More Pantload Spoor Soils Times

The latest from the Doughy One: an op-ed defending neoconservatism citing an article by arch-neoconservative Robert Kagan.

That’s like quoting an article from a pederast defending child sex.

Goldberg’s latest crapone, however, does contain further proof that the Doughy Pantload remains oblivious to irony. Starting with this wonderful line:

During the post-9/11 age of neo-phobia, when an irrational fear of anything that might be called “neoconservative” gripped the nation, such critiques passed as intelligently nuanced.

Ironic, because there is nothing irrational about fearing the group of influential and incompetent ideologues who “masterminded” the Iraq invasion, an action which a recent Pentagon studied labeled a major debacle. The fact that the administration which gave birth to this debacle continues to rely on the same soggy-headed twits who dreamed up the invasion in the first place should inspire fear, none of it irrational.

Also ironic is Pantload’s use of the term “intelligently nuanced,” after his blunt treatise on so-called “liberal fascism” and years of absurdly ignorant commentary bursting forth from the strained seat of Jonah’s overstuffed pants.

A Pantload op-ed is hardly complete without an absurdly mangled historical misanalogy to demonstrate the depth of his ignorance and analytical deficits. And this one doesn’t disappoint. Attempting to defend the Iraq invasion as an action, he trots out the “examples” of Germany and Japan, the classic neo-conservative retreat to intellectual absolute zero:

America’s forcible promotion of democracy has been both successful (Germany, Japan) and unsuccessful (Vietnam). Where Iraq falls in the win-loss columns is unknowable right now. But the idea that the “Iraq project” is some bizarre and otherworldly enterprise will seem laughable to historians a century from now, even if it is viewed as a disaster.

Of course, America did not attack Germany and Japan with the goal of forcibly promoting democracy, as our bloated neocon idiot suggests. In fact, we didn’t attack them at all; each country declared war on the United States and unleashed unrestricted and total war against American territory, armed forces and merchant shipping, without provocation.

The fact that, after successfully defended ourselves against Axis aggression in the most destructive conflict in history, we found ourselves with no choice other than to occupy and rebuild those countries along a democratic model cannot seriously be taken as a justification to attacking nations which posed little or no threat to us on false premises, in order to install a government to our liking. Especially when that formidable task is undertaken by a group so lacking core competence and expertise as our inept and ideologically blinded Neoconservative warmongers. Compounding the blunder of invading was the burden of the neoconservatives staffing the occupying authority with ideologically compatible incompetents, like Neoconservative Michael Ledeen’s unqualified but well-connected Neocon daughter.

We didn’t choose to occupy Japan and Germany, we did so because we had no other choice after the end of the war. Analogizing World War II to Iraq is like comparing shooting a gun-wielding attacker in self-defense to shooting a stranger in the back because a drunk known to be a liar told you maybe he has a weapon. One is justifiable because you had no other choice; the other is reckless and stupid.

The fact that neoconservatives like Goldberg are incapable of grasping the blatant distinction between defending against aggression and fostering it — a distinction as obvious as the intellectual fat girding Pantload’s thinking, as surely as the physical fat girding his midriff — only serves to underscore why it is rational to fear the neoconservative lunatics who are now pining for yet another war against Iran.