The Deer in the Headlights

[Tigermike 3,039]

The Deer in the Headlights

What can be going through a deer's mind just before the deer goes through the windshield? The dazzle? Something so bright that it overwhelms the flight impulse which always comes before the fight reaction? In any case, the tendency of deer to freeze when caught in the sudden glare of an oncoming disaster is so well recognized that it has evolved into the familiar catch phrase; a phase used for any life situation in which the threat is so overwhelming and sudden that no survival reaction is possible. Instead, the animal remains rooted in place -- nailed to its perch, as it were.

We now see this dreaded situation acted out daily in our polity where an increasingly large number of our fellow citizens have assumed the position in the highway of history; surprisingly content to stand spot-welded to the tarmac as the glare of hate and the promise of destruction rolls towards it. To make sure it can neither flee nor fight this cohort of the confused has elected representatives to the government whose actions replicate a kabuki of cowardice; a herd of Congressional and Senatorial Bambis, if you will. And for this obsessive compulsion towards inactivity, the artificial heightening of passivity, and the sanctification of institutionalized cowardice, they are actually praised. Some even run for the Presidency on a platform of treason promised, though none dare call it so.

It is indeed an unusual political party that seeks office on promises of failure and defeat, and yet this seems to be what many associated with the party desperately want. Perhaps the answer to what goes through the deer's mind as it stands in the beams is as simple as "a death wish." The party has spent many decades worshipping death before birth and death when obvious usefulness is finished. To simply wish for death all around seems to be a simple next step.

Of course, much of this death wish and the cowardice that precedes it is carefully camouflaged, hidden from the mind of the less-than-persuaded centrists of the party and those independents who might align. If it were not, the party would quickly wither to its small and wizened core. After all one must, even while taking the country down the path to defeat and ruin, pretend that one has only the very best core American values at heart.

A recent example of this shameless pandering appeared a few days ago at the behest of John Edwards, a man whose vanity and intense self-regard, has gathered his own share of acolytes -- much as rich men always tend to gather those about themselves who are willing to abase themselves for the chance at a few extra coppers tossed their way. Edwards has put up a website dedicated to explaining to the troops how all those in the Democratic party in general, and the Hoping John camp, actually love them at the same time they are devoted daily to selling them out.

Called "Support the Troops. End the War" without a whit of self-consciousness at the richly Orwellian nature of that title, the site is so deeply cynical that it could cause a five-dollar whore to blush. But Edwards and his supporters are immune to shame as we have seen time after time. The site has a list of "things one can do for the Troops." Leaving them alone to finish their mission and achieve victory is, alas, not on the list. But you can do things such as send them a care package or talk to a vet or whip out that yellow ribbon you've sneered at for decades. All of this is, of course, pure cynical crap. As is the now oft-heard "I support the troops. I just don't support the mission."

On hearing the last, some wag in recent weeks suggested turning it around on these vacant souls with the phrase, "I support the life and work and person of Martin Luther King. I just don't support his mission." This of course would be impolite at the very least. If the true believers are deeply diseased enough to believe that one can support troops without supporting the mission they are unlikely to see the parallel or reflect on the meaning. The "racist" neural circuit would cut in and inhibit ratiocination.

But there is a slight, if unconscious, element of self-awareness embedded on the Edwards page. That is a headline that reads, "Reclaiming Patriotism."

This last element at least admits in a somewhat roundabout way that patriotism is one thing that Edwards and his cohort lack. They will continue to lack it since it is the last thing they want. What they want is the appearance of being patiotic without the bother that comes with it.

What follows is a tedious list of things to do "for the troops" that would, I imagine, "reclaim patriotism." It's a list cribbed from their betters in every respect and, in this context, each one becomes more hypocritical than the next until, when taken in sum, the fetid mass forms a steaming heap of hypocrisy so potent that its sheer aroma would be enough to drop a charging rhino at 50 yards. As a result there is evidently, to judge from the map displayed, no shortage of people so confused by the current world situation that they are actually signing on to do these things in the name of John Edwards, the big buck of the Bambi wing of the Democratic Party. Of course, this sort of thing is not new to a man who used his own wife's cancer to raise money for his own twisted ambition.

A sadder group of Americans -- outside of Congress -- is difficult to imagine, but the psychotic displacement of fear from our real enemies onto imagined enemies is really just getting underway. Sadder and more frightened constituencies are bound to emerge. Edwards is merely skimming la creme de la cowards, the best of the Bambis.

