Dub-J,

Are you trying to tell me you don’t think al Qaeda has global ambitions?

I’d pegged you as smarter than that.

Posted by D.J. McGuire on 15 February 2007 @ 4pm

Waldo,

If you don’t believe radical Muslims are a threat to our safety and our country, then you’re not paying attention.

We can disagree on what our response would be. But we ignore the reality of the threat at our own peril.

And by the way, you have a typo in your headline.

Posted by Ward Smythe on 15 February 2007 @ 4pm

DJ,

I might as well say that supporters of President Bush “aid and assist the North Korean totalitarians who want the hammer and sickle to wave over the Captiol of the United States and over the White House of this country.” After all, Bush has failed to even attempt to address the single greatest nuclear threat facing America and every single person who voted for him has enabled this. He has pulled troops away from the DMZ, giving comfort to the enemy when what we should have done was invade North Korea back in 2003.

Not very reasonable, eh? We can just say that any person who doesn’t support every single proposal to send more troops against any threat is handing over the Capitol to XYZ group. Whee!

Posted by Jack on 15 February 2007 @ 5pm

Jack,

Regarding the Dems and Wobblies and Iraq, I would note that Virgil never accused the Dem and Wobblies of intending to “aid and assist the Islamic jihadists” - but I think he’s right, they will help the enemy, however unwittingly.

As for the President and North Korea, the actual analogy would be for people who support the President’s weak policies in Eastern Asia, which I most certainly do not.

My question still stands, and now I’ll ask it of you, too. Do you or do you not believe al Qaeda has global ambitions?

Posted by D.J. McGuire on 15 February 2007 @ 5pm

Let’s begin with the fact that Islam has a God, and a Prophet named Mohommed(sp). So putting ‘In Mohommed We Trust’ would be wrong.

And again, Ward, with the selective quotes and selective outrage? Someday you will need to seperate the ideaology from the real issues. Care to comment on any reason why this screed is wrong?

Posted by Mark Brooks on 15 February 2007 @ 5pm

This is hilarious. And Dee-J and Jester Smythe are just making it funnier.

Posted by MB on 15 February 2007 @ 5pm

Mark Brooks, I think you are missing the point. As much as liberals whine about seperation of church and state, al Qaeda has global ambitions, and it is clear that they would turn America into part of their global Islamist state if they were to succeed. Replace Mohammed with Allah and you should understand the point.

Posted by CR UVa on 15 February 2007 @ 5pm

You miss the point, CR; this is what he said, not what you wish he would have said. And what does seperation of church and state have to do with this discussion?

I think the notion that Muslims equate to Al Qaeda and that they are ‘coming to get us’ is false and absurd.

Howdy MB, welcome to the logic impaired afternoon chat!!

Posted by Mark Brooks on 15 February 2007 @ 5pm

Humm I have to defend Virgil a bit here

The first part of his statement I lukearmingly agree with. The language is strong and he could have phrased it better. However there is language along these lines coming from Al-Qaeda and other groups.

Before the civil war I would say get out because we were viewed as occupiers and the support we would give to certain groups by leaving was less than the support we were giving by staying and being viewed as occupiers which increased the ranks of those willing to fight.

However, now we are in a civil war. Almost everyone is fighting. If we leave now there is no positive aspect of reducing the ranks of fighters. The ranks of fighters would increase due to the security vacuum.

It’s not going to be easy but we need to end what we started. We neeed to apply more political pressure train the Iraqis faster and if our military commanders need more troops to maintain order than a surge is needed.

The whole Muhammed we trust statement doesn’t make sense

Posted by novamiddleman on 15 February 2007 @ 7pm

Yes, the logic-impaired chat room where one is branded as a racsist (btw, Islam is a religion, not a race) if one has the temerity to suggest that perhaps we ought to be circumspect about the unfettered immigration of people whose culture has no tradition of separation of church and state, equality of the sexes, or democracy, to name just a very few problems.

The laugh riot here is that Islamists can decapitate homosexuals and cover women in the Mid-east, and gays and feminists in the West line up to march with them in opposition to Pres. Bush.

Posted by Judge Smails on 15 February 2007 @ 7pm

The laugh riot here is actually the braying of the dolts who, once again, equate any opposition to the idiocy of Our Dear Leader with marching lockstep with al Qaida.

