No, Max. It isn’t political warfare. People who have viewpoints like this need to be attacked, vilified, and humiliated, and there is nothing wrong with sane people distancing themselves from them:
Train wreck of an election – By James Carroll | February 1, 2005
IN THINKING about the election in Iraq, my mind keeps jumping back to last week’s train wreck in California. A deranged man, intending suicide, drove his Jeep Cherokee onto the railroad tracks, where it got stuck. The onrushing train drew near. The man suddenly left his vehicle and leapt out of the way. He watched as the train crashed into his SUV, derailed, jackknifed, and hit another train. Railroad cars crumbled. Eleven people were killed and nearly 200 were injured, some gravely. The deranged man was arrested. Whatever troubles had made him suicidal in the first place paled in comparison to the trouble he had now.
Iraq is a train wreck. The man who caused it is not in trouble. Tomorrow night he will give his State of the Union speech, and the Washington establishment will applaud him. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead. More than 1,400 Americans are dead. An Arab nation is humiliated. Islamic hatred of the West is ignited. The American military is emasculated. Lies define the foreign policy of the United States. On all sides of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there is wreckage. In the center, there are the dead, the maimed, the displaced — those who will be the ghosts of this war for the rest of their days. All for what?
Tomorrow night, like a boy in a bubble, George W. Bush will tell the world it was for “freedom.” He will claim the Iraqi election as a stamp of legitimacy for his policy, and many people will affirm it as such. Even critics of the war will mute their objections in response to the image of millions of Iraqis going to polling places, as if that act undoes the Bush catastrophe.
The most disgusting thing said on the whole page is this:
James Carroll’s column appears regularly in the Globe.
How about reeducation camps? I think people who disagree ought to have their tongues pulled out, have their children disemboweled, their wives raped and their social security accounts personalized.
But seriously, folks:
My friend asked me today about the bully boy viciousness of that segment of American politics represented by the thugs who scrape their knuckles hereabouts. He was seeking some kind of explanation for the stupidity, viciousness, intellectual vacancy and lack of humanity displayed here. I’m sure if a lot of you bully boys were being tortured we might actually get some personal epiphanies as to when you each crossed the line to truebelieverhood might be shared.
Why, for example, is it necessary to try to shout down, vilify and silence people who disagree with you? In past times that would suggest your position is so weak that you have to silence the opposition. These days it looks much the same, considering the intellectual discourse around here.
Sorry to go off topic, but since it doesn’t seem to get mentioned around here, I figured this would be as good a place as any.
John, would you consider showing us your heart is in the right place and appealing to your readers to call their senators and ask for them to vote against confirmation of Gonzales?
If you would, please read my appeal, here, and if you agree to do so, please consider adding your name to the No to Gonzales Database, an possibly even placing the banner at the top of your page. Hearings are on-going, and the vote is only a couple of days away. There is little time left to show the world where America stands on human rights!
A twofer, no less.
Some folks are sincere, I am sure, in the views that they express…the post by smiler above perhaps fits in that category. While one doesn’t have to agree with such views, at least the comments made do not express the outer edges of paranoid fantasy that some on the loopy left like to indulge.
On the other hand, Bob is obviously a bloody moron who should probably be committed, if indeed he’s not already there. His comments in another thread link US involvement in Iraq AND Vietnam to Halliburton, for God’s sake. How nutty and out-of-control does one have to get before the men in white come and take you away….
Yep, George, a twofer at best. The false attacks on Gonzales are especially infuriating.
Next thing you know the head of a major news network will be pulling slanders out of his backside … what? Eason Jordan already did baselessly slander US troops at Davos?
Great, more fodder for the moonbats.
Robin Roberts: Which false accusations? That he lied to the Senate Committee about covering up about Bush’s DUI? Or the false accusations about his work with making torture cool again?
George, I bet one day you’ll actually have something to say.
I serious, though, about the bully boys around here. When did thuggery come back in style? What kind of women are attracted to selfish little fascists? How do you support yourselves? I really am curious. Don’t bother criticizing me, open up your hearts, falangelicals!!!
The Lonewacko Blog
Whatever Carroll’s other points, the Iraq situation didn’t have to be as bad as it is, and all those people didn’t have to die. For just one small example, why were looters able to keep going back to al Qaqaa to get weapons? Not the famous explosives, just regular weapons were left unguarded for months.
