Neo-Commentary (UPDATED)

Here's something we submitted to one Daniel Pipes' website, in response to this wonderful item. As Mr. Pipes' comment policy is:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but not hostile, libelous, or otherwise objectionable statements. Original writing only, please.

we had a certain suspicion that our comment might not make it through the "moderation process." Free speech: it's not on the wingnut menu any more. And there's nothing more "hostile" to a drooling neo-con monkey than flinging said monkey's own shit back in its face. Not wanting to waste a good rant, we figured we'd better reproduce it here in case it didn't make the cut chez Pipes:

Since April 2003, I have argued that this shouldering of responsibility for Iraq's domestic life has harmed both Americans and Iraqis.

Yet in December 2001 you were completely Gung Ho for invading Iraq, and managed to shoot down all the rational arguments against it. Do you still think that Hussein was connected to September 11th?

The U.S. priority is to win the war against terrorism, not make new friends.

And we'll win this "war against a tactic" by making enemies of everyone who might actually be able to help us against the fundamentalist Islamic maniacs who are our real enemy?

And Turkey appears to be on board: Defense Minister Sabahattin Cakmakoglu recently said that his government might reconsider the "Iraqi question," indicating Turkey's possible willingness to help America.

Wrong again. "Appears to be on board." "Possible willingness." Self-delusion & wishful thinking.

Better yet, the Iraqi National Congress (waiting in the wings) gives signs of setting up a democratic government.

You'd better go back to your crystal ball. Whatever signs you were getting seem to have been wrong.

Collateral damage: An attack on Iraq would cause civilian casualties, Britain's Foreign Ministry and Saudi Arabia's Prince Turki bin Faisal both tell us. True, but collateral damage pales in comparison to the damage Saddam inflicts on his own people, whether gassing 5,000 of them on one day in 1988 or assaulting the Shi'ites in Iraq's south for over a decade.

As in Afghanistan, an attack on Iraq would be a
humanitarian operation that the local population will celebrate.

It takes a certain kind of person to consider an attack a "humanitarian operation." The "collateral damage" was a bit more than 5,000, wasn't it? And now you want to deny any American responsibility for anything that's happened in Iraq over the last four years.

U.S. military efforts are judged primarily by the benefits they bring to the defeated enemy, rather than to Americans.

Here's the clue that you & your ilk seem to miss: The Iraqis are not a "defeated enemy," in the sense that Japan & Germany were. The Iraqis did not attack us, or declare war on us, nor were they supporters of Hussein in the way the Germans & Japanese backed Hitler & Tojo. Therefore, they don't see themselves as a "defeated enemy" as the Japanese & Germans did, but as victims of unwarranted aggression & occupation. And most of the rest of the Arabic & Islamic world see it the same way.

If you can't grasp the most basic, common sense facts, please leave the foreign policy recommendations to others & read tea leaves or palms for a living, where your inability to see the future will harm only those foolish enough to take your advice, not entire nations & regions.

I hope this isn't too "hostile" for someone of your refined sensibilities. Certainly you have no hostility toward the Iraqi people.

Check Pipes' Wikipedia entry. He's never met a war he didn't like. Compare & contrast this:

Pipes suggested that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution. "Is it not telling that great numbers of moderate Muslims see danger where so many non-Muslims are blind? Do developments in Pakistan and Turkey not confirm my oft-repeated point that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam the solution? And do they not suggest that ignorant non-Muslim busybodies should get out of the way of those moderate Muslims determined to relegate Islamism to its rightful place in the dustbin of history?"[12]

w/ the "fuck the Iraqis" attitude he expressed. A very complex (or lying, hypocritical, paranoid hate-mongering) man, wouldn't you say?Mr. Pipes, doing his best to ignore photo prankster/wannabe right-wing fellatrix Pam, w/ her thumb up signature move. (WARNING: Pam's website is so full of literal & figurative typed & other crap it might take several minutes to load, even w/ broadband, & MAY CRASH YOUR BROWSER!)

UPDATE (9 November 2007 @ 1650 PST):
Actually, we submitted two posts to DanielPipes.org. The first, somewhat less hostile & offensive one was approved a mere 12 hrs. after submission. The second one, above, is still waiting. We'll see.