The laugh riot here is the child’s play that it is to draw clear and easy parallels between the nutcase US theocrats and the nutcase Middle East theocrats. And with the exception of Dinesh D’Souza, no one in either of those groups is smart enough to notice it.

The laugh riot here is . . .

you know what? It’s not funny anymore. Grow the fuck up, learn a bit about the world, and work on those critical thinking skills.

Posted by MB on 15 February 2007 @ 8pm

Judge,

Did I call someone a racist (other than Virgil) and not remember it? I spoke of Islam above in terms of being a religion. I am only suggesting that if we are worried about immigration, let’s not single out any particular group other than non-citizens.

Did I miss a march or demonstration that had Islamists marching lockstep with horrible libruls? I don’t think I have seen such a thing. I do know that demonsration against a government’s policies is part of the American tradition. It may be a modern version, but demonstrations are not a new thing in this country. I think Americans that demonstrate are not saying they agree with Islamists, they are saying that citizens of countries we have messed up like Iraq should determine their own future. And that the price we pay now is too high.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

Posted by Mark Brooks on 15 February 2007 @ 8pm

[...] *Waldo Jaquith, a poor suffering Democrat who lives and blogs in Goode’s House district, writes that Goode “wants everybody to know that JFK was assassinated by space aliens, there are spiders in Bubble Yum, and Mikey is, in fact, undead, thanks to the gallons Pop Rocks that were pumped from his stomach.” Hey, you mean there AREN’T spiders in Bubble Yums? Cool! [...]

Posted by Heading Left » Blog Archive » So Bad He’s Goode! on 15 February 2007 @ 8pm

Dear Leader has already started to evacuate his friends from Iraq. Bush is bringing 7,000 connected Iraqis over to start their post-defeat colony.

I hope they all settle in SWAC.

Posted by Maestro on 15 February 2007 @ 8pm

Perhaps it’s instructive to note that on the eve of some ineffectual, non-binding, BS Democratic-led vote, one of the biggest terrorists in Iraq has fled to Tehran. Hmmmm? I wonder what that could mean?

As for you MB, is that your real name, or are you Amanda Marcotte under a nom de cyber? Temper, temper.

Posted by Judge Smails on 15 February 2007 @ 8pm

That’s a ‘no’ then, Judge?

Posted by Mark Brooks on 15 February 2007 @ 9pm

Perhaps it’s instructive to note that on the eve of some ineffectual, non-binding, BS Democratic-led vote, one of the biggest terrorists in Iraq has fled to Tehran. Hmmmm? I wonder what that could mean?

You forget (or are ignoring) that GW’s people decided “against” going after Moqtada al Sadr early on when it was clear that he would be a problem. They’re as much to blame as anyone. Don’t try to hang that on Democrats.

Goode’s statements are so “over the top” that he does a clear disservice to the message he’s attempting to deliver.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 15 February 2007 @ 11pm

The standard pro-Goode responses at the moment seem to be “Virgil Goode understands that radical Muslims are a threat,” or “So, radical Muslims don’t want to destroy America?”

It’s true: radical Muslims are bad. However, in every system of religious beliefs, there are radicals. It is my opinion that no system’s radical faction is any less detrimental to the world than another’s. The truth of the matter, though, is that, in any given system of beliefs, radicals occupy a microscopic minority.

The problem that I have with people like Virgil Goode is that they intentionally use the actions and beliefs of these few radicals to paint a misleading and polarizing picture of an entire religion.

Posted by Johnny Camacho on 15 February 2007 @ 11pm

Thank you Johnny.

The problem with this whole debate is what’s being left out. Why are we debating a war which is, at best, in dire straits, and that is taking up a vast majority of our national security dollars, when we could and should be using our resources to fight a real and effective war on terror? Wouldn’t it serve our national security interests much more if we stopped fomenting regional disputes and actually neutralized the real threats?

We go to the ends of the earth to track down murderers who have killed just one person. If we actually had a foreign policy agenda that effectively executed the war on terror, would the worst mass murderer in the history of our country still be a free man?

