Facts Don't Bother Dennis Prager
Yesterday, I had the misfortune of listening to most of Dennis Prager's comments on John Kerry's latest speech. Prager's comments boiled down to one conclusion, basically the same thing that Cheney said a couple of weeks ago: a vote for Kerry is an invitation to more terrorism. Specifically, Prager claimed that Kerry advocated withdrawal from Iraq within a year (I never heard Kerry say that, though I wish he would), and that the terrorists in Iraq have stepped up their attacks precisely so that Americans will vote for an anti-war candidate who will withdraw American troops, thus allowing the terrorists to win.
The illogic of Prager's position is this: if Bush is reelected, will the terrorists stop fighting? No, they'll increase the violence even further, in the hopes that Americans will finally see (correctly) the futility of fighting a guerilla insurgency that renews itself like the Hydra's heads and that then the war will finally become so unpalatable to a majority of Americans that Bush will either pull the troops out or Congress will defund the war.
When a caller said that Bush weakened the pursuit of Bin Laden by pulling special forces units out of Afghanistan because they were needed in Iraq, Prager countered by saying that Bush didn't have the troops to prosecute both wars because Clinton cut military funding. I'm not going to bother to research the size of the military budget during Clinton's presidency, but let's just say for the sake of argument that Prager is correct.
It doesn't absolve Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell (who really should know better) of taking the rap for bad strategy. It doesn't matter why there were only a certain number of troops available. What matters is that Bush knew he didn't have enough to do the job in Afghanistan and invade Iraq, and still chose to siphon forces off of Afghanistan for Iraq.
Prager encouraged Kerry supporters to call, and several times asked callers when was the last time they voted for a Republican. One caller, who was the most intelligent of the bunch, said he voted for Goldwater. To which Prager said something like, "Well, I wouldn't vote for a Democrat under almost any circumstances."
At that point I picked up my remote and switched channels to KCSN, the CSUN radio station, and listened to the end of an excellent performance of Mahler's 5th conducted by Zubin Mehta. What's the point of listening anymore to someone who constantly flatters himself by pretending to be concerned with clarity and honesty and claims he's grappling with great moral issues, when in fact he's nothing more than a fundamentalist reactionary who would never change his mind no matter how eloquent and persuasive one's arguments were? Prager admits it. He's a reflexive Republican. Don't bother Dennis Prager with facts. His mind is made up.
The illogic of Prager's position is this: if Bush is reelected, will the terrorists stop fighting? No, they'll increase the violence even further, in the hopes that Americans will finally see (correctly) the futility of fighting a guerilla insurgency that renews itself like the Hydra's heads and that then the war will finally become so unpalatable to a majority of Americans that Bush will either pull the troops out or Congress will defund the war.
When a caller said that Bush weakened the pursuit of Bin Laden by pulling special forces units out of Afghanistan because they were needed in Iraq, Prager countered by saying that Bush didn't have the troops to prosecute both wars because Clinton cut military funding. I'm not going to bother to research the size of the military budget during Clinton's presidency, but let's just say for the sake of argument that Prager is correct.
It doesn't absolve Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell (who really should know better) of taking the rap for bad strategy. It doesn't matter why there were only a certain number of troops available. What matters is that Bush knew he didn't have enough to do the job in Afghanistan and invade Iraq, and still chose to siphon forces off of Afghanistan for Iraq.
Prager encouraged Kerry supporters to call, and several times asked callers when was the last time they voted for a Republican. One caller, who was the most intelligent of the bunch, said he voted for Goldwater. To which Prager said something like, "Well, I wouldn't vote for a Democrat under almost any circumstances."
At that point I picked up my remote and switched channels to KCSN, the CSUN radio station, and listened to the end of an excellent performance of Mahler's 5th conducted by Zubin Mehta. What's the point of listening anymore to someone who constantly flatters himself by pretending to be concerned with clarity and honesty and claims he's grappling with great moral issues, when in fact he's nothing more than a fundamentalist reactionary who would never change his mind no matter how eloquent and persuasive one's arguments were? Prager admits it. He's a reflexive Republican. Don't bother Dennis Prager with facts. His mind is made up.
posted by Peter L. Winkler | 4:07 AM
|
0 comments
