Thursday, July 28, 2011

A new definition

-- While the American left is content to see an Iraqi dictator terrorizing the Iraqi people, the Bushies in D.C. are not.

-- These developments--a Republican administration recognizing that support for dictators in Third World countries is a losing proposition; a commitment to post-WWII-style nation-building in Iraq--are terrific news for people who care about human rights, freedom, and democracy.

-- But wait! Taking out Saddam means dropping bombs, and dropping bombs only creates more terrorists!
That's the lefty argument du jour, and a lot of squish-brains are falling for it, but it's not an argument that the historical record supports. The United States dropped a hell of a lot of bombs on Serbia, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Germany, Japan, and Italy. If dropping bombs creates terrorists, where are all the German terrorists? Or the Italian terrorists? Or the Vietnamese terrorists?
-- But wait! Iraq isn't in cahoots with al Qaeda, so why attack Iraq in the war on terrorism?
Because we're not just at war with al Qaeda, stupid. We're at war with a large and growing Islamo-fascist movement that draws its troops and funds from all over the Islamic world. Islamo-fascism is a regional problem, not just an al Qaeda problem or an Afghanistan problem. To stop Islamo-fascism, we're going to have to roll back all of the tyrannous and dictatorial regimes in the Middle East while simultaneously waging war against a militant, deadly religious ideology.
The above quotes are from a 2002 column by Dan -- not Michael -- Savage, the popular sex columnist and, despite his pigheaded bigotry and from-the-safety-of-Seattle warmongering, liberal hero. Lest you think that was a mere aberration, here he is in 2008 mockingly declaring that "Islam is peace" and fretting about the growing threat from Muslim immigration and the imposition of Sharia law, sentiments that would fit right in over at Pam Geller's cesspool. And let's not forget this gem from last year, "They Blow Up Buses, Don't They?"

But hey, when all is said and done, Savage is mean to Republicans. And what kind of purist, holier-than-though prick focuses on a guy's support, as a grown man and popular columnist, for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq as part of what would be just the first step in a broader war against Islam, ya know? Nevertheless, taking a cue from America's most progressive bigot, I propose the following definition:
Dan Savage: The frothy mix of smug condescension and warmongering that is sometimes the byproduct of membership in the Democratic Party.
Update: Meanwhile, over at MoveOn.org, Dan Savage is saying mean things about a powerless, washed-up Republican politician. All's forgiven!

7 comments:

  1. Isn't he biphobic too?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes: http://jezebel.com/5034442/dan-savage-cool-with-drinking-piss-weird-about-bisexuality

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan Savage, putz. Guess it's cool, though, 'cuz he's all gay, 'n' shit. I mean, being gay means ... well ... precisely nothing about political wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dan always speaks on international matters with the authority of a well-to-do gasbag who knows he could buy his own kid a deferment if it ever became necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous9:02 AM

    Ha, terrific blog. The best blog I've never heard of -- Greenwaldian in its honesty. Your work deserves more attention. Also, your al Qaeda drone post was reminiscent of Al Weisel's "Jon Swift."

    Adrian

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jaysus, And I liked his it gets better project. At least he's honest about expressing his demons, I suppose. Fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That is a great definition. I'm going to give your link to Jesus' General to see if he will take the torch like he did with Santorum.

    ReplyDelete