Replies

I knew that when the war in Iraq began winding down that the liberals would be the ones most shocked, and awed by it’s stunning military success, and lack of “quagmire” status. I knew that with the spectacle of ordinary Iraqi’s celebrating in the streets, liberals would have to regroup their own forces, and alter their battle plans with some sort of outrageous political stratagem. But, Norman Mailer’s April 29th op-ed piece in the New York Times really takes the cake.

I think that the title We Went To War Just To Boost The White Male Ego, just by itself says it all. The rest of the piece is pure unadulterated liberal vomitus. Who is Norman Mailer that we should listen to him? What sort of special qualifications does he have that allows him to pass such a nauseatingly arrogant, and condescendingly racist, judgment upon us as a nation?

The answer is, that there are none. He, along with most liberal elitists passionately “loathe the US military,” hate war in general, and despise George W. Bush in particular. This is best exemplified by Mailer’s own contention in the op-ed piece that “We went to war, I could say, because we very much needed a war.” This is, I think at the center of liberal bias, and opposition to the war. They actually believe that the United States of America could start a war, and kill people just for its own selfish monetary gains. They really do think that America is a bad place.

They are wrong.

Consider for a moment what has actually occurred here: the United States of America has ended the tyrannical rule of a murderous despot who will rightfully take his place alongside Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin as one of the most notorious monsters in all of human history. The US military has simultaneously disrupted several worldwide terrorist organizations headquartered there. We’ve also kept horrible weapons of mass destruction out of their fanatical hands. And yes, there were weapons of mass destruction. Who may I ask puts “fertilizer” in missiles? If Mr. Mailer doubts the existence of such weapons of mass destruction, as he did in the Times piece, might I suggest he go and take a refreshing drink from the pure, sparkling waters of the Euphrates River, where traces of mustard gas, and sarin were found? Yes, Virginia … there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What the United States has done in Iraq then is a wonderful thing. It will have profound ramifications for centuries to come. There might actually be real peace in the Middle East as a result, and the Iraqis might actually have real freedom. That’s what was done, and it’s not a minor thing at all. This was done, not to soothe any flaccid “while male” ego, as Mr. Mailer so offensively contends. It was done for one reason, and for one reason only – to protect ourselves from terrorists who eagerly want to kill us. To claim otherwise besmirches the hundreds of thousands of servicemen, and women – of all races – who risked their lives, fought for their country, and ultimately won against a rogue nation ruled by a vicious, and cowardly thug. Race or ego had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of it.

Yes. Mr. Mailer is wrong. He, like so many of his liberally biased kind was wrong for opposing this war in the first place – arguably one of the more righteous wars ever to have been fought – and wrong in their criticisms afterward. So it is in fact their aching egos that must be assuaged here, rather than any sort of outcry over the vicissitudes of white male ego.

And so, Mr. Mailer, if you would – kindly go take a hike? Paris would be a fine place to do so. They’d love you there.

Norman Mailer the guy who helped free Jack henry Abbott so he could kill again and now is helping cop killer Mumia Abu jamal...I think Mr. Mailer should shut his mouth...SHUT A YOU MOUTH>>>SHOT YO MAWF>>>>>SHOT TA YO MAWF

shut your mouth

SHUT YOU A MOUTH!

SHUT YOU MOUTH!

SHUT YOU A MOUTH!

SHUT YOU MOUTH!

SHUT YOU A MOUTH!

SHUT YOU MOUTH!

SHUT YOU A MOUTH!

SHUT YOU MOUTH!

SHUT YOU A MOUTH!

"He, along with most liberal elitists passionately “loathe the US military,” hate war in general, and despise George W. Bush in particular."

Two out of three ain't bad.

But Mailer doesn't "hate war in general". He was, in fact, one of the bigger cheerleaders for Billy Jeff Clinton's Balkan Adventure.

Consequently, Norman Mailer knows damn good and well that "the United States of America could start a war, and kill people just for its own selfish...gains." Political gains, rather than monetary, in Billy Jeff's case.

There is no more damning case of lurid hypocrisy than that committed by liberals who applauded Kosovo and object to Iraq. In their book, war for liberal political gain is O.K., but wars for liberation and legitimate national security reasons are not. Especially if conducted by a Republican administration...

Norman Mailer and his ilk are utter trash, moral and intellectual road kill.