Seeing an Idea Through Readers

Seeing an Idea Through

Readers of this humble “weblog” who keep up with the vicissitudes of contemporary politics undoubtedly recognize that many of our friends on the political Left have concluded that the recent spate of terrorist attacks in London are the result of the “Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.” To sundry lefties, Islamic terrorism would simply not exist were it not for the ill-considered decision to topple the loveable Saddam Hussein.

Now, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are no experts on “Anglo-American” foreign policy. Yet we have a sneaking suspicion that this “Iraq caused all terrorism” thesis—regardless of its obvious attractiveness—leaves a little to be desired.

After all, the Official Chronological Department here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” has informed us that manifold acts of Islamic terrorism—9/11, the attack on the USS Cole, &c.—occurred before the “Anglo-American” liberation of Iraq. In addition, though most of our friends on the Left don’t like to admit it, the perpetrators of these bombings appear equally distraught over the “Anglo-American” liberation of Afghanistan.

For some reason, however, our beloved lefties like to leave Afghanistan out of the equation. After all, most of these Neville Chamberlains of Our Time supported that phase of the War on Terrorism, and they wouldnÂ’t like to think that their foreign policy choices have led to more unspeakable acts.

Yet, dear reader, for the purposes of today’s humble “post,” we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” would like you to forget these and kindred reasons to doubt the whole “Iraq caused all terrorism” thesis. Let us pretend that London Mayor Ken Livingstone, a man so odious he makes Dick Durbin tolerable, is correct, and that America and the United Kingdom had it coming to them.

You see, dear reader, we would like to see this particular idea through. Clearly, in the fevered minds of our friends on the Left, specific aspects of “Anglo-American” foreign policy caused the utterly rational terrorists to strike at us in frustration. Accordingly, the United States and Britain ought to make decisions pertaining to international affairs that are palatable to Osama bin Laden and those of his ilk.

Well, gee: We suppose thatÂ’s fair enough. WeÂ’ll have to pull out of the Middle East entirely, and allow the terrorist nutters to gain complete control of that oil-rich region. And weÂ’ll have to let Israel be destroyed, so that the terrorist nutters can create yet another failed state in its place. And perhaps weÂ’ll have to sacrifice Spain to the terrorists, too; theyÂ’ve got some old scores to settle.

So far, so good. But why donÂ’t our friends on the political Left simply cut out the middleman? If they donÂ’t dare recommend making any decisions on international affairs contrary to the wishes of the terrorists, why not make Osama bin Laden AmericaÂ’s official foreign policy advisor?

We’re sure he’d do a wonderful job: He appears to have the same world-view as the enlightened Gore Vidal—except for the fact that he may not be as supportive of gay rights, and may be a tad less secular.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 4 kb.