Now What's a Wingnut To Do?

Michelle Malkin is upset about the Afghani government planning to execute a man for converting to Christianity, but understandably she is somewhat at a loss as to what to do about it. Usually she is eager to bomb anyone who looks at American interests cross-eyed, but in this case about the sternest response she can come up with is to "offer [the convert] asylum"! Well, I feel for her plight: She'd like to call for the US to invade Afghanistan, overthrow its government, and install one of American choosing, but of course America already has invaded Afghanistan, already has overthrown its government, and the offending ruling body is the very one that the US installed. Michelle must have spent hours at home wondering if it were nevertheless possible for America to invade again, what the status of the American troops propping up the current government would be vis-a-vis the ones trying to overthrow it, and other conundrums that finally left her looking like this:


  1. Good post, Gene. I think even Malkin's suggestion about asylum wouldn't work, though. Wouldn't that make the current US gov't be interfering with Afghanistani democracy, the way we warned Iran that they'd better not interfere with Iraq? Maybe Israeli tanks would storm the US to bring that convert back into custody.

  2. Anonymous1:54 AM

    Asylum could only be legally enforced if the guy was let out of Afghanistan by the Afghani government and made to American soil (which includes the US embassy in Kabul). Seeing as how it could therefore only happen with the cooperation of the Afghani government, I don't see how it would be interferring.

    But then, I'm not an idiot.

  3. Anonymous2:32 AM

    Aren't even idiots typically sure they're not idiots?

  4. HA! What a BEAUTIFUL picture....

    Excellent point, Gene. I wonder how the War Party will be able to explain away this....

    I am going to repost your comments on my blog, if you don't object...(with proper credit, of course).

  5. Well unfortunately, I think they'll just say, "See what happens when we try to cater to the whiny liberals and allow diversity and the 'local culture' decide things? Despite all the gnashing of teeth, if we'd been like the British in India, this wouldn't have happened."

    I.e. the hardliners can always say that it was moderation that caused the problem. E.g. take Fallujah. Antiwar activists pointed to that as an obvious example of the invasion's failure, whereas I read war hawks pointing to it as an obvious example of what happens when you don't show the Ay-rabs we mean business.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

The biggest intellectual nothing burger of the last century?