http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/04/the-enemy-within/

If there is an argument in Elliot’s piece, it’s this: America supported Saddam and the Mujahedeen in the past, therefore we are wrong to change course now that the USSR is gone. The fact that Islamic extremists are part of the species Homo sapiens is somehow the trump card, of course, and it means that we should let them be as nasty as they like to us and to the unfortunate people who live under oppressive secular and religious regimes.

This writer doesn’t understand the nature of religious extremism and fascist totalitarianism, or the danger of appeasement. Elliot: you surrender in your own name, not in ours!!

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/04/the-enemy-within/

If there is an argument in Elliot’s piece, it’s this: America supported Saddam and the Mujahedeen in the past, therefore we are wrong to change course now that the USSR is gone. The fact that Islamic extremists are part of the species Homo sapiens is somehow the trump card, of course, and it means that we should let them be as nasty as they like to us and to the unfortunate people who live under oppressive secular and religious regimes.

This writer doesn’t understand the nature of religious extremism and fascist totalitarianism, or the danger of appeasement.

Elliot: you surrender in your own name, not in ours!!

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/04/the-enemy-within/

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/04/the-enemy-within/

KO!

You are the precisely the greatest danger America faces.

Libertarians are tearing apart the very fabric of American conservatism. You love to parade as intellectuals and great ideologues but in the midst of it- you just don’t get it. You don’t understand it.

You are not a patriot. You are not a freedom-loving person- you are just a leftist under the banner of freedom hidden in the right-wing spectrum of politics.

It’s high time all the conservative institutions and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Leadership Institute get rid of the anti-war libertarians. They are the antithesis of everything that makes America great. Too much of the Washington conservative movement has been overrun by you libertarian leftists. You aren’t social conservatives. It’s time to break up the big love-in. Reagan conservatives, not libertarian softies.

Qualtere was on the money. America is good, and better than the rest. It’s that simple. We are the light of the democracy in the world- and the first people to come to any country or people’s assistance when they need us. We have everything to be proud of and nothing to be ashamed of.

We want good, proud conservatives, not half-arsed, limpdick, unpatriotic, happy-go-lucky, I want to be free to smoke-my-weed libertarians like you.

Grow a set.

Even so, as a fellow blogger, I feel the need to point about a few things regarding the general tone with which Mr. Engstrom writes. First, after copping a condescending tone toward Mr. Qualtere through much if not all of the article, Mr. Engstrom notes at the end of his piece that he “respectfully disagrees,” even if the rest of what he writes proves otherwise. Criticisms are valid and I’m sure Mr. Qualtere expected some, but masking a disrespectful demeanor (passionate as it may be) with “respectfully” at the end wreaks of arrogance and a lack of self-awareness. Mr. Engstrom implicitly questions Mr. Qualtere’s patriotism when he says “if you truly care for the soldiers who you ATTEMPT to honor,” as if something in Mr. Qualtere’s original piece hinted at superficial patriotism. But, I guess I would expect no less from some one advocating an absolutist libertarian ideology. Yes, that was condescending, but I’m also not premising my comments on being “respectful” because none is due on the face of Mr. Engstrom’s article.

Aside from all the libertarian clichés, one other point that needs to be made is that when literary creativity is used to entertain as well as educate (such observing great 90s music and admittedly fun 80s theme parties), such creativity should not be construed literally. Mr. Engstrom is apparently the only adolescent from the 80s who actually remembers news reports on covert CIA operations. Oh wait, “let’s not remember” that none of us remember too much about news that broke when we were eight years old.

Further, since we’re ignoring literary creativity and taking everything literally, then I supposed we should take Mr. Engstrom’s contention that “unlike YOUR perpetual cycle of violence in the Middle East” probably means that Mr. Qualtere is somehow directly responsible for American foreign policy in the 80s when he was too young to even understand its complexities. Maybe Mr. Engstrom needs to cut some slack to other people using literary devices as well as putting a halt to their over-usage in his own work.

Whatever valid points Mr. Engstrom made were likely only received by his like-minded cohorts. I’m willing to bet everyone else was too distracted with Mr. Engstrom’s attacking, intellectually sloppy writing style.

I can be reached at RogueReport@gmail.com if any one would like to respond.

I thought that I was having a pre-senior moment. I shook my head, waited for the water in my brain to sloosh to the proper spot in the middle and I still was befuddled by the sight of Obama COMMANDING the House and the Senate!

I watched for the outrage, the anger, the bewilderment at the audacity of Obama by the media and was only greeted with their acquiesence. It is as if he has the right to ‘be in charge’ of our government.

My son has a Civics class and we watch political news most evenings; I told him that this wasn’t right but I am so glad to hear someone else say the same thing! As the old cartoon said, “I have found the enemy and ‘they is us.’

Yes, a tree falling in the forest when nobody is around does make a sound, so why is no one standing up and shouting that Obama is going too, too far?
Thank you.

Jacob Hornberger from the Future of Freedom Foundation has a great piece on this subject and give’s several examples of the hypocrisy of our foreign policy over the last 20 years.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=653

You seem to be saying that many of the activities the US has undertaken in the past (since 1787?) didn’t turn out so well. Duh. Like chess, foreign affairs are complicated. I could beat Big Blue if I could begin at the end of the game and go back one move at a time. And the US government is not nearly as smart as Big Blue.

Even if we were To be naive and believe that each strategic alliance was made because it was thought to be the best alternative at the time and not because of the Saudi relationship to particular government and State Department officials, one question remains. What is the difference between the Afghani soldiers American boys are fighting with as allies and those that are shooting at them.

The content is factual, the argument is persuasive and the presentation is restrained. You’ve succeeded in bringing light to a difficult subject without pouring on the heat.
It is a cold, harsh light, but it must be to cut through the darkness of denial.