The headlights will keep coming down the road from the very near future and the deer will insist upon straying into them. The only question is whether or not you want to be part of the passive herd.

http://americandigest.org/

"Support the Troops. End the War"

http://www.supportthetroopsendthewar.com/

"Reclaiming Patriotism."

http://www.supportthetroopsendthewar.com/

[otterinbham 0]

What grotesque stupidity this article is.

[drewau02 0]

What grotesque stupidity this article is.

I see you've been working on your analytical skills there otter.

[otterinbham 0]

Because it's beneath contempt. The entire point of the article is that anybody who questions the war's original movivations or its prosecution is either a coward or unpatriotic--or maybe both.

There were plenty of critics of the war who were neither, however. People who were on the Joint Chiefs, for example. Instead, they were shouted down in the general rush to arms when their predictions turned out to be shockingly true.

Yet halfwits like the author of this article cannot seem to fathom that questioning this war's original purpose and the incompetence of its mismanagement is far more patriotic than blindly swallowing whatever half-truths comes from the far right. And anybody who swallows this load of baloney is a simple minded tool.

[Tigermike 3,039]

So in Otters world you can’t look at the left without first running things thru the filter of Bush bashing and a treatise of how badly this war has been run. If I’m not mistaken, the author didn’t say anything about the “war’s original motivations”, nor was he commenting on “anyone questioning the war’s original purpose”. But he did take a rather large swipe at the direction of the democrat party and those currently pushing the far left agenda for the dems.

After the way you attacked the author and anyone who even remotely agrees with what was written, it would seem that you are staunchly in the Edwards camp. Since it was Edwards (mostly and dems in general) that the author was going off on.

[otterinbham 0]

So in Otters world you can’t look at the left without first running things thru the filter of Bush bashing and a treatise of how badly this war has been run. If I’m not mistaken, the author didn’t say anything about the “war’s original motivations”, nor was he commenting on “anyone questioning the war’s original purpose”. But he did take a rather large swipe at the direction of the democrat party and those currently pushing the far left agenda for the dems.

After the way you attacked the author and anyone who even remotely agrees with what was written, it would seem that you are staunchly in the Edwards camp. Since it was Edwards (mostly and dems in general) that the author was going off on.

Actually I read the article twice. What's more, I actually used my brain while doing so.

Look, I know in your world, it's perfectly acceptable to bandy about words such as "treason" or "cowardice" for anybody who disagrees with you. That, my friend, is a far cry from simply saying, "You're wrong and here's why."

This war was ill-considered, badly planned, and terribly executed by an incompetent presidency. As a result, we have been fighting in Iraq longer than we fought the Japanese and the Germans. It is right that people of this country question what is going on in Baghdad, rather than simply accept the latest press release from the Oval Office.

That's true patriotism, not just following the president over a cliff.

[Tigermike 3,039]

So in Otters world you can’t look at the left without first running things thru the filter of Bush bashing and a treatise of how badly this war has been run. If I’m not mistaken, the author didn’t say anything about the “war’s original motivations”, nor was he commenting on “anyone questioning the war’s original purpose”. But he did take a rather large swipe at the direction of the democrat party and those currently pushing the far left agenda for the dems.

After the way you attacked the author and anyone who even remotely agrees with what was written, it would seem that you are staunchly in the Edwards camp. Since it was Edwards (mostly and dems in general) that the author was going off on.

Actually I read the article twice. What's more, I actually used my brain while doing so.

Look, I know in your world, it's perfectly acceptable to bandy about words such as "treason" or "cowardice" for anybody who disagrees with you. That, my friend, is a far cry from simply saying, "You're wrong and here's why."

This war was ill-considered, badly planned, and terribly executed by an incompetent presidency. As a result, we have been fighting in Iraq longer than we fought the Japanese and the Germans. It is right that people of this country question what is going on in Baghdad, rather than simply accept the latest press release from the Oval Office.

That's true patriotism, not just following the president over a cliff.

You just can't help but put that filter in there can you otter? Where in this article did he defend W or this administration in any way? Where did he say anything about great planning and great execution? He didn't. What he did do was comment on the view and direction of the democrats. Did he use strong language? Yeah I would say so.

I thought the analogy “The Deer In The Headlights” was appropriate. Many on the left have been protesting the war from the get go. Not because it was ill conceived, badly executed and apparently little thought placed on what to do after the war. No they were protesting because a) USA, W, c) some are always against war, d) W.

The Left's Iraq Muddle

Yes, it is central to the fight against Islamic radicalism.

BY BOB KERREY

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:01 a.m.

At this year's graduation celebration at The New School in New York, Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause.

But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: "Democracy cannot be imposed with military force."

What troubled me about this statement--a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq--is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.

Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.

Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.

The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.

Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission, is president of The New School.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110010107