Posted by Dan Kachur on 16 February 2007 @ 12am

@Mark:

You’re correct in that you haven’t resorted to name-calling. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

You don’t feel it’s right to “single out any particular group” when it comes immigration. Does this apply to airport security as well? We just disagree, and I doubt any amount of dialouge is going to change that. I favor “profiling” for Mid-Eastern males age 18-49 (or whatever demographic the experts come up with) in airports as well as overseas visa-issuing consulates/embassies. We’re under no obligation to allow these people to come to the US. So, I largely agree with Virgil’s position. I guess I can soften it a little bit by noting that I feel it’s a bit unbecoming of a US Congressman to speak so coarsely about things, but that’s really just semantics.

As for Islamists and libruls marching in lockstep, both groups tend to use the same language in criticizing the administration. I bet I could do one of those blind “name-that-quotation” games with Ayman al-Zawahri and Harry Reid and you’d get half of ‘em wrong. While this isn’t dispositive of anything necessarily, it is disconcerting to find many on the American and European left more angered by Bush and Blair than by the enormous pathological problems 1.3 billion people have reconciling their religion with modernity. I don’t know, I thought the libruls would be on our side for this one. I guess there may come a war one day that even you guys wanna win.

Finally, you wrote about wanting “citizens of countries we have messed up like Iraq should determine their own future.” How were they doing this under Saddam and the Baathists? Isn’t that what the recent elections over there have been about? Do you think there would have been any elections (other than some cheaty ones where Saddam got 99.98%) but for the invasion?

Or do you mean we should pull back the troops and let them slug it out in a good ole’ fashion civil war?

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 February 2007 @ 8am

I bet I could do one of those blind “name-that-quotation” games with Ayman al-Zawahri and Harry Reid and you’d get half of ‘em wrong.

I’m game. Lets see it.

Posted by Ben C. on 16 February 2007 @ 9am

DJ,

No, I do not agree that al Queda has as it’s ambition the siezure of control of the United States Government. Al Queda certainly has as it’s goal the establishment of Sharia law in a number of predominantly Muslim countries. But the idea of al Queda holding the White House is laughably absurd.

To ask simply whether they have ‘global ambitions’ is too vague a question to really mean much. Coca Cola has ‘global ambitions.’ The Gates Foundation has ‘global ambitions.’ Hell, Justin Timberlake probably has ‘global ambitions.’ The fact that al Queda has some sort of global ambitions in no way supports Rep. Goode’s bizarre statement about a Muslim flag flying over White House and the Capitol building as a result of a non-binding resolution opposing a troop surge which attempts to solve a political problem through military means.

It’s sort of like using a hammer to fix a broken watch. I know that it’s a really, really nice hammer. Top of the line. No finer hammer in the world than this one. But it’s still the wrong tool for the job.

Posted by Jack on 16 February 2007 @ 10am

Yes, I’d like to see that blind quote game, too. To make it fair, you cannot use things like “I’m tired.” or “American Idol sucks.” or “”Judge Smails” is an ignorant little fool who apparently thinks all of the evil in the world only comes from scary brown Muslims.” In other words, no universal truths.

So, c’mon, we’re ready for the quiz!

Posted by MB on 16 February 2007 @ 10am

Oh, and for the record, I have global ambitions, too. [start movie guy voice] “Imagine a world . . . where there is no evidence that Lee Greenwood ever made it into a recording studio.” Maybe I’ll make it into Rep. Goode’s next floor speech!

Posted by MB on 16 February 2007 @ 10am

MB,

I really don’t understand why you have to resort to ad hominem attacks on Judge Smails. Not only is it not helpful, but what you accuse him of is wrong, as well.

There are so many people on the internet deserving of a good flame, but Judge Smails just isn’t one of ‘em. You make a good case that you are, though.

Posted by Ben C. on 16 February 2007 @ 10am

Well, let’s see here, Ben. On one hand, we have Judge Smails, who endorses (ineffective at best, harmful at worst) racial profiling of some airport users, equates liberals and al Qaida, makes enormously ignorant statements about Muslims/Islam, generally promotes this ridiculous set-the-straw-man-up-and-beat-him-down tradition that seems to pass for political discourse on the right. That’s just in this thread alone.

And I, on the other hand, call him an idiot.