Where’s the accountability for that? Here’s Bush to tell us: “We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 election.”
All of ’em Bob. The memos on the Geneva Conventions and the conventions against torture are being grossly misrepresented by Gonzales opponents.
No surprise of course, after the shameless performance of Sen. Boxer in the Rice hearings.
Bob, you are an idiot. Somehow you equate my first amendment rights- the right to attack these isiot’s idea nad rightfully humiliate them for being the idiots they are with physical violence and re-education camps.
When are clowns like you going to realize that the first amendment goes both ways. You get to make idiotic statements, I get to point out you are an idiot.
You don’t understand. You are subhuman and deserve a jackboot in your face forever. Bob’s just exercising his right to be a hypocritical lover of fascism for others and irresponsible license for himself.
“Free speech for me but not for thee.”
And these morally self-castrated filthbags dare to wonder why their disgusting acts of psychological projection have cost them in the last election cycles.
The memos on the Geneva Conventions and the conventions against torture are being grossly misrepresented by Gonzales opponents.
I’ve read the memoes. They are not. Here’s a link.
smijer is good people.
I’m considering his request and am finally listening to the television when they mention Gonzalez so that I can have some info (I’ve been politically burned out).
RW – thanks for having my back! And thanks for giving this serious consideration.
Mr. Cole, what’s the first thing you do in referring to my post? You attack me personally. How pathetic.
I don’t say that trying to shout down intellectual opponents is the same as reeducation camps and torture. I am saying that it has historically been a logical next step. Part of a true public discourse is to actually listen to what your opponents say so that you can make an intelligent response, not call for their silence.
The First Amendment works both ways: Cranks like you get to call for silencing those with whom you disagree, the rest of us get to keep a wary eye on you.
Mr. Cole, you get to march around in your Nazi uniform too, if you want. Or burn a flag. But you can’t burn an opponent.
Yes, Bob. After attacking them for being morons, I fully intend to send people to re-education camps- because after all, that is the ‘logical next step.’
Like I said, you are an idiot, and the not-so-subtle insinuations that I am a Nazi and a fascist are not appreciated.
Bob, your insinuations and accusations have gone from mundane to ridiculous. No one here wants a totalitarian regime – in fact we’d bury them all today if we could.
Go grab yourself a couple of hits of oxygen and calm down.
IN fact- it is bOb and his ilk who always end up trying to restrain folks like me from ending totalitarian regimes….
In my old neighborhood in Athens, we would simply say to Bob: Segrafa sta archidia-mu…poutsokefalo…
IN fact- it is bOb and his ilk who always end up trying to restrain folks like me from ending totalitarian regimes….
Right, because there is a long and glorious history of Republican Wilsonian inteventionism — especially conservative Republican Wilsonian interventionism.
It consists of (putatively) Iraq and Grenada. In addition, there are a lot of folks who have taken Republican Presidents’ promises at their word in, say, Hungary in 1956 or in the marshes of southeastern Iraq in 1992. Of course, y’all may have turned over a new leaf, but you’ll forgive us for being a bit dubious.
Democratic traditions in this area start with, you know, Wilson, and include victory over genocidal fascism.
This isn’t meant to be a pissing match; my attitude toward politics and political institutions is “What have you done for me lately?” But claiming a longstanding Republican (or conservative) commitment to overthrowing totalitarianism which has been opposed by Democrats (or liberals) just isn’t historically valid.
Well, to me Bob displays not only the Left’s penchant for “free speech for me, but not for thee,” he is also a great example of the hypocrisy of the Left. Go read his initial post in this thread, which he starts with comments about “the thugs who scrape their knuckles hereabouts.” And then he has the GALL to complain that John is “personally attacking” him!?!?!
Hey, asswipe. You come here and call me a thug, and you bet your sweet ass you’ll get “personally attacked.” If you’re so big into tolerance and open discussion, why not demonstrate the methodology? I’ll answer for you – because your a punk little intellectual coward, with no ideas, no standards and no vision . . . like the rest of your party. Go away, you bore me.
“How dare you vicious knuckle-dragging Nazi morons get personal with me? You’re all so intolerant!”
