Dennis Prager is so consumed with distaste for these crypto-traitors that he actually takes a break from his interminable series on Judeo-Christian moral superiority to bitch-slap them:
All those who support the American war in Iraq should make a deal with anyone opposed to the war. Offer to answer any 20 questions the opponents wish to ask if they will answer just one: Do you believe we are fighting evil people in Iraq?
It's really just that simple, folks. If you believe people are evil, and you should, you should fight them. This alone serves to silence all possible cavils about the purpose, goal and conduct of this or any war: THEY ARE EVIL. They are evil, and that's that, so shut up.
Because if you cannot answer it, or avoid answering it, or answer "no," we know enough about your moral compass to know that further dialogue is unnecessary. In fact, dialogue is impossible. Our understanding of good and evil is so different from yours, there is simply nothing to discuss.
For a so-called moderate, Dennis really pours on the absolutism here: if you do not answer his way, or if you possibly suggest that the question as posed is unfair or deceptive or irrelevant or even unanswerable, the conversation is over. This is his idea of debate: he asks the question, and you give the only possible correct answer. If anything else happens, the discussion is at an end.
Someone who was asked a hundred years ago "Do you believe that whites who lynch blacks are evil?" and refused to answer in the affirmative was not someone one could dialogue with.
Which is odd, because the overwhelming majority of people who would not answer "yes" to the question "Do you believe that whites who lynch blacks are evil?" were none other than Dennis' beloved and morally superior Christians.
Next, Dennis poses a bunch of straw-man answers other than 'yes' to the 'are they evil?' question, and then takes them apart with an ease normally associated with straw. If you say you cannot definitively judge someone as evil, Dennis says:
Regarding the issue of judging anyone evil, the best response is a question: Can we judge anyone to be good (not perfect, just good)? Of course we can. But if we can't call anyone evil, we can't call anyone good, and we certainly know that there are good people.
See, we CERTAINLY can judge people as good! The idea that anyone who has trouble judging people as "evil" would have equal qualms about the word "good" seems not to have occurred to him. He continues, laying it right on the line:
Anyone who remains unable to morally judge people who slit the throats of innocent people, who place bombs in the middle of markets, and who murder anyone attempting to help women achieve basic human rights is a moral imbecile.
Nice smokescreen there with the "murder anyone attempting to help women achieve basic human rights", especially since helping women achieve basic human rights seems not to be a priority for the authors of Iraq's constitution (an outlook seemingly shared by the Bush administration, given their recent public statements on the matter). Beyond that, of course, the whole "moral imbecile" thing kinda puts a damper on any kind of progress in this conversation, doesn't it? So it wouldn't really do any good to ask him if he is unable to morally judge people who drop bombs on innocent people from passing airplanes, or who imprison people indefinitely without trial, or who employ torture.
What about the argument that the insurgents are not evil, but merely fighting foreign forces who invaded and occupied their country? Dennis has got your number on that one, hippie:
The people fighting us in Iraq hate freedom, hate women's rights, hate non-Muslims, and do all they can to murder innocent Iraqis and others in order to undermine the march toward freedom in Iraq. They are not fighting foreign invaders; they are fighting foreign liberators and domestic democrats.
So you see, Americans are not foreign INVADERS, they are foreign LIBERATORS. And if you attempt to ask if that isn't a bit of a semantic distinction, or maybe even a deliberately self-serving shift of perspective, then you are a moral imbecile, and quite possibly...EVIL!
Meanwhile, Rush's brother David Limbaugh is also tired of people assuming the president is capable of explaining his foreign policy.
It's easy to blame President Bush for failing sufficiently to articulate his case for the war against Iraq
Maybe it wouldn't be so easy if he succeeded in articulating his case? Just a thought.
but he does have a nation to lead and a war to fight.
Hey, he's BUSY! LEAVE HIM ALONE! He's got this war to fight! Or, more precisely, to send other people to fight! He can't be bothered to explain why it is we're fighting the war in the first place! Try this against someone robbing your house someday. Ask him why he is doing it, and he will probably tell you that he is busy actually stealing all your possessions and simply doesn't have time to tell you the reason.
Plus, he already made the case for attacking Iraq at the time it mattered -- before we attacked.
See, he ALREADY TOLD YOU why he was invading Iraq. And if it turns out in retrospect that all the reasons he gave were either flimsy pretexts, quickly discarded justifications, or outright fabrications, that doesn't matter. The fact is, even if his entire case was bullshit, he already made it, so quit asking questions. Hey, patchouli-boy, go find a dictionary and look up "fait accompli".
The antiwar Left has finally succeeded in turning public opinion against the war in Iraq with their endless assaults and distortions. The war's supporters, in our defensiveness, have unintentionally taken on a greater burden of proof than, by rights, we should bear.
