Iran recently threatened to kidnap American soldiers and feed them to roosters.
Roosters? Feed American soldiers to the roosters?
These days I am often led to think of Senator Foghorn Leghorn.
But thinking of Senator Foghorn Leghorn is not a result only of the Iranians threatening to throw our soldiers to those roosters. No, there are other reasons for such a thought.
Look at Congress.
On the one side, those Bush loyalists, who repeat all the same idiotic phrases instead of showing they have minds of their own. What are those phrases? Oh, that “we can’t cut and run.” That “failure in Iraq is not an option.” That “we can’t leave until the mission is accomplished.” That “we need to achieve victory in Iraq.” That “if we don’t deal with them over there, they will follow us home and we’ll have to deal with them over here.”
Every single one of these phrases does not stand up to ten seconds of intelligent scrutiny. What is the “mission,” and why would it, as Bush defines or tries to define it, be helpful to the effort too weaken the Camp of Islam? What is that “victory” that he prates about? What does it mean to say “they will follow us home” and then “we’ll have to deal with them over here”? Aren’t there millions of Muslims already here? Aren’t all of them inculcated with the idea of the duty of Jihad to spread Islam, and aren’t at least quite a few of them taking that duty seriously indeed, even if they are inclined at times to lie low, or to conduct Jihad using the “money weapon” and Daw’a and demographic conquest, rather than bombs in subways? Meanwhile, all Bush can talk about, while Western Europe is slowly islamized, is this goddam “war on terror.”
And then there are the Democrats, who oppose the war but have yet to offer the kind of criticism offered here, the unanswerable and deadly kind, the kind that frightens the Bush administration because it shows up the folly of that Iraq War: that it makes no sense if one has correctly identified the war not as “war on terror” but as a worldwide campaign between the Camp of Islam on the one hand, with its many and varied instruments of Jihad, and the Infidels. The Camp of Islam and Jihad commands vast sums — trillions — of unmerited oil money, and tens of millions of Muslims have been carelessly allowed to enter and settle deep within the Lands of the Infidels, where they conduct campaigns of Da’wa that are unhindered, and procreate at rates much higher than the indigenous non-Muslims. They keep up steady pressure everywhere, never giving up, for changes in the social arrangements and legal and political institutions of the Infidel nations, to which they cannot, as Muslims, possibly feel any real loyalty. For their loyalty must be, they are taught, only to the umma al-islamiyya and the need to spread Islam, so that “Islam dominates and is not to be dominated.”
No, instead we get Democratic blowhards who appear incapable of explaining to the public that the best reason for leaving Iraq is that it ties us down, it squanders enormous resources, it does terrible damage to our military, it preoccupies us and weakens us in the very place where the most important fissures within the Camp of Islam — sectarian and ethnic — are there for the exploiting, if only we got out of the way.
What, ladies and gentlemen, would you think of people who cannot stand the American presence in Iraq but apparently cannot bring themselves to recognize, much less articulate, the most convincing and unanswerable of reasons why such a withdrawal — an immediate withdrawal — makes sense? Why?
Perhaps you can understand, then, why the mention of feeding American soldiers to roosters made me think again — not for the first time these last few months and years — of Senator Foghorn Leghorn. In a certain sense, American soldiers have been fed, for quite some time, to roosters — to all those Senator-Foghorn-Leghorns who simply will not take the time to study the clear doctrines of Islam, or the history of Islamic conquest, or the psychology of Islam, or the history of the mistreatment of non-Muslims under Islam, or all the other things that would inexorably lead them to exactly my conclusions, put up here hundreds of times.
Yes, the Executive and Legislative branches, both of them, with their foghorn-leghorn braggart soldiers and why-can’t-we-all-get-alongers, offer on both sides of the aisle a spectacle that leaves many Americans confused, and not quite knowing what to support, and expecting to have leaders — or those “taking a leadership role” — who will both know how to instruct and to protect them.
But they mostly don’t because they mostly can’t because they mostly won’t stop to learn what they have a solemn duty, at this point, to learn.
Foghorn Leghorns. Roosters. And other obvious words that come swimmingly to mind.