then starts making shit up, totally fantastic shit, that he thinks is the only obvious choice for a president in Bush's place. I mean, clearly Bush should head to New York, and spill his blood. Clearly. I think it actually says in Presidentialism For Dummies, that the very first thing for a leader to do in the wake of a national tragedy, is go get wounded or killed in an empty gesture. Is George Bush an EMT? Is he a fireman? Or is he the fucking president?
I find it terribly amusing that all al-Sadr has to do is say that he'll spill his blood for his nation, and Vltchek considers it a promise kept. That's how little inspection enemies of the US require. Their word is fact, ironclad by the One Truth of American Evil.
“To achieve the permanent peace, we should probably demand that in case that we decide to go to war, our elites and their children would lead soldiers to the battle.”
We should probably? With lanuage that weak, one has to assume that even Vltchek knows how stupid what he's saying is, but he says it nonetheless. Let's not miss what's being wished for here. Like all leftists, every suggestion Vltchek makes is informed by his desire to see the bourgois classes killed. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the atrocities of Stalin, it's become unprofitable to call directly for the massacre of the wealthy, so leftists are forced to suggests methods of accomplishing that goal via proxy.
But, what's truly humorous about this quote is how ignorant of history it is. The United Kingdom, the most massive empire in human history, was defined by exactly the sort of arrangement Vltchek describes. The officer corps of the British military were drawn entirely from the upper classes. Indeed, military service was a badge of honor amongst the British nobility. Similarly, there is a disproportionately high percentage of military veterans in the Senate and Congress of the United States.
Don't be confused by Mr. Vltchek here. He's not looking for social justice. He's just daydreaming about wealthy people dying. That's the only social justice he can imagine.
“We should demand that it's done the old-fashioned way. Not by bombing from tens of thousands of feet some innocent civilians, but by the ground offensive, where everyone has similar chances and where only those who are the most determined and brave will win.”
Holy shit that's awkwardly written, Vltchek. It's also retarded. All you're seeing here is Vltchek saying to himself, “shit, even if I get the wealthy to go fight, they'll just use their money to get powerful weapons and technology, and they still won't die. How else can I change the rules to lead to their demise? Well, I do know that wealthy people are morally reprehensible, and possess none of the positive aspects of humankind, such as determination and bravery...”
“Let neo-cons and market fundamentalists form their own battalions and platoons.”
They do. It's still an all volunteer military, you fucking idiot.
“And let them also say: 'those who are willing to join are welcomed; those who want to leave are welcomed as well.'”
Still a volunteer army. Still a fucking idiot.
“Until we succeed though, let's not ridicule al-Sadr, a man from the city of Najaf, who is not obliging anyone to follow him, but is ready to defend his city even if he has to do it alone. Right or wrong, his behavior is more honorable and brave than the behavior of those who are throwing other people to the bloody battlefields all over the world, while risking nothing themselves.”
It's just laughable that this guy is allowed to write articles as if he was an authority of any sort. The very best that al-Sadr can hope to be is “no worse” than the United States. Vltchek wants to pretend he's a major hero. A hero, for using a precious treasure of Islam for his own political advancement. A hero, for using his countrymen's poverty and faith as a lever to compel them to serve him.
I can't even put words to it, so I'll have to quote Hussain:
HussainC: Hug the First Amendment, dude, it's wonderful.
HussainC: Where else would we get such amusement from delusional people?