« 26 things (almost) | Main | jihad on wheels »

bitchslap ted rall day: it's back!

Another Friday, another Ted Rall screed of idiocy.

Ted wants the U.S. to pull out of Iraq because, well, they hate us.

He wants us to just pack up our bags and our weapons and hightail it out of there, leaving Iraq and its people to fend for themselves. I suppose he thinks that they would rather be stranded in the middle of the road to democracy than have to walk that road with the ugly Americans. He even uses the lefty word-of-the-month, quagmire.

But short of a Manhattan mushroom cloud, it's hard to imagine a darker scenario than the one we're in.

Hmmm, let's see what's going on in Iraq:


The north and the south are calm; opposition to the United States in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle to the north is limited. There are no clashes between Shiite and Sunni Muslims or between Kurds and other Iraqis. Meetings of the organizing council have been harmonious and productive. Much of the negative press, Chalabi argues, is due to translators who have their own anti-American agendas and give American and other reporters their version of what is going on rather than what the Iraqis being interviewed are saying.

Ah, dark days indeed. Maybe what Ted means is that it's dark days for the moonbats, who want nothing more than for this mission to fail. If it failed, they would have more ammunition in their war against Bush. So good news to the Iraqis is bad news to Ted.

Don't think that's possible? Just look at this quote Andrew Sullivan dug up at that breeding ground for hatred, Democratic Underground:

"What I really hate about the way our government has been taken over is that I'm at the point where I almost DON"T want anything good to happpen in Iraq, I WANT them to screw up, I WANT them to fail." Another vented: "Bush and his ilk are far, far worse than Saddam and his two degenerate brats, and that's saying a LOT."

Is that Kool-Aid refreshing your thirst for Bush's demise, kids?

Ted says: Now they say things are getting better. Read the paper. Watch the tube. E-mail a soldier stationed in Iraq. Does the occupation of Iraq seem like it's getting better to you?

But Josh Chafetz says:

In the first opinion poll of liberated Iraq, Dr. Sadoun Dulaimi of the Iraq Center for Research & Strategic Studies found that 65 percent of Baghdadis want U.S. troops to stay for now; only 17 percent want them to pull out immediately. Clearly the United States is doing something right. In fact, if you read past the front pages, you find many signs of improvement in the four major areas of reconstruction: providing security, improving public utilities, rebuilding civil society and laying the groundwork for democracy, and getting the economy moving.

So, to answer that question, Ted: Yes.

Perhaps Rall, who has been known to suffer from mental instability from time to time, honestly believes that living under a regime whose modus operandi included rape, torture and murder on a daily basis is a far better thing than having to live side by side with American soldiers while they protect the Iraqis and help them rebuild their country into something resembling a republic.

Of course, Ted still is stuck in his No-Blood-For-Oil costume:

It's time to stop throwing good lives after bad. We came for Iraq's oil, but we'll never extract crude without seducing Iraqi hearts and minds.

Quagmire. Oil. What would a Ted Rall column be without those? I'm suprised he hasn't mentioned the last election yet.

...our invasion allowed looters and rapists to take over the cities..

Pardon? I think the looters and rapists were there before. Their names were Uday, Qusay and Saddam. Two out of three are dead and the last one is running for his life. My god, what have we done? We chased the boogymen out of Iraq! How dare we?

Why not admit that the invasion was a mistake now, before more people die in a meaningless war? Cut bait and bring home the troops. Sure, the French will mock us; we deserve it. Iraq may become a Shiite theocracy, but nothing--except a brand-new president with a new take on foreign policy--can stop that now. Disaster is inevitable.

Such a pessimist, this one. Impending doom, brink of disaster kind of guy. And not just with Iraq, but he thinks America is on the brink of the same. You know the drill, police state, 1984, facist, capitalist society in ruins.

Cut bait and bring the troops home? Whose bait are you cutting? And suppose we did that? In just a few short days after bringing the troops home, the left would be all over Bush and his administration for leaving Iraq high and dry. It's a lose/lose situation with the left for Bush. The old damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It's so very sad that Rall and the like are so self-centered, so wrapped up in their flags of socialism and Bush-hating, that they would have no problem just leaving the Iraqi people alone. Where's the humanitarianism? Where's the compassion? They complain that the Iraqis are still having problems with water and electricity, but they think it's ok if we just stop what we are doing to fix those problems and come home with a job half done?

Rall has no problem with the fact that Iraq would become a Shiite country - or worse - if we left. The same old games would start to play out again; ruling by fear, instilling hatred of America, torture, rape, the rich get richer and the poor get thrown in prisons and women go back behind their veils. And then the opposition groups grow bigger and stronger and decide that America could use a healthy dose of terrorism.

Right, Ted. Way to think this thing through. It's time you started turning on those little burners in your brain before you sit down to write a column. You're starting to sound like a naive, fifteen year old hippie in Birkenstocks and dreads writing a high school essay on why the peace movement is like, so rad, man and why Bush is Hitler and America is an empire.

