One Lone Conservative's Reality in a Sea of Liberal Delusion's
...and want America's downfall
Published on February 11, 2005 By couchman In Politics
After doing some surf'n I ran into this intresting (at least in my opinion) little article and thought I'd like to see whats everyones take on it. (By the way to all my fans on the left (who hate me for some reason, come on you know you do) I am back-Couchman)

Why the Left Loves Osama
By Nelson Ascher
Europundits.blogspot.com | February 11, 2005


Maybe we, or at least many of us, were too busy commemorating the fall of the Berlin wall in late 1989. Thus, we overlooked all those people who weren’t exactly happy with the outcome of the Cold War. Well, perhaps “overlooking” is not the appropriate term.

I, for instance, had an acquaintance (deceased since then), a hardliner Trotskyite who should have felt partly vindicated by the failure of the system erected by his hero’s archenemy, Stalin. But he didn’t look vindicated at all. It wasn’t easy for him, in that climate of euphoria, to give full vent to his disappointment, but still he managed to mutter a few words about the “wrong” turn events were beginning to take in Eastern Europe, and he was not talking about the looming shadows of the Balkan wars (which were clearly visible by then). No: he complained that those societies, instead of using their newly conquered freedom to correct their course and head full-speed towards the socialist utopia, were rather turning to Western style “alienated” consumerism.

But there were probably, no, not probably, but surely, those who felt utterly defeated at the time. They just didn’t think it was advisable to go public with their anger and frustration. Also, in the late 80s and early 90s, Western Europe was at the top of its economic and social performance. Western Europeans were then almost as affluent as the Americans and, so, some could console themselves with the appearance that the whole thing wasn’t basically an American victory, but rather a Western one - and that Europe would anyway soon eclipse the USA.

For Western Europe however, the next 15 years were a unidirectional stroll down the slope. It became less and less competitive compared to the US and both high levels of unemployment and low growth rates came to stay. And the growing, alienated, Muslim minorities didn’t become any more assimilated in the meanwhile. But, on the other hand, Bill Clinton asking non-stop the world to forgive his country’s sins and his reluctance to take decisive action after many terrorist attacks projected a re-comforting image of a repentant, humbled and weakened America.

Those whom the fall of the Berlin Wall had left orphans of a cause, spent the next decade plotting the containment of the US. It was a complex operation that involved the (in many cases state-sponsored) mushrooming of NGOs, Kyoto, the creation of the ICC, the salami tactics applied against America’s main strategic ally in the Middle-East, Israel, through the Trojan Horse of the Oslo agreements, the subversion of the sanctions against Iraq etc. I’m not as conspiratorially-minded as to think that all these efforts were in any way centralized or that they had some kind of master-plan behind them. It was above all the case of the spirit of the times converging, through many independent manifestations, towards a single goal. Nonetheless we can be sure that, after those manifestations reached a critical mass, there has been no lack of efforts to coordinate them.

And so, spontaneously up to a point, anti-Americanism became the alternative ideology that came to fill in the vacuum left by the failure of traditional, USSR-based communism and its Maoist or Trotskyite satellites. Before 1989, the global left had something to fight for: either the strengthening of the communist states or the correction of what they called their bureaucratic distortions. To fight for something is simultaneously to fight against whatever threatens it, and thus, the leftists were anti-Western and anti-Americans too, anti-capitalistic in short.

Now, whatever they wanted to defend or protect doesn’t exist anymore. They have only things to destroy, and all those things are personified in the US, in its very existence. They may, outwardly, fight for some positive cause: save the whales, rescue the world from global heating and so on. But let’s not be deceived by this: they choose as their so-called positive causes only the ones that have both the potential of conferring some kind of innocent legitimacy on themselves and, much more important, that of doing most harm to their enemy, whether physically or to its image.

We, well, at least I was wrong to dismiss the pre-1989 leftists as dinosaurs condemned to extinction by evolution. While I was looking the other way, they were regrouping, inventing new slogans, creating new tactics and, above all, keeping the flames of their hatred burning. The history is still to be written about the moment when the left made its collective mind up and decided to strike an alliance with radical Islam. It had been tried before, in Iran/79, but, threatened by the USSR to the north and by its Iraqi client to the West, Khomeini didn’t have much time for the local leftists, nor did he need them. The idea of such an alliance was probably (re)-born in several different minds and in several different places, and it would be as difficult to say exactly where it took place first as it is to say which grain of corn is the first to pop when one’s making pop-corn. All that can be said is that, right now, we have a “fait accompli”.