[sorry, Flagwaver. Hadn’t updated; you said it better.]
Kimmitt- IN recent memory, except when some Republicans were being assholes during the Clinton administration regarding Bosnia/Kosovo, republicans have been far more interventionist.
Don’t forget the Republicans being assholes about intervening in Haiti, Republicans being assholes about Clinton “wagging the dog” when pursuing bin Laden, and Republicans being assholes (with the enormous and shining exception of Bob Dole) about making sure we didn’t do anything about Rwanda.
I agree that Republicans have been more interventionist in some ways — Reagan did a lot of work in Central America and Africa. However, it was not Wilsonian democracy promotion; it was old-fashioned “sponsor this anticommunist dictator” geopolitical gameplaying. That’s not what I was talking about.
No, JPS, “brevity is the soul of wit,” and you said in 16 words what took me two paragraphs. Tip of the hat.
As for Kimmitt’s latest:
Haiti – intervene on behalf of WHICH murderous thug? Not a place where intervention has EVER worked, nor is there any likelihood it will work in the future. That little shithole of an island is doing about as well now as it did under Billy Zipperpants – no better, no worse.
If you DON’T think Clinton was “wagging the dog” with his “pursuit” of bin Laden, you are perhaps the only comptent (?) adult in the US who doesn’t. His “efforts” to “get” bin Laden were either non-existent or laughable or counter-productive, or all three. Even YOU couldn’t argue this point, given (i) the timing of his “efforts” and (ii) the results, and (iii) the COMPLETE lack of follow up.
Ronnie in South America. Well, yeah, Ronnie did tend to back anti-communist dictators over communist dictators. This is a surprise why, exactly??? Seems to me that that Democratic icon, JFK, did largely the same thing, as did LBJ. This is now a REPUBLICAN failing?
Kimmit, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Man, that’s a lot of multiple questions marks and fully capitalized words for a post that is completely unrelated to my thesis.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for the amazing (but unfortunately predictable) responses to my posts here. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to engage with you today, I work. And then tonight I was working on paying my taxes, a very patriotic thing for each of us to pay our fair share.
I wish I had time to address each and every concern expressed here, or to personally correct each and every misapprehension that some of the posters here have expressed, but let me try to answer a few before I move on to other tasks.
Ernest Brown: You say “…these morally self-castrated filthbags dare to wonder why their disgusting acts of psychological projection have cost them…” Ernest, have you seen “Kinsey”? What did you think of it? I really don’t have much interest in it, myself but it seems to have had quite an effect on you.
George Saras offers an insult in Greek from his old neighborhood in Athems (sorry, I don’t speak it, so it’s lost on me). Back in the sixties the Americans put in a fascist military dictatorship in Greece. Perhaps you can share some of your experiences about it with us. Did anyone “disappear” from your old neighborhood? What happened back then may very well be a key to why you are here and behaving the way you do around here. Were your parents cool with the putsch? Did Dad wear one of those cool uniforms with the epaulets and shiny boots? Or were you of age then, and participating? Did you help identify or round up any Communists? Please share with us.
Anyone who calls himself Flagwaver and calls people “asswipe” borders on the need for a Constitutional Amendment. But I salute your patriotism, which will inspire legions to march into the fields of debate. As far as why I mentioned Mr. Cole responding to my post by insulting me, it’s because my initial comment was about how all you guys do is insult people who don’t agree with you. That’s why I call you folks, jointly and generally, THUGS. So what does Cole do? He insults me. I wasn’t complaining. I WAS LAUGHING at the incredible level of self-imposed ignorance! However, I will admit that after a few days here I tend to get caught up in the tide of ill-will. Nevertheless, there are a couple of points I offered up for response: the need to shout down perceived opponents of one’s position instead of engaging in discussion in order to clarify positions. And Flagwaver, you may be an unthinking thug, but in some ways you are a sweet thug, and I am flattered that you seek physical contact with me. But, alas, I’m taken. Flaggie, what’s your favorite thing to do: wave flags or flay wags?
Ah, Mr. Cole, you write this blog but when you are questioned in any way you play a game of intentional self-deception. I never questioned your RIGHT to say whatever you want. I questioned WHY you say it. My complaint at the top of these comments is why you, Mr. Cole, and the rest of the cast of characters here feel it necessary to to shout down dissent. It’s sort of a complaint and sort of an actual question.