Yes, I can *totally* understand how I was being, ahem, unhelpful. Here, in the hallowed and - above all, *polite* - VA blogosphere, we prefer our hate and ignorance with pleases and thank yous. However shall I ever be forgiven?

Posted by MB on 16 February 2007 @ 10am

I actually spent a few minutes trying to put something together, but it rapidly became apparent that there were few quotes from old Ayman that didn’t begin, “O Muslims,” or have the words “infidels,” “muhajideen,” or “God willing” in them, so I gave up.

I stand by the basic point though that the jihadists use language in criticizing the Bush administration is not dissimilar from the language of the hard left. To be fair, I concede that one could probably take some passages from Mein Kampf and mix ‘em around with some Reagan quotes and confuse a lot of people as to who the author was.

MB, I find it noteworthy that you feel it necessary to imply that my objections to Islam are racially motivated (”scary brown Muslims”). As I noted before, Islam is a religion, not a race. Is the racist bogeyman so central to your argument that you don’t have much to say if you can’t make use of it? I agree calling/implying that someone you disagree with is a racist is a lot easier than thinking, but I’m just not sure it’s an honest substitute.

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 February 2007 @ 10am

Nope, JS, you’re the one who only felt it necessary to profile young men from “the Middle East”. Now, that encompasses a number of ethnic groups which share a pretty common characteristic, while excluding a whole lot of other Muslims. Islam, as you might have noticed, spans the rainbow. Or maybe you didn’t notice. In any event, I’m open to you just being an ignorant fool, and not an ignorant racist fool.

Posted by MB on 16 February 2007 @ 10am

MB,

While I have many objections to what Judge Smails believes (and I do wish I had time to get into it here), I have seen a lot more well reasoned arguments coming from him than I have from you.

I’m not trying to defend JS, here — I’m sure he can do that himself. No, what I’m interested in is interesting political discourse, and constantly insulting people is disruptive.

I’m a utilitarian. I value politeness because it’s less disruptive to the intelligent and logical discourse that I’m interested in taking part in than the alternative, which has idiots screaming at each other.

What do you gain by calling JS a fool or an idiot? I don’t think you’re changing his mind, and if anything, you’re making those that agree with you look like jackasses. Maybe it makes you feel good about yourself, I don’t know, but it makes Waldo’s blog a worse thing to read, and it’s this kinda of crap that will drive me, a diehard liberal, away from the Virginia political scene.

Posted by Ben C. on 16 February 2007 @ 11am

Guys, why not just admit it? The idea that Muslims are going to be a majority ruling over this country anytime in the next few millenia is laughably out of whack with reality as to be pure hysteria. Yes, Al Qaeda wants to rule the world. So does Hans Blowfeld. But they aren’t going to, no matter how much damage they do to anything. Admitting this is a fact is not giving in to them: it allows us to laugh at their impotence.

Furthermore, there is no sane or rational argument that can be made as to how opposing the President’s little PR gambit surge would somehow lead to a radical Muslim being elected President of the US. This war has been everything that Al Qaeda has hoped for: a gift handed to them on a silver platter, and yet still the idea of them coming to politically control the US is ridiculous.

And the fact that Goode can’t even get basic Muslim theology right certainly doesn’t underscore the idea that he’s the guy to help deal with it or fight against it.

Posted by plunge on 16 February 2007 @ 1pm

I agree with much of what you say, plunge. Goode’s rhetoric in that respect is ludicrous. There is no danger of the Islamic States of America happening in our grandchildren’s lifetimes.

That said, given what’s happening in Europe where you’ve got an unassimable group of immigrants adhering to an explicity political religion which holds in contempt much of what we in the West hold dear, might it not be prudent to forestall any kind of widespread Muslim immigration to this country?

In the light most favorable to Goode, he’s merely using shrill rhetoric to get this point across. That’s what I think anyway.

Posted by Judge Smails on 16 February 2007 @ 1pm

Ben, I’m so very sorry that your ability to participate in a conversation is so limited by your sensitivities to form over substance. It must be hard.

I’m equally sorry that your ability to detect insults seems rather limited, too. Liberals marching with al Qaida? Labeling 1.3 billion people with enormous pathological problems? And it’s “ignorant little fool” that gets your hackles up? Wow, Ben, way to really take aim on the important things.

