The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.) On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation -- the right of all people to speak, and worship, and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest.It strikes me that the W hasn't seen the proper side of a mirror in a long time, or the man in his mirror placates him because he doesn't want to offend the emperor in his new clothes. But I digress.
For me, the trouble is that it is rarely the ideologist that duke it out face-to-face, man-to-man if you will. Instead they send their surrogates to die for them.
If this "war on terror" really is an ideological struggle, and we are about regime change, shouldn't the right wing be considered less than conservative and more revolutionary? Did you vote to put a revolutionary at the head of our country? I did not.
Moreover, is it not always dangerous to instigate revolution in some one else's country? That would be considered a coup, wouldn't it.? And military coups are questionable as a means to justify an ordinary struggle between conflicting ideas and beliefs - which is what an ideological struggle is in the first place. Certainly, we see that military coups in other countries, and in the Iraq case specifically has yet to result in peace as the W Rove and Co suggest is eminent.
Why is it that the W, Rove and Co refused to learn from and selectively ignore history's lessons?