(An aside to another comment) Mr. Cole, I announce publicly, right here, that I and my ilk will not restrain you from personally ending any totalitarian regime you wish to end. And if you choose to go over there and dust it up with those insurgents over in Iraq, so much the better. So you don’t have to worry anymore about me holding you back. Go ahead.
It’s really unfortunate that Mr. Cole and the rest of you really don’t have much real knowledge of fascism (into which Nazism comfortably fits). Perhaps if you understood what it was you would be more comfortable with it and the Republican Party and way our country is teetering in that direction. Don’t get angry and shout, “I don’t goosestep, I don’t speak German.” Fascism was more than the accutrements worn by Mark Fuhrman on weekends. It’s more than old celluloid movies of battles fought in WWII. It was a series of laws taking power from individuals and transferring those rights to the state and its rulers. It was a social order where dissent was not tolerated but attacked viciously (that’s where you guys come in). But more than this, it was an economic order where the state (read: government) was the servant of business. That’s why Mussolini called it “The Corporate State.” Mussolini also defined fascism as “reaction.” That is, doing without thinking (and that’s where you guys come in again). Hitler ruled by crisis. Iraq was a crisis even though it wasn’t. Now Social Security is a crisis when it isn’t. When there’s a crisis you don’t have time to think. And then another crisis comes along. And then another.
Thankfully, here in America most people saw through the silly color-coded level of threat signs, but anyone observing could see that the levels of threat went up and down depending on the needs of the administration. But that is a concrete example of how fascism works.
So I hope that this resolves some of the tension and now we can have some civil exchanges around here between thoughtful, reasonable people of good will…and you thugs.
Kimmit uses an oxymoron too often for comfort, Republican Wilsonianism. Never happened doesn’t exist. Wilson entered a war without reason which is something Democrats like to do. One has to examine FDR’s warlike actions against GERMANY AND JAPAN IN 1940 AND 1941 to see how this works or Clinton attacking Serbia and Haiti.
Wilsonian advantures always end in disaster, as did WWI. Wilson was also a Democrat proto fascist.
Kimmit should learn to study Jackson and not the whimp Wilson but then again moonbats are attracted to losers.
Bob: The right to free speech also includes my right to tell you to take a hike.
In re Fascism: The government allowed corporations to exist – as long as they did what they were told, not the other way around. If Mussolini had said “build tanks” and the businessman said “no, I’m going to build toasters” the army would be in there and lo, they would be building tanks.
Bob, you are misrepresenting the ideology of what corporate fascism actually means. It was a socialist economic form that envisioned organizing the corporate entities to serve state goals. Not the other way round. This is of course typical of so many of your confusions. There is a nice simple explanation that you should be able to follow in Von Mises’ “Socialism”.
Kimmit should learn to study Jackson and not the whimp Wilson but then again moonbats are attracted to losers.
Yeah, I can see where you might think Wilson is a wimp, without a genocide to his credit.
What kind of idiotic stunt was he trying? in this dip-wads attempts to kill himself he ended up killing nine inocent souals frankly he should be sent to the gas chamber or death by leathal injection and screw the bleedingheart and the ninth curcus court of dummies
Robin Roberts, stop speaking out of your piehole and read a little. Fascism was always about capitalism. That’s why Henry Ford got that medal from Hitler. You’re not saying that Henry Ford was a socialist, are you? Are you saying that Lindbergh was a socialist? Maybe you should google Thyssen and Krupp and IG Farben. Do a little reading about it and stop pretending you know something you know nothing about. There is nothing preventing you from actually finding out about fascism without except your closed-mindedness and your fear of finding out how wrong you are.
Robin Roberts, I looked at Von Mises’ “Socialism.” This tract was about, well, it was an attack on socialism. This guy actually says that the Incas were communists and that’s why they were overthrown by the capitalist Spanish invaders who respected private property.
