The Manifesto of the Thirty Percenters

As the Bush crime syndicate does more and more grievous damage to our country and the world, as the war spirals ever farther into chaos, and as the GOP scandals mount, I continue to be baffled by the fact that even 30% of Americans (give or take a few, depending on the survey) still support Drunky McStagger and his minions.

Then this morning, I happened upon this from old Daily Kos denizen Jerome a Paris, writing at European Tribune. Well, actually, Jerome didn't really write most of it, but he communicated what I take to be a statement of beliefs from the delusional, Fox News, reality-free crowd.

It's too long to reprint here in its entirety, but click over for the full tirade, and in the meantime try to digest these excerpts:

I was never someone you could label and certainly never one to hold to a party line if I felt the party was wrong. Always a registered Democrat I vote based on conscience and not always Democrat. But I did vote for Bill Clinton twice and never regretted those votes - at least not until September 11. That day changed me irreversibly and had a profound impact on how I view politics.

September 11 was a beautiful sunny day right after our end-of-summer Labor Day holiday. I had a neighborhood reunion 2 weeks prior which we have every five years. I renewed old ties with people including [childhood friend] who remembered that I taught him to swim the butterfly stroke. My office was on 57th Street and Third Avenue and across the hall from a major public relation firm. My son had just started his senior year at Duke University in economics and was looking forward to the litany of investment banking firm interviews in the Fall. Just before the holiday weekend I had to cancel a west coast trip because of a sudden meeting I had in New York that was more important. I was supposed to be on the American Airlines 9:00 AM flight out of JFK to Los Angeles.

Note the classic concern troll tactic, addressing the supposed purity of having voted for Clinton (twice, even!!!!1!), but how that felt wrong on 9/11/2001 ... after Clinton had been out of office for almost eight months.

As I was rushing downtown to meet my two friends who I had hoped got out of the World Trade Center I kept muttering (referring to Bill Clinton), "You SOB, you really did it now" over and over again. I was also thankful that my son was not a year older, because he could have been working for one of the investment banking firms in the WTC and would have been incinerated with others.

Again with the Clenis™. Of course, if you're wondering how Clinton "really did it," well, you won't find it in this guy's twisted narrative.

In law school I learned that unsupported assertions can be discarded by the fact-finder (the jury or the judge). That is, you have to back up what you say with legitimate facts, or the assertions fail. So, as I've heard said many times, this dog won't hunt.

My initial reaction ended up being right as I learned more and more information over time. The key learning came about a year ago as we were coming to the five year anniversary of 9/11 and I was on the Editorial Board of an old public policy magazine. We agreed to cover 9/11 differently and look to see if we are winning or losing which required having in-depth understanding of the development of these radical Islam groups, their intentions, and whether they are or are not achieving them.

Wars are fought for political and ideological power and superiority. Wars are also defined by a series of battles that you would hope you lose some but win most as long as you achieve your desired objective.

We have been engaged in a war with a fascist form of Islam for decades. The "we" includes all forms of civilization other than this radical fundamentalist form of Islam. So it includes the USA, Europe (East and West), as well as all of Asia and the Pacific.

The enemy are all groups that have branched off the old Muslim Brotherhood from the 1920's which includes Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah. Some are Shia based and others are Sunni based. While they may hate each other, what they have in common is hatred for a common enemy which is us. Other than Iran, none are nation states and operate cross boundaries outside the bounds of conventional warfare and treaties. They use terror as their primary tactic to breakdown the will of the people and therefore the governments.

If you saw the movie Syriana it was a glimpse into the recruiting and indoctrination methods these groups have used for decades within the educational systems they created in all the Arab countries with the help of their host governments in exchange for the promise of allowing the host governments to continue their power.

Their goals are absolute rule in all Muslim countries and then the elimination of all modern western society. They are far more focused and committed to their cause than communists ever were. They are very smart, very resourceful, very well financed, and very, very patient. But they do believe their time is now.

It is a mistake for any political leader not to believe in what they write and preach. We have already learned that lesson.

[...]

What should not been in doubt since 9/11 are that there is a war between all radical Muslim groups and us. It has been called a clash of cultures, but that dismisses the political aspects of this. As did the various fascists groups in the 1930's these Islamic fascist groups also want ultimate power and are fanatical enough to stop at nothing to achieve their goals. As with Hitler, they cannot be negotiated with or appeased. They actually view appeasement as a sign of weakness and will use it against their enemies. And as in the lead up to World War II the blame for everything centered in Jews.

Get ready, now, kids, because we're about to conflate all Muslims in order to justify attacking Iraq in "retaliation" for 9/11. And we'll throw in a Hitler comparison just for kicks.

I'm no Islamic scholar by any stretch, but it doesn't take a scholar to see this argument coming. Even if you assume by some unbelievable stretch of so-called logic that all of Islam is gunning for the U.S. (apologies for the word choice), with no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, no evidence tying Iraq to 9/11, and no reason to select Iraq as a target for American aggression over any other Muslim state other than Drunky McStagger's personal dick-swinging vendetta, there's still no justification for the war in any way.

When it comes to this War, President Bush's moves and adjustments were necessary, proper, and lawful. The U.S. had (and may still have) Al Qaeda and Hezbollah sleeper cells within our boundaries. They were cells that were still being financed through international means. And there were countries and leaders that harboring them, training them, and supporting them. Bush was dealing with a dismantled CIA and FBI as well as a greatly reduced military because we thought the war (Cold War) was over and were in a false sense of security.