This is an interesting statement, as it seems to suggest that the people who started the war don't really bear the responsibility of proving that it was justified; or, at least, not very much of the responsibility. Which leaves unanswered the question: who does bear the responsibility of justifying the war? The enemy? The people who are/were against the war? The Pope?
Stripping the issue to its bear essentials
Oh, David. Good grief. BARE essentials, David. They're not grizzly essentials. They're not essentials that live in a forest and hunt fish.
my simple contention is that we were justified in attacking Iraq, among other reasons, because:
He goes on to complicate his simple contention with a lot of completely unsupported allegations, including that Saddam Hussein harbored al-Q'aeda and Palestinian suicide bombers, and claims that "just because we have been unable to find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq" (implying that we're still looking, which, of course, we are not) doesn't mean that the President lied about them. But, of course, all that fades in comparison to the great good that has come from our invasion:
To be sure, magnificent consequences have resulted and continue to flow from our liberation of Iraq
Strangely, David does not seem to be using "magnificent" in an ironic sense here.
from Libya's abandonment of WMD, to the end of real torture and massacre of Iraqi citizens by Saddam
"By Saddam" is the important qualifier here, as the role of torturing Iraqi citizens has now been taken over by the United States military.
to the development of a constitutional republic in the heart of the Middle East (and much more).
The concept of counting one's democratic chickens before they hatch is one that David may wish to acquaint himself with, since the "constitutional republic" of Iraq has yet to actually formulate a constitution or conduct a republican election. But the point is: shut up. Didn't you hear Dennis Prager? SHUT UP.
Finally, sub-literate talk show dingbat Doug Giles admits, yes, Pat Robertson is a kooky nut for exhorting the US to assassinate Hugo Chavez. (Although he does note that we should make no mistake: "We all know that Chavez is a very bad man". Just maybe assassination is too much. Maybe.) But the point is, we shouldn't take Pat to task for anything more serious than giving the commie hippie left ammunition for their false claim that Christians are loose-cannon religious fanatics. Why? Because no one listens to Pat Robertson! He has no real influence! And besides, these are Christians we're talking about here. When was the last time a Christian went off and did something crazy like killing people or blowing up a building? Christians are good and simple do not do things like that. But...you know who does?
Doug doesn't, or at least not enough to say so explicitly. But he will drop a bunch of REALLY CLEVER HINTS for you so you can figure out which is the REAL evil religion!
If the piranha press wants someone or something over which they should truly be concerned, I say to them: Leave Pat Robertson alone, get out your sleuth kit, logon to find-a-real-threat-dot-com
Note: http://www.find-a-real-threat.com is not a working URL.
and continuously investigate any religious person or group . . .
1. That leads armies and orders them to kill those who do not buy their particular religion.
Okay, Christianity, right? The Crusades? No? Not Christianity? Because the Crusades...no? Okay. I'll keep guessing.
2. In which the career of the main religious figure head, prophet or messiah-character has been one of bloody conquest.
Okay, Judaism. It's Judaism. Because Moses...no? But, the armies of Israel massacred...no? Are you sure? Okay. Well, hit me with the next one.
3. Whose holy book supports intimidation and violence.
Okay, it HAS to be Judaism, then. Because the Old Testament...no? It's not? But hundreds of thousands of deaths are...no? Are you SURE? Man. I'm no good at this. Keep 'em coming.
4. Who has a murderous envy of the West.
Hinduism? Shintoism? No? Man! I'm running out of ideas.
5. Who purports to have an X-rated, Hillary Duff-like paradise land awaiting suicide bombers and terrorists.
Man. I'm totally stumped, now, because I just did a text search of the holy books of every major religion, and NONE of them mention "terrorism", "suicide bombing" or "Hillary Duff". You've really stymied me, Doug Giles!
6. Whose main religious leader truly ordered—and rejoiced in—the assassinations of his enemies.
Hmmmm. Can't be Islam, because their main religious leader was Muhammed, and he never ordered the assassination of his enemies. So, I dunno. Mormonism?
7. Whose religious law institutionalizes the oppression of Christians, Jews and others who do not bow and kiss their religious rings.
Well, see, this would obviously be Catholicism, what with the kissing of the religious ring. But Catholics are Christians. You're like the Riddler, man! Call in Batman, I need a clue!
8. Who treats women as nothing more than slaves.
All of them?
9. Who despises democracy and will do whatever they can to resist it.
See, now, this is a bad clue, because ALL religions totally embrace freedom and democracy, and have NEVER done anything to resist the will of the people! So how am I supposed to narrow it down? Religion and democracy just go hand in hand. There's simply no way to separate church and state! I can't guess! This whole intellectual exercise was beyond my comprehension!
There’s your real boogieman.
What an appropriate metaphor.