You’ve got to hand it to Kevin Drum.

One of the more clueless moonbats around, Mr. Drum recently turned on his 25 candle-watt intellect to ask 8 sniffy questions of conservatives about the Iraq war. Why?:


A FEW WEE QUESTIONS….I’m sure that conservative bloggers are feeling pretty smug about the Beinart-Drum-Atrios-Yglesias tiff regarding liberals and national security, but if I could have a moment of your time before you bust a collective gut over this, I’d like to suggest that you could all stand to have a brutally honest conversation about a few things yourselves. Just to get you started, here are a few questions — numbered for easy reference:

What an insufferable lout. First, to place himself in the company of two first class minds like Peter Beinart and Matthew Yglesias is the heighth of hubris. Secondly, I was not aware that righty blogs were “pretty smug” or even “busting a gut” over some internecine tiff between lefties who want to fight the GWOT and moonbats who want to surrender. As far as I’m concerned, both sides should be condemned for partisan hackery during the last election, openly rooting for bad news from Iraq so that President Bush would be defeated.

In spite of all that, here are Mr. Drum’s questions. I’ve taken the liberty of including links to 4 excellent minds of our own on the right who answered Mr. Drum in their posts:

James Joiner of Outside the Beltway
Dean Esmay of Dean’s World
John Hawkins of Right Wing News
Pat Curley at Brainster Blog

1. Considering how Iraq has gone so far, do you still think that American military power is a good way to promote tolerance and democracy in the Middle East? Has your position on this changed in any way over the past two years?

For myself, the answer to both is yes. I was skeptical that force could bring democracy anywhere. But steady progress in both Afghanistan and Iraq has changed my mind.

Here’s Jame’s answer:

“I’ve never been a neo-con and have always been dubious of the use of force for such things. Clearly, the presence of American troops anywhere will create resentment. On the other hand, Hamid Karzai was just sworn in as Aghanistan’s first elected president and elections appear to be on track for Iraq in late January. These two would constitute 100% of all democracies in the Muslim Middle East. So, yes, my position is changing as a result of the last two years.”

2. Shortly after 9/11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said publicly that they thought the attacks were well-deserved retribution from God in response to moral decay — as personified by gays, feminists, the ACLU, and NOW. Do you worry that Falwell and Robertson are identified by many as the face of the Republican party? Do you think President Bush has sufficiently distanced himself from them and their followers?

What is it about the left that they feel conservatives are a bunch of bible thumping, gay hating nitwits? Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are as representative of the Republican Party as Rep. Mary McKinney is of the dems.

Here’s Pat’s response:

“Lots of people say stupid things. The leaders of the religious left wing are people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who’ve both been known to make viciously anti-Semitic comments, comments that in Sharpton’s case may have incited killings. Did John Kerry distance himself sufficiently from Al Sharpton and his followers? Or did Kerry pay him $86,000 to campaign for him?” (Amen bruddah)

3. Is democracy promotion really one of your core concerns? Just how far are you willing to go to demonstrate your credibility on this subject? Note: President Bush’s policy toward either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would be excellent case studies to bring this question to life.

We heard this baloney all during the election; as in “Brazil is capable of building nuclear weapons…are we gonna attack Brazil?” To me, this explains why moonbats coddle terrorists and burn the American flag…they have a problem with enemy identification.

Here’s Dean:

“Yes it is one of my core concerns. You may ask as many specific questions on this subject as you wish. It is also my view that politics and diplomacy are arts of the possible, not the ideal. We are not in a position at the moment to force democracy on Saudi Arabia, and can only take a carrot-and-stick approach to them. Strategically, Pakistan is almost as difficult for we would have no easy way to continue our vital work in Afghanistan if Pakistan were to collapse into civil war. It is thus my sincere hope that the reforms in Iraq and Afghanistan (and maybe, just maybe, Palestine) will over the next generation make it easier for us to encourage other regimes in the region to follow suit—or, luckier still, that it might happen without any major intervention on our part at all.”

4. On a related note, which do you think is more important to the Bush administration in the short term: preservation of a stable oil supply from the Middle East or spreading freedom and liberty throughout the region? Would you be interested in seeing the records of Dick Cheney’s 2001 energy task force to verify this? Please be extra honest with this question.

