Reading Flannel Avenger’s most recent post, I learned of this little challenge to conservative bloggers by a leftist blogger Kevin Drum. My answers are similar to those of other conservative bloggers, but here goes:
- Considering how Iraq has gone so far, do you still think that American military power is a good way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East? Has your position on this changed in any way over the past two years?
No more than Arabs/Muslims crashing planes into buildings and killing people promotes Islamofascism and dictatorship here in America. The point is not to spread democracy (which we don’t have in America, by the way, we have a Representative Republic), it is to prevent further attacks on our own soil. So far, it has worked rather well. My position had not changed over the last two years.
- Shortly after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said publicly that they thought the attacks were well-deserved retribution from God in response to moral decay — as personified by gays, feminists, the ACLU, and NOW. Do you worry that Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party? Do you think President Bush has sufficiently distanced himself from them and their followers?
If the 9/11 attacks were retribution from God, they sure didn’t go far enough. The churches were packed for all of two weeks following the attacks. It didn’t take long for a small minority of people to go back to cramming unbiblical leftist ideals down the throats of of the rest of us, such as gay marriage and the purging of Christmas from the Christmas Season.
I don’t worry at all that Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party because those that identify them as such are the Michael Moore leftists of the world that refuse to notice the only people that mention the names Falwell and Robertson are leftists. I follow conservative media rather closely and never hear their names mentioned at all.
As far as Chairman Bush distancing himself from them and their followers, I don’t know or care. John Kerry made no efforts to distance himself from Übber-leftists like Bill Maher, Michael Moore, George Soros, Barbara Streisand, Jeneane Garafalo, or Tim Robbins during the election. I’ve also never heard Bush mention the names Falwell or Robertson. Why does the left demand that Conservatives distance themselves from other conservatives when they refuse to distance themselves from other leftists? Why have they still not called for the Muslims of the world to condemn the 9/11 attacks over three years later, which no prominent muslim has ever done?
- Is democracy promotion really one of your core concerns? Just how far are you willing to go to demonstrate your credibility on this subject? Note: President Bush’s policy toward either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be excellent case studies to bring this question to life.
It may be Chairman Bush’s concern, but it is not mine. I’m more concerned with making sure fanatical Islamofascists stay the hell out of our country and stop killing Americans. If the only way to do that is to kill them first, that’s too bad for them.
- On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region? Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney’s 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.
The people that ask these stupid questions are the same idiots that complain when gas prices go over $1 per gallon. They’re the same idiots that think that we can get ourselves off of dependency on Middle Eastern oil by saving the prairie grasses on the northern slopes of Alaska. These people want neither a stable oil supply from the Middle East, nor freedom and liberty in that region. The only freedom spreading they ever want done is when it is done by a leftist President and America has nothing to gain. If it will save American lives or reduce commodity prices inside our shores, they see it as inherently evil (even though the concept of evil is anathema to them).
- A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?
No, the Christian Right opposes compromise with the “Palestinians” because the “Palestinians” themselves have said they will not stop killing innocent Israelis until the nation of Israel picks up and moves due west into the Mediterranean Sea. We oppose compromise with the “Palestinians” because the U.N. Partition plan of 1947 gave the “Palestinians” a state of their own comprising nearly 80% of the land originally intended for a Jewish state under the British mandate and named it “Trans-Jordan”, later to become known as “Jordan”. That 80% of the land is not good enough for them should not be Israel’s problem.
- Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?
You only pay attention to the news you want to hear, don’t you? Bush and Rumsfeld have both said numerous times they have no intention of reinstituting the draft. The military would far rather have volunteers than conscripts. Conscripts tend to do a half-assed job, and whine and complain too much, whereas volunteers get the job done.
I have no problem invading Iran. I think Iran is begging to be invaded. Apparently, even though we’ve liberated two countries on their borders, they still think we’re kidding around about going after those who would do us harm. I don’t think we should wait around for Iran to start building a nuclear arsenal that they will surely sell to those who wish to detonate them in midtown Manhattan to do something just because some utopian leftist thinks that talking to them and having endless summits will convince them to play nice in the world.
- If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.
What do you want? First it sounds like you are against the military action in Iraq and want our troops to come home, now you are inferring that you want them there indefinitely. If elections in Iraq stabilize the country to where they no longer pose a threat to Americans, I support bringing them home. If the foreign fighters keep pouring into Iraq and continue their attempt to turn it into a haven of terrorism, I support keeping the troops there until every last one of the bastards is forced into an eternal dirt nap.
- Would you agree that people who accept Laurie Mylroie’s crackpot theories about Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11 might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too seriously? What do you think should be done with them?
First of all, I’ve never heard of Laurie Mylroie. For all I know, she doesn’t exist. Do you take Micheal Moore seriously? I see him as a greater threat to our national security than some made-up “conservative crackpot”. I’m more threatened by those who wish to give unlimited visas to Al-Qaeda thugs in the hope of appeasing the terrorists than I am by people who see a terrorist connection that may or may not exist.
There ya go. I wasn’t the least bit threatened by your “difficult” questions.
Yeah, that about sums it up.
You said it better than I could. I even learned a thing or two.