Richard Dawkins butts in: Ketchup-Mustard Wars, The Prequel

Dawkins got my goat. I know this is a wacky entry ... but I don't have time to bother editing to make consistent rational point now. Those links really got me going ... he might have well called Americans racists idiots and I am not sure he didn't. I may come back and change this because it is just so sloppy.

Looking at this Operation Clark County fiasco I came to the realization that my hero, Richard Dawkins, as much as he claims to admire the USA * , does not understand Americans. The idea of foreigners trying to influence our election was obviously a trap set by the minions of Karl Rove. He fell right into it.

As part of this operation, Dawkins gives his opinion of Bush in an open letter. He does so in a way that no red blooded American could stand for. He comes squarely down on the side of the Ketchup-digger Kerry against the purported Mustard-digger Bush. How could Dawkins not know that the politics of the middle east, something as twisted as a pretzel, requires that Americans put mustard on it. Even Brits know this. Ketchup just doesn't go. Especially when the tomato used is suspect of rot from within and the bottle that delivers it contains cracks. The issues involved are so convoluted I would need write a book, perhaps several. Since that isn't going to happen the best I can do is put this open letter on my list to address in detail later.

Yet another open letter by Dawkins at the Guardian under the title "Who are the real appeasers" shows not only a lack of understanding of Americans but a misunderstanding of the mentality of particular Brits, like Winston Churchill.

"George Bush is said to admire Churchill, but the comparison is vain. Bush's
zig-zagging around the US on September 11 2001 has been defended, somewhat
lamely, against the obvious charges of cowardice and panic. Well, maybe. But can
you imagine Churchill doing it?

Turn it round. Who is the petulant bully, the 'bloodthirsty guttersnipe' today?"

Dr Dawkins, please, comparing our president to Hilter is not the way to win over Americans.

Churchill may have called Hitler a "bloodthirsy guttersnipe" to a large degree this is like the pot calling the kettle black. Bush would put them both to shame if it came to a question of ethics. I'm speaking here about Winston Churchills gustorial preferences while sitting on muffets and talking with spiders, that's right Mustard (Gas) on Kurds and whey.

That Churchill committed war crimes—planned them, aided and abetted them, and defended them—is beyond doubt. Churchill was the prime subverter through two world wars of the rules of warfare that had evolved in the West over centuries.
At the Quebec conference, Roosevelt and Churchill adopted the Morgenthau Plan, which if implemented would have killed tens of millions of Germans, giving the Germans a terrifying picture of what "unconditional surrender" would mean in practice. Churchill was convinced of the plans benefits, as it "would save Britain from bankruptcy by eliminating a dangerous competitor." That the Morgenthau Plan was analogous to Hitler's post-conquest plans for western Russia and the Ukraine was lost on Churchill, who according to Morgenthau, drafted the wording of the scheme.
Churchill even brainstormed dropping tens of thousands of anthrax "super bombs" on the civilian population of Germany, and ordered detailed planning for a chemical attack on six major cities, estimating that millions would die immediately "by inhalation," with millions more succumbing later.
But Churchill's greatest war crimes involved the terror bombing of German cities that killed 600,000 civilians and left some 800,000 injured. Arthur Harris ("Bomber Harris"), the head of Bomber Command, stated "In Bomber Command we have always worked on the assumption that bombing anything in Germany is better than bombing nothing."
Churchill brazenly lied to the House of Commons and the public, claiming that only military and industrial installations were targeted. In fact, the aim was to kill as many civilians as possible. Hence the application of "carpet" bombing in an attempt to terrorize the Germans into surrendering.
Professor Raico described the effect of Churchillian statesmanship: "The campaign of murder from the air leveled Germany. A thousand-year-old urban culture was annihilated, as great cities, famed in the annals of science and art, were reduced to heaps of smoldering ruins. . . ." No wonder that, learning of this, a civilized European man like Joseph Schumpeter, at Harvard, was driven to telling "anyone who would listen" "that Churchill and Roosevelt were destroying more than Genghis Khan."

With Churchills love for mass bombing of civilians I am only too pleased that Bush as ignorant as Dawkins in this regard. The left own actions as "human shields" show that even they are confident that Bush would not specifically target civilians. Churchill couldn't fit in Bush's ethic boots.

The Dawkins other article praising Americans titled "On the Eve of War" requires a full fisking also but I don't have time for it today. I am afraid my hero, Dawkins, has fallen into the deep dark pit of liberal propaganda and media bias. I want to dig him out but don't see how without getting some dirt on him.

*I'm not joking, the sentence, "By almost any measure of civilized attainment, from Nobel Prize-counts on down, the United States leads the world by miles. ", is buried in that fiskworthy article somewhere.

More to come...