The Unbelievable Kinsley

Unbelievable…

Here is Michael Kinsley’s LA Times opinion-editorial of Feb. 6^th, 2005. I suppose some found it reasonable- hell, even incisive. They are Kinsley’s fellow travelers in the liberal echo-chamber. For we who dwell beyond the chamber’s walls, the op-ed exposes Kinsley, not Bush.

The first 3 paragraphs amount to this: blah blah blah look how smart I am I reference a 1917 article look I’m smart blah blah blah. (Pretty pathetic.) Skip. The 4^th paragraph begins:

“Bush does not say that tyranny excuses terrorism. But he does say that tyranny explains terrorism. This is new.”

This is new. Ahem. Actually, this was common knowledge a long time ago. Below are some excerpts from post I made last year in a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu forum I spend a lot of time at.

Re: Why do you support Iraq invasion ?
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2004, 07:25:29 AM »

i support the Iraq LIBERATION because I think we need to change the culture of the middle east in order to end islamo-fascism in order to end terrorism.

that's the ONLY reason I support it.

Re: Why do you support Iraq invasion ?
« Reply #55 on: April 19, 2004, 11:09:41 PM »

Whether someone has something we want or not does not give us any right to go to war with them. That's crazy. Wanting something bad and having the power to take it does not give you the right to take it.
If you think oil is the reason we went to war with Iraq that's a seperate issue, (I disagree completely, btw, it would have been MUCH easier to go to war with Venezuela or to just lift the sanctions on Iraq, and we are not (ed. should be 'now' instead of 'not') importing oil INTO Iraq, rather than exporting it OUT. Russia and France fought against the war for oil, we fought the war to spread freedom through the middle east because democracies don't manufacture terrorists) but right in no way makes right.

Re: Why do you support Iraq invasion ?
« Reply #64 on: April 20, 2004, 06:58:53 AM »

I'm not kidding myself, I understand how important oil is to every day life. That's why I think we should drill in Anwar etc. However, the fact that we need oil does not give us a RIGHT to invade anybody. And you've still not provided a compelling argument showing we liberated Iraq for oil. We did it to remove WMD's and to change the culture of the middle east, to promote freedom in the region, so that the region will stop churning out terrorists. I never said we did it for unselfish reasons, those are all selfish reasons. I said we have a RIGHT to do that because NO non-democratic government is legitimate.

Re: Iraq vs Afghanistan. The wrong focus?
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2004, 09:08:38 AM »

what Hackworth misses is that the conditions that create radical Islam are created and maintained by the brutal dictatorships of the middle east. Changing Iraq into a democracy is the best way to change the culture of the region.

Re: Bin Laden trail "gone cold"
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2004, 06:59:55 AM »

seriously, though... the guy who tried to blow up the WTC the first time is in jail. did that stop 9/11? No. Maybe it is better to fight the entire organization, the infrastucture that fed it, and to try to change the culture that created that infrastructure, than it is to go after one man. that way osama would be in prison and thousands more Americans would now be dead... the Clinton option... sounds like a good idea?

If you follow the links you’ll find liberals and conservatives going at it. This is basically a bunch of guys brought together by an interest in fighting, discussing politics. And any liberal who has discussed politics with conservatives KNOWS that Bush invaded Iraq not only for WMD, but to change the culture of the region, because that is the ONLY way to eventually end the threat of Islamist terrorism.

It is almost unbelievable that Kinsley is was not aware of this before Bush's SOTU speech. He must choose his friends based on their liberalism, or avoid politics with anyone who doesn’t share his beliefs. He must, willfully, even consciously, choose not to hear points of view that challenge his beliefs…

Here is the continuation of the quote above:

“Bush does not say that tyranny excuses terrorism. But he does say that tyranny explains terrorism. This is new. One of Bush's big themes in the months after Sept. 11 was that terrorism is "evil," pure and simple.”

Again, Kinsley is exactly wrong. “…terrorism is "evil," pure and simple” was a theme, and IS a theme, but that has NOTHING to do with the root causes of terrorism. The point of that theme is that, regardless of its root cause, terrorism must never be considered legitimate. How can Kinsley not grasp this central tenet of a theme he is conversant with? This goes beyond ignorance into willful intellectual incompetence. One imagines Kinsley with a lobotomy needle, pushing it through his eye socket into the parts of his brain that deal with President Bush and Iraq- anything, ANYTHING, to avoid reality.

The 6^th paragraph begins:

“Our president appears to be on some kind of intellectual journey. The idea of an evolution in George W. Bush's thinking is about as hard to accept for Bush's opponents as evolution itself is for some of his supporters.”

Actually, Kinsley has begun his own intellectual journey. It involves removing his head from his ass. He is about halfway there. If he continues, I will, someday, email him thus: “Congratulations, Mr. Kinsley, on your belated recognition of the obvious!” But not today.