The Patriot Act was necessary in order to infiltrate all of the Muslims groups in this country and determine who were threats. In spite of all the protests there is not a single shred of evidence of someone's civil right being violated with the Patriot Act. The NSA program of listening in on overseas telephone conversations from known terror suspects was also necessary. Again, in spite of charges being made there is not a single shred of evidence that this program was abused and violated anyone's civil rights. The Swift program was necessary to track down the money trail leading to these terror groups. And again, in spite of charges of invading people's bank records there is not a shred of evidence that anyone's rights were violated. The net result was the U.S. was able to rapidly round up terror suspects in the U.S. (and hopefully those bastards that were dancing in celebration in Paterson [New Jersey]) and ship them down to Gitmo. There has also been successful worldwide coordination of intelligence to break other potential attacks, particularly after Madrid and London.

Jeebus, the sweeping generalizations here boggle the mind. Moreover, in neither paragraph did I see a mention of Iraq -- somehow the war against Iraq is "necessary, proper, and lawful" based on the alleged existence of al Qaeda and Hezbollah in the U.S.? I thought we were fighting them there so we didn't have to fight them here? Assuming they are "there" at all, I mean.

And while we're at it, let's go ahead and shit all on the rights of all Muslims, including American citizens, and let's make them prove a negative by alleging there's not a single civil right that's been violated. (You might want to ask that question to U.S. citizen José Padilla and see what kind of response you get.)

Smarter wingnuts, please! The writer still hasn't shown that invading Iraq was anything other than a tragic, stupid mistake.

Was it a mistake to invade Iraq? As I said the Middle East was the nest for this fascist Islam and its propagation. It was a self-feeding system that had to be broken. I agreed, as did nearly everyone in this country, that the invasion to take out Hussein was correct. But the war was fought on a shoe-string and accomplished nothing more than deposing Hussein. There should have been forces to immediately close off the borders to Syria and Iran and through saber rattling threatened to go further if they interfered. That was not done. In addition, they disbanded Hussein's military and police rather than give them the chance to switch sides and thereby secure the country immediately. Those were two enormous mistakes that have cost thousands of American lives.

For those that criticize the Bush administration for usurping the Constitution and our laws with their efforts to secure this country I would say, "Prove it" because other than hyperbole and insinuations there has been no credible evidence of so-called "lying."

Okay, first of all, "usurping the Constitution" is illegal per se. You can't sugarcoat it and you can't justify it -- for anything. That's why we have a Constitution in the first place, you moron!

I'm reminded of a convention I once attended where a delegate stood up and moved to "suspend the Constitution" of the organization. The parliamentarian was so disgusted, she walked out. Point being: you just can't subvert the Constitution! Not legally anyway ...

As for evidence of lying, well, there's enough of that -- Gonzales, Libby, Snow, Drunky himself -- that the assertion doesn't deserve a response. (Let me know if you need links. I can give you plenty.)

For those, like Hillary Clinton, that have conveniently switched sides on the Iraq issue by revealing, "If I knew then what I know now," they should understand that a President does not get do-overs. A President must have the clarity to make a decision, the conviction of that decision, and the courage to see that decision through. That disqualifies Hillary Clinton as a qualified candidate for President.

Edwards idiot pronouncement that "the war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan" is further proof of his superficial used-car sales mentality when it comes to politics. Obama is just not qualified enough yet.

When you listen to the Republican debates your heard a number of their candidates clearly define this war against radical Islam, while not a single Democrat could (or would) define it.

Frankly the only qualified candidate the Democrats have is not running and that would be former Senator Bob Kerrey who is a highly decorated former Navy Seal and was on the 9/11 Commission.

Bob freaking Kerrey? This writer is delusional, seriously. As in he needs medical attention.

Kerrey is nothing more than a Lieberman apologist whose absence from the Senate is well deserved and his label as a Democrat hardly justifiable. Hell, my drug-addled neighbor Rush Limbaugh says Kerrey is "right on Iraq," which is a sure indication that the writer of this "manifesto" isn't a Democrat at all, despite his protestations to the contrary.

And a president "does not get do-overs?" Dude, a president shouldn't make the mistakes in the first place. And if he or she does, I respect far more a person who will say "I made a mistake" (which, contrary to your assertion, Sen. Clinton has not done; Sen. Edwards has, however) than a person like Drunky who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "La, la, la!" and refuses to even listen to opposing viewpoints, let alone (perish the thought) actually change his mind.

The writer concludes:

When the founding fathers finally created the form of federal government we have now, they envisioned the primarily role of the President as the commander-in-chief to lead the army against outside enemies. In that role Bill Clinton was a failure and G.W. Bush has done his job. And that is why whenever the American people choose a President during a time of war they never elect an anti-war candidate.

September 11 was a wake-up call. While some Americans have fallen back to sleep into some sort of state of denial, fortunately most Americans do understand that we are in danger and at war beyond Iraq.

There you have it, folks: a perspective completely divorced from reality, ignoring clear facts and selectively reporting history in a distorted manner to prop up a failed president and a dying ideology.

September 11 changed a lot of things, that's true. But it didn't change the Constitution, pal. It didn't "change everything." The radical right-wing was the catalyst for change. And the time is long overdue to change back ... to take America back.