|
Learning to know our enemies
Four years after 9/11 and the "crazy zeitgeist" that permeated the United States, most Americans have still not learned to know their enemies instead of just hating them, U.S. political journalist Chris Matthews says.  Is anyone paying attention? Is our national attention span so short that we can't hold a single idea for more than four years? Is our national resolve so non-existent that we will cave in to savagery because it's easier to watch teevee?Four years after 9-11 the "crazy zeitgeist" has dissipated and the nation seems determined to move into the next crazy zeitgeist, something kind of like 1969, only without Altamont. In a few years there can be another crazy zeitgeist â maybe disco will make a comeback â and then another one after that, a series of fads that mean no more than did the rise and fall of the hemline, back when women wore dresses. The current crazy zeitgeist is dissipating precisely because people have not learned to know their enemies. The basic mistake the Bush administration made in those days following 9-11 was not to make sure that people did know their enemy; if he had, people would hate them with a hatred that was implacable and ferocious. It's become trendy to "have harsh words" for Bush and his administration. In a sense, it's justified. He's responsible for the political climate precisely because he has not pushed the knowledge of the depravity of the enemy from Day One. There wasn't a "robust discussion of what we were doing" because Bush and his advisors made the assumption that the nation understood what we were doing: that 3000 dead were not only an atrocity perpetrated upon us, but a symptom of a plan for world domination right out of comic books and really bad novels, only executed by real, live fanatical minions. If you were paying attention, it was as plain as the nose on your face that the enemy is uncomfortably akin to the Nazis our fathers and grandfathers fought. The uniforms aren't as kewl, but the philosophy's pretty close, as is the racism underlying it. Chris Matthews appears not to have stopped to consider that the person on the other side really is evil. This, despite the fact that they chop people's heads off, they kill women and children, they assassinate anyone who doesn't agree with them. They lie, they cheat, they're corrupt, they're disdainful of the values that make us what we are. It's the evil that gives them that different perspective. The ultimate aim of that perspective is to rule the world. Their objective is to replace our culture, the one that won at Roncesvalles, with theirs, the one that last at the Gates of Vienna on 9-11-1683. The obstacles standing in the way are the U.S. and a handful of other countries â Israel second on the list, Britain, Australia, and a very few others. Within each of those countries there is a large surrender lobby, made up of people who are similar to Chris Matthews. They don't want to fight a world war, therefore the world war must stop, regardless of the consequences. The decisions Bush made that built up animosity against him and his administration are the result of ignoring that surrender lobby. Eventually the enemy will succeed in attacking us at home again. They like mass casualty operations, burned bodies, blood in the gutters, that sort of thing. That will probably set off another "crazy zeitgeist," though it won't be as powerful as the last one. We'll take out another few thousand beturbanned fanatics before the ankle biters cause us to withdraw back within our borders, to ponder serious matters such as who killed Jon Benet and how long Britney and Whatsisname are going to last. If we don't stay the course this time, if we don't fight until the battle's won, there's a good chance we'll ultimately lose, because the next time we'll have far fewer allies than we do now. And the time after that, we'll have even fewer. Posted by: Fred 2005-11-21 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=135558 |