This newly ever-growing Western left, not only in Europe, but in Latin America and even in the US itself, has a clear goal: the destruction of the country and society that vanquished its dreams fifteen years ago. But it does not have, as in the old days of the Soviet Union, the hard power to accomplish this by itself. Thanks to this, all our leftist friends’ bets are now on radical Islam. What can they do to help it? Answer: tie down America’s superior strength with a million Liliputian ropes: legal ones, political ones, with propaganda and disinformation etc. Anything and everything will do.

In the same way as the murderers of 911 used the West’s technology against itself, the contemporary left will do its best to turn democracy into a suicidal pact. This is already being done, obviously. The fight for Guantanamo Bay is, in many ways, as important as that for Baghdad. And, whenever a British born terrorist is released and sent back to the UK, to be joyfully acclaimed by the pages of “The Guardian”, “The Independent” or through the waves of the BBC, that fight is being lost. Radical Islam is being given one more tactical victory and the left’s strategy is being vindicated.

There has been some talk recently about the probable inevitability of a nuclear attack on the mainland US in, say, the next ten or fifteen years. The Berlin Wall’s orphans are already busy creating the slogans, formulating the dogmas, writing down the articles and books that will allow them, when the worst happens, to lay all the blame on the victims, making retaliation as difficult as it can be. They’re carefully preparing their case and the court is already in session.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Mar 04, 2005
Do you have *any* proof of this?

I don't what what "this" refers to, so I'll just write something about each point in turn, eh?

It's not exactly hidden knowledge (in fact I would have thought it basically common knowledge) that every president of at least the last 60 years or so was involved in some extremely unsavoury actions involving soveriegnty violations or worse. Carter wasn't the worst; Reagan probably wasn't either (Nixon probably takes that title, although we won't know how the Bushes or Clinton stacks up for a while yet).

If you were asking for proof of Carter's current involvement in peace efforts, may I direct your attention to the following institution, The Carter Centre, of which he is the founder.

If you were asking about the crack to school kids thing, I admit there is a little poetic license there. The money went to Israel first, where it was used to buy arms for the Contras. The weapons found their way into Iran through various means and were then legally shipped to Contra agents in the Americas. The Contras gained the cash reserves to pay for these arms by smuggling drugs (in particular cocaine) into the US. Whether this was with the direct involvement of the CIA is currently legally unknown, although as you are no doubt aware the CIA was involved in drug-smuggling in Vietnam, so it's not out of the question. This little story can be found in most history books. A little more convoluted than my one-liner, sure, but I would have thought everyone knew about this example - thus the poetic license.
on Mar 04, 2005
If you were asking about the crack to school kids thing, I admit there is a little poetic license there. The money went to Israel first, where it was used to buy arms for the Contras. The weapons found their way into Iran through various means and were then legally shipped to Contra agents in the Americas. The Contras gained the cash reserves to pay for these arms by smuggling drugs (in particular cocaine) into the US. Whether this was with the direct involvement of the CIA is currently legally unknown, although as you are no doubt aware the CIA was involved in drug-smuggling in Vietnam, so it's not out of the question. This little story can be found in most history books. A little more convoluted than my one-liner, sure, but I would have thought everyone knew about this example - thus the poetic license.


This is *exactly* what I was talking about. Show me *proof*, not yours or someone elses opinions. Just an FYI, I can find it in NO history books here. Maybe in Austrailia. But when it comes to this kind of innuendo I damn sure would not trust an Austrailian history book.
on Mar 04, 2005
I think the title should have been "Why the right loves Osama". It wasn't bubba or Carter who supplied Osama with weapons during the 1980's.

Geez...I wonder who it could have been?

Also, who was it who supplied weapons to BOTH sides during the Iran/Iraq war?

Answer: Ronald Wilson Reagan.


Actually, Bin Laden was never 1) trained as an afghan freedom fighter not was supplied weapons as such....like the overwhelming majority of rich arabs who flocked to afghan to "fight" the soviets, they became little more than channelers of money...even the afghans considered them a laughing stock...and the myth that bin laden was some great warrior in that particular 'war' make J. F. Kerry look like Patton, Sgt. York and Audie Murphy rolled into one.

