Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

Of course, Dookiestik wont read this. He probably would not understand it if he did, but I defy him to read it and rebut it!!!

August 08, 2006
Fortnight to Apocalypse: the Moslem Millennium
Iran Matters
Hatched by Dafydd
Professor Bernard Lewis, who knows more about Islam than any other Westerner (and likely more than virtually any Moslem), paints a chilling portrait of Iranian MAD-ness in today's Wall Street Journal. Alas, it lies behind the iron subscription; but not to worry, Big Lizards shall tell you all you need to know about it. "Never first, always final!"

Professor Lewis contrasts the Soviets, India and Pakistan, and other fairly civilized countries -- nations with every intention of surviving beyond the lifespan of their current leaders -- with the apocalyptic and nihilist worldview of Iran. Against the former, the military concept of "mutual assured destruction," or MAD, actually deterred; the Soviets did not attack us with nukes, because they knew we would respond in kind, and both countries would be utterly annihilated. Thus, the aggressors were stymied in using their most potent weapons.

But Iran has no such fear -- for the Iranian leaders, from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei through the ruling mullahs down to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believe in an imminent Moslem millenarianism: that any day now, the final, momentous struggle between good and evil will culminate in armageddon.

A great battle will ensue, during which the forces of evil (that's us) will drive the faithful back and back. And as they teeter on the brink of oblivion, driven there by us "world devourers," as the late Ayatollah Khomeini called the infidels, that will trigger the return of the Twelfth Imam, the "Hidden Imam" whom Allah has hidden from the world until that moment arrives. This Muhammed al-Mahdi will personally lead the armies of Islam against the faithless (that is, everybody who isn't a Moslem), defeat and destroy them, and the entire world will be one shining Islamic crescent on a hill.

This version of apocalypse is, of course, no more silly than any other form of millenarianism. The difference is that this millennial group has an army, and air force, a missile force, and will soon have nuclear warheads to fulfill their eschatonian fantasies.

Earlier, I said the Iranian leaders believe this could happen "any day now;" but in fact, there is one date in particular that stands out, both because of historical significance within Islam and also because Ahmadinejad himself has made cryptic references to it: August 22nd by our calendar. In his dry, understated, British way, Prof. Lewis explains:

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time -- Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.


But what does this mean for us? The leaders of Iran (not necessarily the youthful Persian population) see war, not as a horrible event to be avoided, but rather as the natural state of this world: Islam divides the earth into two spheres, the ummah or "Moslemdom" (the abode of peace), and the sphere of the infidel, which is the abode of strife or war.

Nor do they see even catastrophic losses as defeat, for what matters to them is entirely what happens in the next world, not in this one. Back to Lewis:

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead -- hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
That last sentence contains a variation on the line that Ralph Peters uses in nearly every column, but which appears to have originated with Cal Thomas:

While we argue about the place of God in U.S. society, our enemies are not so conflicted. They believe their god wants us dead. No amount of munitions, money and Marines is going to stay these fanatics from their ordained rounds. To them, death is victory. To us, it is tragedy. They are counting on us not wanting to die. They welcome death as a promotion. They believe we will cut and run if they can spill enough of our blood. We regard our blood as precious. They see theirs as the currency of martyrdom.
August 22nd is but a fortnight away; if the Iranians do not have nuclear weapons today, they will not have them in two weeks, either. But we know they have missiles capable of reaching Israel; and after all, nukes are not the only form that weapons of mass destruction can take.

Will Iran precipitate a conflagration, the final holocaust that will bring back the Hidden Imam and usher in the Moslem Millennium? Since we do not know, we must prepare for the worst: we must be ready with policy in case Iran directly attacks Israel on that date, thus widening a local war into a regional superwar... which could become a hyperwar -- call it the Tenth Crusade -- of Christendom (joined, perhaps, by Atheistan) against the Ummah.

We cannot allow ourselves to be sucker-punched again, as we were on September 11th. This time, we must make it clear that we're well aware of Iran's aspirations, and we're prepared to offer martyrdom to as many jihadis as want it, all to protect our own "abode.

*******************************************************


ISLAMO FASCIST MURDERERS IS CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!

And, on the subject of extremists driving out moderates...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Republican-Infighting.html

KW,
Dont get me wrong.
I 100% support stem cell research.

But,to use the death of a man like Chris Reeves in a political speech like Edwards did was just plain wrong.