D- for this one, Ted. This little composition of yours only proves that you've been hanging out with Arianna and Bill Maher a little too much. Lay off the Lay off the Morford-type thinking and think about getting laid. It might help release some of that pent-up false anger.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference bitchslap ted rall day: it's back!:

» Turd Roil from Inoperable Terran
Yes, Bitchslap Ted Rall Day is back. Woohoo! Plus, terrorists stole something of Michele's, and she wants it back.... [Read More]

» Bitch. Slapped. from The Bog
Michele serves up a well-deserved bitchslapping to UltraMoondbat Ted Rall. It's tempting so say that it's Rall's stupidity that is so infuriating. The thing is, Rall isn't stupid. [Read More]

» Ted Rall is a Moron from The Encyclopeteia
He was in my Celebrity Plane Crash for a reason. [Read More]

» Cut Bait from Note-It Posts
Michele of A Small Victory examines why Ted Rall is dead wrong when he says we should just up and leave Iraq. I agree with everything she said (well, except maybe some of the gratuitous personal insults), and think this... [Read More]

Comments

What's baffling is that under the weight of such collossal stupidity a person like Rall manages to form complete sentences.

Geez, Ted. No wonder Daddy didn't love you.

Now, now. Linking to Ted Rall is sort of like picking on the slow kid in school. Sure, he can't form a coherent argument or form a sentence that does not have the word "Bush" in it, but we musn't give in to our base impulses and treat him as if he is capable of understanding the absurdity of his own writing.

Tasty Manatees

Before the war, I heard some in the anti-war movement saying they were most concerned that we would go in, knock Saddam out of power, then leave too soon. That was a valid concern, and the answer then was, "well, let's make sure that doesn't happen".

Anyone who expressed that concern pre-war should now be bitch-slapping people like Ted Rall who have started screaming "bring the boys back home".

Maybe they're doing it, but I haven't seen it. I have seen this attitude growing, though.

That man is about the single biggest jackass going. And that is being kind.

Last I checked - every, and i do mean EVERY - correspondence from troops on the ground is the exact opposite of what Ted is peddling. The Iraqi people are overwhelmingly in support of the war and removing the Hussein clan from power.

Nimrod also ignores the obvious fact that nearly everyone understands, that the guerillas are not average Iraqis that are anti-American, but Baathists making a last desparate grasp at power.

Really, as you point out with Sullivan, his "bring the troops home" mantra is only in hopes that this COULD go worse, that if we did then he could smugly point to the horrid state of being in Iraq after we left and blame that on Bush as well.

The man is a useless cretin without a shred of decency. He should be sent to Iraq to provide on the ground direct coverage of the troops he calls "stupid". So long Ted.

But you forget: someone at ABC found a few junior soldiers who were having a bad time and goaded them into dissing the Secretary of Defense on camera so it's a DISASTER IN THE MAKING.

Riiiiight. :-/

If we left all the places that people hate us, we'd only be allowd in Wisconsin.

20 years from now, the Iragi people will not even remember the occupation or Saddam.

They hate me in Wisconsin because I make fun of the way they talk. I'm screwed.

Why waste your time picking on Ted Rall? It's about as profitable as picking on Ann Coulter. We've all ready firmly established that they are boobs. Let's move on, then.

Well, yes, it would be rude of us to go there and destroy their government and then leave without replacing it.

OTOH, it would cut down on the number of dead American soldiers. How many American lives is Ahmed Chalabi worth? (My personal answer is "none", but YMMV.)

Not liberating France would've cut down on dead American soldiers, too. Sometimes you make hard choices and sacrifices in the name of the greater good.

How many American lives is stopping the torture, rape, imprisonment, and murder of thousands of innocents, including women and children, worth? How many American lives is ridding the world of Saddam and his 2 sons worth? How many American lives is it worth if Saddam doesn't sell a bio weapon to terrorists who unleash it in Manhattan?

I can't give you a number, but it's greater than zero. By a lot.

I'm personally willing to fight to the last Ted Rall, if that's what it takes to keep Iraq free.

The only upside to Rall's rant is that at least the left is now pretending to be concerned about soldiers' lives and happiness. Far cry from the "baby-killer" days.

MD: It's a pose.

Hard to believe someone could think leaving the Iraqis in their current state would somehow be a good thing for anybody. Iraq would be thrown into complete and total chaos. We started it for them, we have to finish it for them. End of story, Ted. Look at the big picture, the long term...not the headlines you are fed by the media.

Not liberating France would've cut down on dead American soldiers, too.

We didn't go to war to liberate France (If we had, we would've started a year and a ahlf earlier). Liberating France was a by-product of the primary objective: defeating the Axis. Similarly, liberating Iraq was a by-product of the primary objective of disarmament. The difference is the primary objective in Iraq turned out to be a, uh, miscalculation. So, the bleeding-heart conservatives have fallen back on the liberation thing to retroactively justify the action.

How many American lives is stopping the torture, rape, imprisonment, and murder of thousands of innocents, including women and children, worth?

Clearly, to the right it depends on where those innocents are. I don't see you advocating the expenditure of American lives to stop the torture, rape, imprisonment, and murder of thousands of Congolese, Burmese, Uzbeks, North Koreans, Zimbabweans, or Cubans. What's so special about the Iraqis? If, as your side so strenuously insists, it's not because Iraq has oil, then what?