Another point you try to make was that the US armed both sides during the Iran-Iraq war..not quite...as the only shipments made, wrongly in my mind but understandable considering the situation, was I believe Hawk missle batteries via Israel in exchange for consideration for many of the hostages held in Lebanon ...oh by the way the US was not Iraqs biggest supplier of arms, etc for Iraq then either...hell we were behind Brazil of all countries with bout 2%....where as the USSR (Russia) and France its two primary suppliers (bout 50-60% of the total foreign arms shipments) supplied both sides actively as did many of the other nations that had arms contracts with Iraq...go figure....

Another point regarding Carter...well lets just say inept is too kind a word....the Former Shah of Iran may have been a bastard but he was our bastard and could have been prodded and kicked (diplomaticly of course) to implement reforms instead Carter decided to abandon him when support was needed...and the result was/is the murderous goverment in Iran now who have far surpassed long ago the Shah's cruelty long ago...and are not so easily prodded to reforms unless by the barrel of a gun....

Remember one last thing bout Carter, he certified the elections for Arafat and Hugo Chavez.....as both being fair elections (laugh)depsite widespread proof against that...but then Carter long ago tradded his loyalties to his country for a nobel prize and a fat check...all to turn a blind eye to the realities before him

Finally as to Latin America during the cold war....I never said the US supported boy scouts during that time...frankly there are none in the world who run nations...but I find it rather interesting that when we hear bout the misdeeds of say the Contra's or wrongs in El Salvador....how come we never hear bout the leftist wrongs except in extremely glossed over tales?But fear not....thanks to Carter and his inability or unwillingness to call Chavez's election what it was a sham....and of course thanks to the major world media in ignoring the fact that 20,000 Cuban advisors now infest every facet of his military, intelligence and information departments..and aside from the fact Castro via Chavez is begining to destablized the region again....its a good guess Venezuela may see a resurgence of the old US policy on Latin America during the cold war tweaked for the 21st century.
on Mar 04, 2005
You've never heard of Iran-Contra? Really? Well, after a few seconds of googling (and after wading through the typical conspiracy paranoia bull), I found this report. I've only seen the paper version myself, but it looks familiar. Check it out at Link

In the abstract there's no mention of the Contra's involvement in drug-smuggling, but I found mention of it here at the US department of justice website - Link. It seems to have the information you seek, although personally I consider the idea of direct links (rather than simply being aware of the smuggling) between the CIA and Contra smuggling rings to be unconfirmed at best.


Oh and couchman is right and I was wrong about the specifics of the arms trade business. It was just 18 missiles (originally planned to be 80 though), with a few cheery David stars painted on them. It was a real surprise that failed to get the Iranians onside. hehehe. The arms smuggling was a little more at arms length.
on Mar 04, 2005
but I find it rather interesting that when we hear bout the misdeeds of say the Contra's or wrongs in El Salvador....how come we never hear bout the leftist wrongs except in extremely glossed over tales?


probably because--even in cuba's case (and that, more than anything else may be difficult to believe but so is hearing you've been diagnosed with cancer)--it's almost impossible to outweigh the horrors perpetrated by the tyrants we've supported in central and south america. it only gets worse when you toss in direct action for which we are culphable.
on Mar 04, 2005
what carter does or doesnt do as a private citizen attaches only to himself. what a sitting president orders--in direct violation of legislation duly enacted by congress--is a whole other story.
on Mar 04, 2005
the Former Shah of Iran may have been a bastard but he was our bastard and could have been prodded and kicked (diplomaticly of course) to implement reforms


we saw how well that worked with diem and noriega.
on Mar 04, 2005
what carter does or doesnt do as a private citizen attaches only to himself. what a sitting president orders--in direct violation of legislation duly enacted by congress--is a whole other story.


Yes and no....depends on the individual....but when you factor in ex-presidents....then its a different ballgame....North Korea, & Haiti are two very good examples of how Carter's need for attention and purpose regardless of the consequences has caused problems....first When Clinton (another president in my opinion was more pr than substance)decided to send 20,000 US troops to help stablize that nation, the intial phase looked promising except that it was very short lived when as if by magic carpet, Carter made his appearence throwing his weight and will around which led to to reclassifying of the militarys Rules of Engagement (ROE) there...instead of making an effort of confronting the gangs of criminals and thugs there...the mission became nothing more than an observers duty...which has a direct result and link to the problems haiti faces now....if the military was allowed to confront the shall we say scumbag forces inside haiti under clinton, its feasible to say many of the problems may have been prevented......