What Edwards said could have been said a number of different ways,instead of suggesting that people like Chris Reeves would get up and walk.
That is raising a false hope,and is just plain wrong.
My objection was with his words,not the spirit of what was meant.

Re: Joe Lieberman Will Drop Out.
Hm. I'm all over the place on the last few posts.

To start with the predictable:


Bullshit. A commanding majority of Americans thinks the Iraq war wasnt worth it, and a majority also believes it has not made America safer. For a Democratic candidate to espouse the same views is thus hardly "extreme left" -- on this one, it's Lamont who is reflecting mainstream sentiment, and Lieberman who is out of touch.

On the other hand, there's this one:


I dont know who Lawrence O'Donnell is and its not clear what paper/magazine/site this copy-paste is, but this prediction seems rawther far-fetched. Lieberman trailing Lamont by double digits? In a state where the electorate divides neatly up in relatively equal parts Republicans, independents and Democrats? And where even among Democrats, Lamont just eeked out the narrowest of majorities?

There seems to be a cloud-cuckoo land quality about this prediction. I mean, Lamont surprised me before, but on this one I'd be willing to bet.


I wouldnt count on that either. I think it's more likely that he will endorse Lamont and leave it at that. The Dems have more pressing matters this November, in their long shot to take Congress back, than going after a Democrat-affiliated independent.


That may have been true in the primary, but in the general election? If Lieberman would win the Independents and Republicans (few of whom trust take Schlesinger seriously), he doesnt even need many Democrats. The author doesnt quite seem to have made the transition in context from primary race to general election yet.

On a related note, I also agree with SierraSong (gasp) that Dems chances of retaking the Senate rank as possible, but not probable.

BBB
Nimh, for your info:

Lawrence O'Donnell

- Senior Political Analyst, MSNBC
- Emmy Winning Producer of NBC's The West Wing

Lawrence O'Donnell, Jr. is an Emmy Winning Producer of NBC's The West Wing. The West Wing episode he co-wrote on the death penalty won the 2000 Humanitas Prize for writing that "communicate(s) those values which most enrich the human person." Mr. O'Donnell was also the creator and Executive Producer of Mister Sterling, NBC's Washington-based drama set in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. O'Donnell is also MSNBC's Senior Political Analyst.

During the election year 2000, Mr. O'Donnell was a Contributing Editor of New York Magazine with a column on national politics.

From 1993 through 1995, Mr. O'Donnell was the Democratic Chief of Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Finance. The Committee has jurisdiction over legislation involving taxation, international trade, health care, Social Security, Welfare, and other income security programs.

In 1992, Mr. O'Donnell was Chief of Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

From 1989 until 1992, Mr. O'Donnell served as Senior Advisor to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He began his professional association with Senator Moynihan as Director of Communications in the Senator's 1988 re-election campaign.

A writer prior to entering politics and government, Mr. O'Donnell published the book Deadly Force (1983), which was adapted as a CBS movie in 1986. He has written essays and articles for several publications including The New York Times, New York Magazine, People, Spy, and Boston Magazine.

Mr. O'Donnell has also appeared on The Today Show, Good Morning America, Nightline, Charlie Rose Show and several other programs.

Suffolk University awarded Mr. O'Donnell an honorary degree, Doctor of Humane Letters, in 2001.

Born in Boston, Massachusetts, Mr. O'Donnell is a graduate of Harvard College (Class of 1976). He lives in Los Angeles.

Are we supposed to be impressed, bumble bee?

Nobody really knows how the Lamont-Lieberman race will shake out. That includes Lamont and Lieberman.

Just saw Lieberman's first TV commercial-well, thhe first I saw anyway.

Lieberman was talking about the war. He said that he wanted to end the war as quickly as he could, in an honorable way that won't leave the US in danger.

Looks like Lieberman got the message-he can't deal with the war just by dismissing his opponent as a one-issue candidate, or sell himself as the man who isn't afraid to make the tough decisions, even if you disagree with his decision. Those didn't work in the primary, so he appears to be scrapping both those approaches.

Let me tell you what you're leaving out of your calculations here.

Granted Ahmadi-najad figures he can do anything he wants to the west and it doesn't matter how they retaliate because he'll be up there porking his 72 virgins. The thing most westerners fail to grasp is that in Ahmadi-najad's grand vision, those 72 virgins will STAY virgins no matter how much he porks them because, as Ann coulter so delicately puts it:



The story about Ann's new book:

http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/2321/85/

Lieberman putting some distance between himself and Lamont according to Rasmussen Reports.