Once again now, all together and with feeling…OIL IS NOT A COMMODITY. OIL IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION. The question itself insults the intelligence and boggles the mind. As for the Veep’s energy task force, does Drum believe he’s gonna find evidence of a plot to take over the world? Maybe Drum thinks Cheney should have asked the moonbats at the Natural Resources Defense Council what their energy policy would be? We’d be shoveling horse manure off the streets within a year.

Here’s John’s take:

“A stable oil supply. And what about it? Is the implication supposed to be because we value oil that we can’t think Democracy is important at the same time? That’s a bizarre sort of thinking isn’t it? I can just imagine Kevin Drum screaming at the TV set during the commercials.”

5. A substantial part of the Christian right opposes any compromise with Palestinians because they believe that Jewish domination of the region west of the Jordan River is a precondition for the Second Coming. Is this a reasonable belief? Or do you think these people qualify as loons who should be purged from the Republican party?

A “substantial part” of the Christian right? He calls a couple of crackpot TV preachers “a substantial part?” This is a trick question Kevin, right? No, I don’t think it’s reasonable and no, republicans don’t do “purges…” Only murderous leftist moonbats do that kind of thing…ask Castro.

Here’s James excellent comeback:

“How substantial a part of the GOP coalition are we talking about here? Is it more substantial than the segment of Democrats who believe the best way to end racial discrimination is to categorize people by race and allocate government contracts and educational slots according to numerical targets? Regardless, no, I don’t believe we need to purge any qualified citizen from the roles of voters.”

6. Yes or no: do you think we should invade Iran if it becomes clear — despite our best efforts — that they are continuing to build nuclear weapons? If this requires a military draft, would you be in favor?

This is simple minded sophistry so I’ll give a simple answer: Yes and no. If you don’t believe the radioactive mullahs would give their toys to someone who’d use it against the US, you’re more of a simpleminded fool than these questions make you out to be. And the war would be over before a significant number of draftees could be trained so nix on the draft.

Here’s Mr. Curley’s succinct response:

“Invade, probably not. Bomb the crap out of their facilities? You betcha.” (Hooah)

7. If President Bush decides to substantially draw down our troop presence in Iraq after the January 30 elections, will you support that decision? Please answer this question prior to January 30.

How long after, Drumhead? When the violence doesn’t threaten the stability of the Iraqi government, then yes. Why are moonbats obsessed with setting a DATE for withdrawal rather than having CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND dictate when withdrawals should occur? It’s loony!

Here’s Dean’s thoughtful take:


“If you mean announcing plans for gradual withdrawal, possibly so, but I’d like to see the plan. Although I think completely leaving the region would be a mistake; I would hope we could negotiate basing rights there just as we have had for generations with South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. In any case I would hope that we will do whatever we can to help the new government establish its own stable security forces so that, within a year or so after the elections, we are no longer having to do most of the heavy lifting on security.”

“For the record, by the way, I completely expect violence to keep ratcheting upward in Iraq until election day. It’s to be expected; the fascist and theocratic elements in Iraq and the neighboring regimes will do everything they can to try to stop the elections. Which is why the next two months are so critical.”

8. Would you agree that people who accept Laurie Mylroie’s crackpot theories about Saddam Hussein’s involvement in 9/11 might be taking the threat of terrorism a little too seriously? What do you think should be done with them?

(Steam starts to billow out of Superhawk’s ears.) TO THE GUILLOTINE WITH THEM What kind of a question is “What do you think should be done with them?” Ignore them, ridicule them, applaud them….for God’s sake, what does Cymbalface think we SHOULD “do with them?” String ‘em up? Boil ‘em in oil? What a maroon, as Bugs Bunny would say. They’re Americans, moonbat! They can think whatever they want without the fear that Moonbats like you will knock on their doors in the middle of the night and take them away to re-education camps simply because they believe some wingnut’s fantasy theories of 9/11.

John has the last word on this:

“I’m unfamiliar with Laurie Mylroie’s theories. However, to the best of my knowledge, Saddam Hussein was not involved with 9/11 although he certainly had ties to Al-Qaeda. As to people who think that Saddam was tied in to the attack, I think they’re probably wrong given what we know, but no more so than people who believe that Iraq was a “war for oil” for example. So what’s to “be done with them”? Say we disagree with them? Sounds good to me…”

Sounds good to me too.