As to North Korea, he butted in again into the political limelight...and tried to take credit for the deal that was set in place with that regime and it's North Korean Elvis impersonator.....Clinton was the primary on that....either way...the deal was almost pie in the sky attitude and has led to what we got now...funny but some of the same people who advocated for the North korean plan are doing the same thing regarding Iran....yet they are sometimes the loudest "voices" calling the Bush Administration's approach to NK not tough enough...maybe I should get the rose colored glasses they wear...maybe I'd see like they do...akin to fantasyland.....
on Mar 04, 2005
Couch,

Regardless of wether Osama was a "SGT York, Rock whatever" They were funded by the CIA. On Ronnie's orders. They provided Saddam with technology that allowed him to develop and use biological and chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds. They sold missles to Iran in exchange for hostages via Ollie North. You can't do things like that w/o the president being aware of and signing off on it. And let's not forget those central american RIGHT wing death squads either. They didn't just appear and exist by themselves did they?

As far as JC certifying the elections of Chavez and Arafat. The people voted for them. Democracy right? The problem is that our government preaches democratic elections are the way. But they don't like it when somebody they don't support is fairly elected.

That's the double edged sword called democracy in action.
on Mar 04, 2005
As far as JC certifying the elections of Chavez and Arafat. The people voted for them. Democracy right? The problem is that our government preaches democratic elections are the way. But they don't like it when somebody they don't support is fairly ele


Fair elections my ass....Carter was only allowed to certify Chavez's "election" from one voting precinct picked by Chavez's goverment...not a random thing...which is where the laughable exit polls came from....people seem all too willing to forget the assainations of Chavez's opponents to this day....all this and more has been reported but as usual..it's either laughed off as over reaction or utter nonsense......
on Mar 04, 2005
Regardless of wether Osama was a "SGT York, Rock whatever" They were funded by the CIA. On Ronnie's orders.


Actually what I said was the myths being put out claiming Bin Laden was some super afghan fighter are a load of crap.....for the most part the closest Bin Ass came to the fighting was driving an bulldozer creating trenches for the afghans...or the myth the russian assault rifle he carries with him(forget its exact type-not the ak) was taken off a dead russian Spetnaz general he personally 'killed'. More PR via sypathizers, idiots and conspiracy nuts...Another point is that the funding for the Afghans did not begin under Reagan, it began under Carter....common misconception.

As to who I listed...it was General George S. Patton Jr., Sgt. York and Audey Murphy...never mentioned the Rock.
on Mar 05, 2005
Hijacked article to propagate your own fantasies.
on Mar 05, 2005
Another point is that the funding for the Afghans did not begin under Reagan, it began under Carter....common misconception.


during the roughly 18 months during which the carter administration was still in power, it provided largely non-lethal aid to the afghan rebels. william casey expanded upon that and by 1982, the cia was providing a more and more advanced weapons. it wasnt until cokehead, skirt-chasin charlie wilson (d-tx) made afghanistan his personal project that the mujuhadeen began to receive truckloads of money, really sophisticated weaponry (a lot of which is still accounted for).

the reason i use truckloads as the unit of measure for money provided by the us is whether you accept 600 million a year or a billion a year, there was enough to fill pockets all along the way starting in pakistan. here's a link to a couple fascinating books by the pakistani general who claims to have brought wilson in and masterminded the entire jehad (they're free...so obviously he isnt nearly as greedy as some other participants): Link

while afghanistan provided the cia with what is arguably its sole successful endeavor to date, the reagan administration's policy braintrust (including richard perle who was pushing a plan to have russian troops defect and convert to islam) managed to mess it up and help set the stage for 911 by effectively deserting the afghanis once the russians pulled out, leaving a vacuum the terrorists and the pakistanis were only too happy to fill.
on Mar 05, 2005
never mentioned the Rock.


i could be wrong, but i dont think togislc meant to suggest you did. my guess is he was alluding to good ol sgt rock of easy company...the ultimate military hero of guys like perle, wolfowitz, ollie north and millions of 10-year-old comic readers.
on Mar 05, 2005
Hijacked article to propagate your own fantasies.


Highjacked my ass....now if I didnt include the writer/site I pulled it from then I might agree with you...the article is unchanged...and I did cite that I did not write it.....or are you just trolling for issues to bitch at....
4 Pages1 2 3 4