Pete From Troy

For those of you with audio capabilities, I’d like for you to listen to the following call that came into the Jerry Springer Radio Show (I know) the other day. I think this call sample is important because it really does embody the conservative movement of today, and I think people need to be called out on this stuff as much as possible.

Listen.


Here are some direct correlations between this caller and conservative arguments in general…a guide to debating with conservatives, 101 if you will (in order to listen to this, you have to get the Jerry Springer part out of your simple little mind – his radio show isn’t too bad…it’s actually for moderate to moderately conservative people…conservatives make up 30% of his callers, perhaps identifying with the White Trash theme of his former show).

Conservative Behavior: The caller beings by claiming to be a specialist in the are of history, and therefore world events.
Analysis: Fearing their credibility will automatically be lost by supporting the Bush administration, most conservatives feel obligated to point out they have had some education on some of this stuff somewhere.

Conservative Behavior: The caller compares the war in Iraq with another moment or war in history that made a significant, positive impact upon society.
Analysis: We see here that the caller has chosen World War II. World War I, the fight against fascism/imperialism, etc (a lot of what we're fighting against with our own president today) and fighting the terrorists who “did 9/11” would have also been acceptable.

My WWII decorated veteran friend, also known as my grandfather, is frankly insulted by this argument. It has nothing to do with the two armies - but rather to compare the noble cause of World War II and the struggle this country faced against that enemy along with the coalition fighting along side us – is frankly insulting.

Bush himself has adopted the WWII analogy in recent speeches, and the distinct sound of veterans of that war no longer with us today can be heard rolling in their graves at Arlington National Cemetery.

Attacking an unarmed nation against the will of most of your own allies when that nation hasn’t even attacked you is hardly the decision-making leadership of president fighting a noble cause.

Conservative Behavior: Evoking the black=white, up=down, rules of Bizzarro world, and therefore arguing against ones self.
Analysis: In this case the caller explains exactly what the situation is, but unfortunately for him, this moment of truth blows apart his entire argument, and Springer missed this point entirely (perhaps his in-studio producer could have thrown a chair at him to wake him up).

The caller states the following:

"They are making the mistake, however, in that they are not confronting what radical Islam is all about. The very essence of their belief, is the - the Wahabi, radical Islam. If you read books on this, you will understand what their intent is. And what we're doing now - the man that spoke a little while ago - about knowing what your enemy is, is absolutely correct. We do not understand...

What would the American people do if we had never gone into Iraq, and the Middle East...continued to be run by tyrants who that tolerated these radical Islamic fanatics. And they had a suitcase bomb, and instead of the towers going up in New York, New York disappeared off the face of the map and nobody knew where it came from?"

What he’s stating is that those who attacked us on September 11th, and who continue to attack our allies thereafter, are all part of extremist, ultra-conservative Muslim groups originating from the Wahabi movement, perhaps the most radical sect of Islam. Osama Bin Laden, for example, is Wahabiist, as are many Saudi Muslims.

The caller is absolutely correct. And because of that, he just blew apart his own argument.

At the very heart of the fallout from the Iraq war, the very specific fact that, other than Afghanistan, we DID NOT target a nation with close ties to Al Qaeda, radical Islam, or any form of terrorism aimed at the United States and our allies. We instead went after, "Islamically speaking," one of the more progressive states in the region.

- One that had almost no tolerance for radical religious behavior within it's own borders.

- One that felt so threatened by it's neighboring Shiite Muslim radicals, it declared unprovoked chemical warfare on it's people, killing over 1 million of them.

- One that was so anti-extremist, it absolutely squashed it's own domestic Shiite movement to where they were nearly segregated, second class citizens despite being the majority population.

- One that was so adamant toward a brutal, secular dictatorship, there are no records showing it ever cooperated with the actual extremists who hated the United States as much as they did, wasting a coalition opportunity.

Instead, what we've seen is:

- An Afghanistan whose former Taliban members are re-organizing,

- An Iranian election that propelled a conservative Islamic leader, cozy with the 1979 Islamic revolution, into power

- Syrian and Lebanese nations where Hezbollah is still running strong, and of course

- Hamas about to blow the roof off to the delight of the camps in the West Bank.

The caller is exactly right on, and doesn't even know why. We missed the super-conservative, Right-wing Muslim states, governments, and terrorist groups - and instead ousted a crazy dictator who raped more than he prayed.

The caller therefore becomes the very person he criticizes at the start of his rant, and most of the conservatives who still can't get enough Clinton cock-talk during the lunch room in your office - totally lost.