Jonah Goldberg's troubled mind...

Is Jonah Goldberg troubled by BP's misinformation and media censorship? Is he troubled by the thousands of Gulf Coast fishermen who have lost their ability to provide for their families? Is he worried about the clean-up workers who are suffering health problems because they haven't been issued proper protective gear? Is he setting up an office pool to help his fellow Americans who have been impacted by the worst environmental disaster in U.S history? Is he upset that it's going to take years to clean up the Louisiana marshes? Is he anxious because there is a possibility the relief well might not stop the oil from gushing out even longer and doing even more damage?

Well not exactly. You see Jonah is a conservative and a Republican. He's not going gonna let those evil liberal fascists talk about all the carcinogens and toxins suffocating the locals to divert attention from the real threat:

After the Exxon Valdez spill, people from some very far-flung parts of the United States showed up with hat-in-hand to get "compensated." One Alaskan relative of mine told how he left a meeting in disgust when some Floridians came rattling their tin cups.

I have no desire to disparage anybody who's seeking legitimate compensation. But I have a very strong desire to disparage folks who are going to make some underserved coin from the Gulf spill.

Seriously! Jonah Goldberg is worried about all the Alaskans that are speeding down to Florida right now rattling their tin cups!

Republicans 2010! Stop the Fraud!

CNN Headline: Kyrgyzstan vital for U.S. interests

Just as Cappadocia was vital to the Roman Empire. I'm sure Cappadocia was picturesque as well.

Because Operation National Suicide was already taken

The Washington Post has an unintentionally funny article about the marketing aspects of empire. Even the military realizes the propaganda power of positive marketing: naming a war Operation Preemptive Invasion and Occupation doesn't sound as pleasing as Operation Glad Tidings of Benevolence. But sometimes even the marketing geniuses -who make the death and destruction of pointless war sound like a missionary trip- let the cat out of the bag.

For the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon's top brass settled on Operation Iraqi Freedom. But at least one administration official publicly called the assault Operation Iraqi Liberation, providing fodder for conspiracists and late-night comics.

"They're calling it 'Operation Iraqi Freedom,' " TV comic Jay Leno quipped at the time. "They were going to call it 'Operation Iraqi Liberation,' then they realized, uh-oh, that spells 'OIL.' "

In a related note, Charles Krauthhammer advocating perpetual war should be codenamed Operation Wheelchair Bound Warmonger. It sounds so much better than the Fox News All Stars.

Wealth Redistribution

Republican critics are constantly invoking the term "wealth redistribution" when discussing the profligate spending of President Obama and congressional Democrats. Whether it's the stimulus, health care reform, or the continuation of bailouts for behemoth corporate institutions, Republican critics do have a point: the government is seizing wealth from one group of citizens and distributing it to another.

Many Republicans have even broken with the President Bush's big government conservatism. All of this is to be applauded as a step in the right direction for the Republican party and movement conservatives.

However, while conservatives no longer regard the Bush-Cheney administration as fiscally responsible they are still revered as the apotheosis of national security conservatives.

Dick Cheney is still around and ridiculing Obama for being "weak on terror" and "wrong on national security". He's not nearly as interested in defending Bush's horrible track record on economic policy or fiscal conservatism as he is the War on Terror.

Dick didn't get a standing ovation at CPAC because of his small-government track record, he got it because he's a staunch defender of the War on Terror and he attacks Obama for being weak on national security issues.

Yet, there is a far more insidious form of wealth redistribution going on in America that the Republican base and the Tea Partiers are absolutely silent about: the redistribution of wealth that is Dick Cheney's War on Terror.

As Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz write in the Washington Post:

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

Costofwar.com - counting only approved funding for the wars and ignoring external costs - arrives at a figure of 7,332 dollars spent on Dick's wars per taxpayer. This doesn't even include Obama's recent Afghanistan surge.

So where is the Republican criticism of the massive wealth redistribution that is Dick Cheney's blessed War on Terror?

This should have been the Republican response

Fear

Our fear lobby is just as committed to ratcheting up the level of fear as they were under President Bush. They're just more committed under Obama.

Another attempted terrorist attack on the United States in coming months is "certain," the heads of major U.S intelligence agencies told a Senate committee Tuesday.

Isn't an election coming up? Reminds me of this.

Al Qaeda remains the top security threat to the United States, but a growing cyber-security threat also must be addressed by the U.S. intelligence community, the heads of the CIA, the FBI and other agencies told the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Terrorism via keyboard! How convenient. We expand the definition of terrorism to computer hackers!

The hearing covered a range of security issues and became contentious, with Republicans on the committee arguing with Democratic counterparts and the intelligence chiefs on how the Obama administration has handled terrorism suspects such as the failed Christmas Day bomber of a U.S. airliner.