How many American lives is it worth if Saddam doesn't sell a bio weapon to terrorists who unleash it in Manhattan?

Ah, now I see. We had to stop Saddam from giving the bio-chem weapons he didn't have to the al-Qaeda allies he didn't have. That makes it much clearer.

thlayli23x asked:

"If, as your side so strenuously insists, it's not because Iraq has oil, then what?"

3000 dead Americans, young lady.

Thlayli, with all due respect, you are an idiot. Liberating France was not a "byproduct" of destroying the Axis, it was an inevitable and desired result considering that a member or the Axis, Nazi Germany, had invaded France, and thus the destuction of said Axis would remove the Nazi boot from the French neck -- ie, liberating France to once more be an independant nation. And that is, in fact, what happened -- unless you are using some bizarro world history knowledge the same way your tried to use your bizarro-world semantic trick to claim that France was liberated as a "by-product." Or do you think that we should not have gone to war in WW2 unless the only objective, both stated and intended, was to liberate France? I guess, considering your position on Iraq, you do.

Thlayli - what would happen if we ‘brought the troops home’

The Baathists would probably take over – or Iraq would be ruled by some form of theocracy that followed Sharia law, possibly headed by fundamentalist loony tunes and murder suspect Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadrr, Either way, the fascists would be back in charge. Ted Rall admits that this is would happen. This is what he wants. Once again the anti-war crowd is doing everything they can to help the fascists win – and once again they’re ignoring what the average Iraqi wants. As Orwell said, Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist.

The anti-war crowd likes to pretend that they’re humanitarians. Fortunately, nobody believes that anymore. After all, what have they done for the victims of religious fascism – except to try to guarantee that their oppressors stay in power.

Right now, it doesn’t matter why we’re there. We’re there and unless you’ve found a random wormhole, there’s nothing we can do to change the past. Putting more money and effort into rebuilding Iraq might help things. Confronting the countries who are sending ‘Arab fighters’ into Iraq would also help. Running away would cause more damage to Iraq than the war ever did, and it would encourage more terrorism. It’s one of the worst ideas that anti war activists have ever come up with, and that’s saying a lot.

Thlayli:

We didn't free the people suffering in Stalin's Gulag Archipelago. So by your logic, WWII was a big sham done out of pure selfish greed for some resource or other, right?

Bleeding Heart Liberal,

"So, the bleeding-heart conservatives have fallen back on the liberation thing to retroactively justify the action."

Indeed. Bush should not have used any justification other than UN Resolution 687, which is more than sufficient.

"What's so special about the Iraqis?. If, as your side so strenuously insists, it's not because Iraq has oil, then what?"

Again, UN Resolution 687 tells it all. We'll get to the others in due time.

"Ah, now I see. We had to stop Saddam from giving the bio-chem weapons he didn't have to the al-Qaeda allies he didn't have. That makes it much clearer."

Hmmm. "Didn't have," eh? Well, that's awful funny, because I distinctly recall reading about and seeing the aftermaths of those weapons, such as the warehouses crammed full of plywood boxes containing bodies that were never turned over to their rightful families . . . and all of those dead Kurds lying in the streets of Halabjah (http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html) . . . Iraq admitting to deploying germs between January and July of 2001 . . . Iraq admitting that it had 3080 tons of potent mustard gas at one time . . . 210 tons of tabun and 790 tons of sarin . . . 3.9 tons of VX . . . not to mention various missiles and other projects, such as Operation Babylon. How much of any of these chemicals or how many long-range weapons remain is unknown, because Saddam has never fully complied with the terms of UN Resolution 687.

What YOU need to learn, is that it was never our job to prove that Saddam did or did not destroy his weapons. No, No! The burden of proof was ALWAYS Saddam’s; and Saddam failed miserably for better than a decade.

Now, I know that you would rather have kept the oil-for-food charade up and running – subsequently perpetuating the starvation of Iraqi civilians – so that the French could keep receiving their discounted, under the table oil, your buddy Saddam could have continued to prosper, and you wouldn’t be bothered with a bill or a call to duty, but c’mon; you’ve got to do better than this. Fuck! If you’re going to piss and moan and criticize your country, at least come up with a few good, honest reasons.

BTW – How did you feel about Kosovo?

I wonder how many of you could even point to Iraq on a blank map of the middle east before 1990. I wonder how many of you could point to Kansas on a blank map of the US. Please do not sit and try to make yourselves feel better for being suckered into believing the Bush lies that you all swallowed with glee. I'm sorry, but Iraq was not armed with WMD. The Bush admin rushed us into war to stop the proliferation of WMD which are non-existent. They NEVER cared about the liberation of the poor Iraqi people or they would have overthrown the SOB 20 years ago during their stint under Reagan (the same dumb lot of them, minus W). Don't tell me you care. You're all full of shit if you say that you do. I wonder what kind of a great country we'd have if you all were sincere about even caring about your fellow Americans as much as you say you care about the Iraqis. So much bullshit.