The ol’ Miser says: “The lesser productivity of communistic methods of economic activity is a disadvantage to the communistic warrior state when it comes into clash with the richer and therefore better armed and provisioned members of nations which acknowledge the principle of private property. The destruction of initiative in the individual, unavoidable under Socialism, deprives it in the decisive hour of battle of leaders who can show the way to victory, and subordinates who can carry out their instructions. The great military communist state of the Incas*33 was easily overthrown by a handful of Spaniards.” This kind of logic is stupid, simplistic, and wrong. It’s so historically bizarre. Kinda funny, though.
So his section on National Socialism had nothing to do with Nazis.
But RR, if this is the tripe you digest, I’m not sure I can steer you to a real book.
Do you think that the Spaniards were acknowledging the principle of private property when they looted the New World? They certainly weren’t acknowledging the Incas’ ownership of private property.
RR, please don’t reveal yourself for the fool you are. Please, I’m embarrassed for you.
It’s all about making money. Prescott Bush watched over the Brown Brothers Harriman investments in German corporations before, during and after WWII:
The following citation addresses the issue of the impact financial and economic considerations had on I.G. Farben’s decision to build I.G. Auschwitz…
“The Soviet Union and Asia represented a potential market to challenge even the commercial imagination of I.G.’s directors. For I.G., Hitler’s `Drive to the East’ promised to open a vast new area for profitable exploitation. Indeed, so great did I.G. regard the postwar potential of the Auschwitz project that it decided to make an unusual gamble on its future. Rather than let the German government finance the building of the installations, the I.G. directors voted to put up the funds to make I.G. Auschwitz a privately owned I.G. enterprise and to assume the entire risk. With almost no opposition, they committed more than 900 million Reichsmarks, over $250 million, to the building of the single largest project in the I.G. system. With such an enormous risk, officials of I.G. carefully watched over their huge investment.
There were other factors supporting the risk and indicating the prudence of such an investment. The I.G. Auschwitz projects were so vital to Germany’s military plans that I.G. was able to marshal the aid of the most powerful figures in the Nazi government. Krauch*, in a top secret letter to Ambros**, wrote:
In the new arrangement of priority stages ordered by Field Marshal Keitel, your building project has first priority…. At my request, [Goering] issued special decrees a few days ago to the supreme Reich authorities concerned… In these decrees, the Reich Marshal obligated the offices concerned to meet your requirements in skilled workers and larborers at once, even at the expense of other important building projects or plans which are essential to the war economy.
Krauch was already taking steps to insure an adequate labor supply for the construction of the I.G. Auschwitz plants. He had arranged for Goering to write Himmler on February 18, 1941, asking that `the largest possible number of skilled and unskilled construction workers…be made available from the adjoining concentration camp for the construction of the Buna plant.’ Between 8000 and 12,000 construction and assembly workers were needed. Goering requested Himmler to inform him and Krauch `as soon as possible about the orders which you will issue in this matter.’ Acting on this request, Himmler ordered the S.S. inspector of concentration camps and the S.S. economic and administrative main office `to get in touch immediately with the construction manager of the Buna works and to aid the…project by means of the concentration camp prisoners in every possible way.’ After Himmler issued this decree, Krauch wrote to Ambros, `These orders are so far-reaching that I request you to apply them to the widest extent as soon as possible.’
So that there would be no misunderstanding of the urgent priority of the I.G. Auschwitz project, Himmler delegated S.S. Major General Karl Wolff, chief of his personal staff, to be liaison officer between the S.S. and I.G. On March 20, General Wolff met with Buetefisch*** to discuss `the details of the ways and means in which the concentration camp could assist in the construction of the plant.’ Buetefisch was chosen to deal with General Wolff not only because of his eminence as a synthetic fuel authority but also because of his rank as a lieutenant colonel in the S.S. At the meeting it was agreed that I.G. would pay the S.S. three Reichsmarks a day for each unskilled concentration camp inmate and four Reichsmarks for skilled inmates. Later, the S.S. agreed to furnish children at one and a half Reichsmarks. These payments were for the S.S.; the inmates, of course, received nothing. Wolff guaranteed that the payment would include `everything such as transportation, food, et cetera and [I.G.] will have no other expenses for the inmates, except if a small bonus (cigarettes, etc.) is given as an incentive. Both parties realized, in calculating the rate of payment, that a concentration camp inmate could not be as productive as a free, normal, well-fed German worker; thus, it was estimated at the meeting that a seventy-five percent efficiency was all that could be expected.