I *do* value interesting and useful political discourse. It’s just that I’m more interested in substance, and you seem to be more interested in pretty. Let’s make a deal. I’ll keep trying to sort out who’s available for interesting and useful discourse (hint: it’s not people who make sweepingly ignorant statements) and you can have pretty discourse with whomever you like.

As a final note, I appreciate your crediting me with the ability to effect the quality of an institution like this, but I think you’re exaggerating a wee bit. That said, I’d happily drop off if Waldo ever told me that he thought I was harming things. But until then, I don’t really need any concern troll advice. Again, thanks eversomuch for your time and concern.

Posted by MB on 16 February 2007 @ 1pm

MB,

The funny thing is, you insist that you’re interested in substance, and yet you supply no logically sound arguments to back up your assertions that all I’m interested in is “pretty.”

I specifically took aim at you because you were posting personal attacks which are those things most likely to halt reasonable discourse. Was JS also making personal attacks?

Well, I found the claim that liberals are marching with al Quida to be ridiculous, but it’s one that JS never made. He made a lesser claim of similarity, not of co-operation. He didn’t label 1.3 billion people with enormous pathological problems, he just takes the (in my mind, morally wrong) view that the government is justified in racial profiling.

You were employing a straw-man. It’s another logical fallacy to go with your ad hominems.

Who Waldo tells to bug off is his business, not mine. I’m not saying that you’re going to be the end of this blog, nor will you drive me away, but it’s crap like ad hominems and straw men that pose a threat to reasonable and informed discourse in the long term.

I’ll keep trying to sort out who’s available for interesting and useful discourse (hint: it’s not people who make sweepingly ignorant statements)

But you said that JS is an ignorant fool, so why are you trying to engage and bait him?

I continue to wonder who exactly you’re trying to impress.

Posted by Ben C. on 16 February 2007 @ 4pm

Not you, Ben. As to your obsession with the pretty, I’ll refer you to this entire thread. Since you seem to like those high school debate terms, go look up “res ipsa loquitur”. You can drop that in another one of your devastating take-downs and impress all the kids in the yard.

Look, if Judge Smails (or anyone else) wants to throw around ridiculous accusations against people (and yes, I do fit into some of those groups above), then he’s going to have to deal with their responses. It astounds me how many people think that they can sling ignorant and offensive crap all over the place, and then get all upset when someone calls them on it.

Further, I wasn’t speaking to you in this thread until you made it your business to inform me that I’d strayed from your preferred script. I then explained why I didn’t particularly care, and you’ve come back with something that makes me wonder about your reading comprehension. But hey, drop me an email, and I’ll see if I can’t gin up the patience to deal with your inability to understand some of the (apparently) more complicated points.

As to your inability to read plain text such as “that Islamists can decapitate homosexuals and cover women in the Mid-east, and gays and feminists in the West line up to march with them in opposition to Pres. Bush.” or “the enormous pathological problems 1.3 billion people have” next to Judge Smails name, and understand it as attributable to him, well, I can’t help you. Maybe Hooked on Phonics can.

I dunno. But good luck, and I’ll look for your email.

Posted by MB on 16 February 2007 @ 5pm

Y’all are too funny.

This is the verbal equivalent of Dick Cheney shootin’ that old guy in the face.

Virgil Goode comes off here sounding like an hysterical bedwetter, and y’all want to argue that Al-Queda’s got a majoirty in Congress.

Who’s more weak and pitiful, the crybaby who thinks the Islamofascists control congress, or anonymous commenters who defend him.

Y’all must go through a lot of rubber sheets.

Posted by Ham Sandwich on 16 February 2007 @ 11pm

Today the Albermarle County Jail… Tomorrow the White House!

Posted by james on 18 February 2007 @ 9pm

One more time for the confused Goode apologists: The organization that attacked America on September 11, 2001 was al-Qu’ada, it remains headquartered in the border lands of Pakistan / Afghanistan where it is rebuilding strength, threatening Afghanistan and the world. The folks attacking Americans in Iraq are pissed off that we are occupying Iraq, propping up a crooked, murderous government.

What say we get our enemies straight before we go ascribing their plans for our flag or currency?

Posted by Bubby on 20 February 2007 @ 3pm