[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Ahem, haven't you recall that I favored getting Saddam out?

No, I don't recall, but if I missed that, I do apologize. In my defense, I don't believe it's ever come up in anything we've said to each other.

However, Bush botched even that, pulling off the impossible: making Saddam a sympathetic guy, and turning Bush into an anarcho-fascist. That's right, I said it. Bush turned into an anarcho-fascist, by ruling over only the oil fields, and leaving the rest of the country to rot.

What? Bush did not make Saddam into an sympathetic figure -- because as you said, it's impossible. Sure, he has his fans in Tikrit, just as he always did, but does anyone give weight to that lot of fascist-symp creeps? This if anything is some unreality put out by the lunatic fringe on the America-must-lose left. As for "botched," Saddam is dead, dammit, which is not "botched" by any rational standard I've ever heard of. Nor is there any such thing as an "anarcho-fascist," as a bit of thought will tell you these terms are about as mutually exclusive as may be imagined. Try imagining somebody ordering you to, fascistically, nationalize major industries but to have no government -- over which he shall not-rule? It collapses of its own absurdity. What on Earth are you doing buying any of this?

Frankly, our effort around any of the oil fields isn't getting any coverage from anybody, either cable news or network. I would hesitate to believe we're doing anything in particular. Even the opposition in Iraq seems to think blowing up pipelines is passe'. And if you're only getting your knowledge of the Iraqi theater of operations through the likes of the New York Times and their fellow travelers, whose bias against George Bush is beyond all reason and so far as I can see without any merit, of course you're not going to be informed about Iraq at all.

An unbelief in the legitimacy of Republican Presidents such as the Times' editorial staff evinces is not worthy editorial policy, but a sort of disgusting spasm. Comes of having too many modern Democrats in journalism, no doubt -- JFK would have thought the current lot a bunch of idiots. No wonder circulation is declining and more conservatively inclined news outlets are growing and being increasingly trusted. They are the ones getting it right.

And I agree that UG is unlikely to change his mind from anything he reads here. But sometimes you have to speak out.

This is because frankly none of the opposing ideas put forth here have been good enough to persuade me to adopt them. I don't buy shoddy goods -- and speaking against destroying fascist autocracies is about as shoddy as it comes, am I right? Therefore, I speak out, to show you the enlightened, prodemocracy, prohuman way. Anti-fascist/anti-communist can hardly help but be pro-human, can it?

Funny how much goddam fighting I get from people whose sympathies should not lie with foreign fascists, yet too apparently do, and for the silliest of rationalizations. It was crap in the Sixties with the New Left's fascisto-communist sympathies and it's not improved forty years on. Superannuated, obsolete crap is crap cubed. You should be ashamed of your antidemocracy sympathies, you know. Well -- now you know. I observe that Leftism tends to prevent certain understandings.

I see what I said still stands: throughout this page, "none here make answer, strangely enough." Lots of scrabbling around the side-issues, which tells me I'm getting through to those who once were blinkered.