The Republicans politicising terror? That's their shtick.

Asked by committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, of the likelihood of another attempted terror attack on the United States in the next three to six months, the officials agreed with Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair's initial answer of "certain."

Yes the terror is certain. How about we disband our Homeland Security Department since the terrorism is so certain?

While none of the intelligence chiefs, who included CIA Director Leon Panetta, FBI Director Robert Mueller and others, cited a specific pending threat, their testimony made clear that an evolving al Qaeda remains their top concern.

"My greatest concern, and what keeps me awake at night, is that al Qaeda and its terrorist allies and affiliates could very well attack the United States," Panetta said.

So there is no specific credible threat, yet we are supposed to believe an attack is certain? I also question Panetta's lack of sleep over al Qaeda. He looks well-slept to me. I doubt he's losing weight about it too.

Forget your fears of al Qaeda. The real fear mongers are those working for our government and defending us against imminent threats that are non-existent.

Spitting on a dead dog

Love pointless war? Then you'll love Obama! Or so says our heroic Republican shills.

President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech Thursday is drawing praise from some unlikely quarters – conservative Republicans – who likened Obama’s defense of “just wars” to the worldview of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush.

It’s already being called the “Obama Doctrine” – a notion that foreign policy is a struggle of good and evil, that American exceptionalism has blunted the force of tyranny in the world, and that U.S. military can be a force for good and even harnessed to humanitarian ends.

Manichaeism as described by our beloved fake Christians, how predictable.

The remarks drew immediate praise from a host of conservatives, including former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

No surprise there. Warmongers tend to love war.

“I liked what he said," Palin told USA Today. "Of course, war is the last thing I believe any American wants to engage in, but it's necessary. We have to stop these terrorists."

War is the last thing Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol want. They don't devote every single column they write to pumping up non-threats and agitating for more wars do they?And this lady is the great white hope? Sending your sons and daughters (how emasculated have we become to send women into war?) to die for no reason is really conservative according to Buchanan brigade Sarah.

Gingrich told The Takeaway, a national morning drive show from WNYC and Public Radio International, “He clearly understood that he had been given the prize prematurely, but he used it as an occasion to remind people, first of all, as he said: that there is evil in the world."

Why didn't he bomb Newt Gingrich then?

“I think having a liberal president who goes to Oslo on behalf of a peace prize and reminds the committee that they would not be free, they wouldn't be able to have a peace prize, without having [the ability to use] force,” Gingrich said. “I thought in some ways it's a very historic speech.”

"Historic speech" - in justification of anti-Christian wars after telling America that Obama is ushering in communism from Newt Gingrich. We know what Republicans are really about now.

The context was striking. The president is enormously popular in Norway – a crowd of several thousand waited at his hotel chanting “Obama. Obama. Obama.” And “yes we can. Yes we can. yes we can.” Still, he spoke to the Nobel committee in a room packed with European dignitaries – including the Norwegian royal family — on a continent where skepticism of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is strong. And despite the sentiments in the room, Obama defended the American war effort there and told the Europeans that their reflexive pacifism may be self defeating.

There are brainwashed Obamaphiles in Norway too?

Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms,” Obama said. “The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.”

Mr. Obama speaks the truth. But the "global security" has become so entrenched that we now wage war against fake terrorists. Why don't we bring our troops home President Obama? There are people freezing and starving and global security doesn't really register with them. They crave survival and could care less about Germany and Korea. We used to call these folks the Democrat base, but now the Democrat base is found in Hollywood, Oslo, New York, and Tel Aviv. What ever happened to the working man President Obama?

And Obama’s comments came just nine days after the president stood before cadets at West Point and told them that American values are “the moral source of America's authority,” as he ordered an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan. His decision to push for a surge also garnered Obama comparisons to Bush, who had done much the same thing in Iraq three years earlier. The Oslo speech, too, reminded some of Obama’s predecessor – with a twist.

Does George Bush or Michael Gerson write Obama's speeches?

“The irony is that George W. Bush could have delivered the very same speech. It was a truly an American president's message to the world,” said Bradley A. Blakeman, a Republican strategist and CEO of Kent Strategies LLC who worked in the Bush White House.

Okay, they do write Obama's speeches.

“Wow. what a shift of emphasis,” said Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a former policy advisor to McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. Kagan said. “I don't know what to say about an ‘Obama doctrine,’ because based on this speech, I think we are witnessing a substantial shift, back in the direction of a more muscular moralism, ala, Truman, Reagan.”

Robert Kagan, a man who never met a war he didn't like, spouting off about a muscular moralism. How fitting for a warmonger writing for an international endowment for peace.

I close with this question: Is America a joke? Is Western Civilization finished?