Survey of 500 Likely Voters
August 9-10, 2006
Election 2006: Connecticut Senate
Joseph Lieberman (I) 46%
Ned Lamont (D) 41%
Alan Schlesinger (R) 6%

And, after the public fully digests the recent attempt by the murderous fanatic Islamists who wanted to blow up planes carrying hundreds of innocent men, women and children--Murderous fanatic Islamists no different from the ones we are fighting in Iraq--Murderous fanatic Islamists who are not fighting under the flag of a country but rather under the banner of a RELIGION, Lieberman will pull even farther ahead because Lieberman knows that if we don't fight the Islamic Religionists in Iraq, they will come to our shores--THEY DID IN 2001 AND HAVE TRIED AT LEAST TWO MORE TIMES!!!

It is just ridiculous but completley typical for conservatives to be playing this "Lamont AQ candidate" and equating that win a loose for the "war on terror.

In the first place as some have pointed out, fifty seven of the people agree with Lamont's view on Iraq. In the second place Iraq is not our "war on terror" at least it wasn't before we invaded it. In the third place this administration has done a lousy job on the war on terror, remember the stupid brag, "wanted dead or alive?"

Also trying to racket up the latest foiled British terror plot as some kind of win for the administration is just plain dumb but expected. Bush didn't even know about the plot until Sunday so they hardly had anything to do with it. It might work to fool people, I no longer care anymore.



Click
here for links to verify facts.

Well, if you are correct( and you are not) revel, then President Bush and Senator Lieberman will not get a boost in the polls.

I will be on these threads to report the rise in the polls for Bush and Lieberman during the next two weeks.

Re: BBB
Thanks for the info, BBB.


That confirms my suspicion that this was a highly partisan analysis / analyst.

Thanks for the update, Bernard.

Interesting data. Looks like Lieberman is winning a few points - but exclusively from Schlesinger - not from Lamont, who's holding steady.

Then again, as I said, that might be enough - Lieberman might not need many Democrats.

As I stated here I really don't care what happens in the polls or elections.

One probable reason of why the Bush administration was not told of the terror investigation until two weeks ago.

The Leak None Dared Call Treason

Yea, we really should just lay back and be safe in the knowledge that these republican conservatives are in charge of our security; after all they have been doing so well since they have been in charge.

Mysteryman:

Below is an excerpt from Chris Reeve's own speech in front of the 1996 Democratic National Convention. The speech does not mention stem cell research specifically, however in later speeches and statements Reeve repeatedly called for money for stem cell research as a promising way to help those with spinal cord injuries.




The wheelchair bound Mr Krauthammer is certainly entitled to his ideas that the proper way to handle paralysis is to de-emphasize the chance for a cure and to emphasize the idea that you can still have a great life in a wheelchair. But he does not have the right to proclaim himself spokesman for all paralyzed people, and people like Christopher Reeve are just as entitled to push hard for research to get him and people like him out of wheelchairs as Charles Krauthammer is to say their goal should be to make peace with the wheelchair.

Similarly, Krauthammer is in error when he attacks John Edwards for basically saying the same things upon Chris Reeve's death that Chris Reeve said so many times in his life. Indeed, when someone we admire with a cause passes, the normal thing is to commemmorate that person by emphasizing the importance of that cause. That is all Edwards did, and there was nothing wrong with it.

I can't understand the controversy over Christopher Reeves on here. As kelticwizard points out, Reeves wanted his name and prestige to be used to further stem cell research, because he truly believed folks like himself would one day be able to walk.

A big part of the problem is that few people truly understand stem cell research. First of all, you need to distinguish between stem cell research, which pretty much everybody is for, vs. embryonic stem cell research, which is only one facet of the whole field. To imply that Reeve could have been cured if it weren't for people like Bush opposing embryonic stem cell research is a bit over the top, but that is not surprising for a guy that went around the country preaching his "two Americas" mantra. Basically, many people recognized Edwards to be the phony he was, attempting to use demagoguery to further his own cause. Thats my opinion.

He (Edwards probbably implied there was something wroung with the Republican admisnistration, the subversive bastard.

Ahh, the desperation of Republicans incapsulated in that cartoon is wonderful. How much more fear do you think you'll need to instill in the American people for Republicans to stay in power? Another 9/11 perhaps? Major terrorist alerts at every pivotal polling center in the country?

Keep 'em comin'....