So there are/were no WMD. I was wrong. The UN was wrong. Every Democratic President, Vice-President, and Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidtate (those who won the nomination- Kucinich doesn;t count- although in retrospect he was right) for the last 16 years was wrong. Regardless, I still think the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, and if you check my archives, you will find that I consistently supported intervention for a number of reasons.
This sort of cat-calling will be unnecessary:
Like the grassy knoll folks, I’m sure the WMD conspiracy theorists will latch onto enough loose ends in the report to convince themselves that Saddam really did have WMD but hid it too cleverly for us to find it. You know, because Saddam and his crew were so clever and thorough in everything else they did.
I can admit when I was wrong- and it took much less conspiracy theorizing than some, who took years to recognize Bill Burkett was a lunatic. Conspiracy theorists, anyone?
However, as Glenn notes, this sort of nonsense is not conspiracy theorizing, it is flat-out lying:
The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.
Human Rights abuses, the spread of Democracy, removing a tyrant from power, shifting the balance of power in the Middle East, geting rid of WMD in the post 9/11 world, shifting the fight from the homefront to overseas, ending the ten year military presence and sanctions- there were boatloads of reasons for the war in Iraq, and seizing upon only one of these issues, albeit one that was used in large part to galvanize the will of the American people is dishonest, and serves to disrespect those you claim to care so much about. Any way you slice it (unless you are Juan Cole), the world is a better place for the sacrifice in blood in treasure that we have made.
And while you are at it, check out this link rich festival of debunking of revisionist history that Glenn has provided.
ppgaz
Hard to follow the context of these articles, but ….
My read of this type of blurb is that you think (a) the “stated” reasons for the invasion were ill informed, to be kind, and (b) it doesn’t matter since the outcome (Saddam bad, anything else, good) makes it all okay.
This attitude is dead, absolutely wrong, and dishonest, and manipulative, and bad for this country. Because …
First, it’s an argument which rests upon one and only one principle: Ends justify means. That fact IN ITSELF makes the conclusion that the war is a “good thing” wrong. Dead, absolutely, incontrovertably wrong. Ends do not justify means, and if they are taken to do so, the American Experiment is doomed to ignominy and some discraceful outcome. It does not matter what the ends are, they never justify means, when the means are …. (bringing us to the second, and most important part of this argument) ….
Deliberate, dishonest, cynical manipulation of public opinion by people who don’t care what the truth is, they only care about getting their way. When democracy is reduced to that, then we all lose. We lose trust in our government. We lose trust in each other. We lose any sense of common purpose.
The war was promulgated on lies, the biggest and worst of which was this: Invasion of Iraq was a necessary step in the “War on Terror.” It was not. It is not now. It will not be seen as such in the future.
This ugly stain on the history of this country will not be erased by the “good” of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, any more than it will be affected by the dozens of theiving, murdering shithead dictators who have NOT been removed over the decades, who in some cases have been ASS-KISSED by our self-serving policies and even supported when it was expedient.
But worst of all, by far, is this: The war on terror, even if it can be supported conceptually (which I do not agree that it can, because it is based on false assumptions from the get-go) is made into a joke by using it as an excuse to invade a country when in fact that invasion can not be shown to have any short, medium or long term benefit in terms of the worldwide problem of terror.
No amount of spin, doublespeak, or twisting of the facts can cover up this truth. Ends Justify Means is not an honorable argument, no matter how much lipstick you try to put on it.
JG
I supported the war in the beginning. the evidence looked like crap but I assumed there was more known than could be said publicly. That turned out to be bullshit. This war had nothing to do with WMD and better not have had anything to do with liberal freeing the oppressed people of the world crap either. It was about oil. We can’t have a madman sitting on the economic lifeline of the west. can’t have it. Bush said knowing then what he knows now about Iraqs WMD he would still invade. It was policy, we were going anyway and that lends credibility to the stories of intelingence analysts being leaned on to find the evidence of WMD (Bolton?). I think its right that we went to secure the oil (not for our specific ownership but to removes Saddams control) but I don’t like that my gov’t doesn’t think I can handle the truth and that they have to hit me with bleeding heart reasons for war.
Kimmitt
albeit one that was used in large part to galvanize the will of the American people
I think this is the problem; you and I both know that the other reasons for invading Iraq would very possibly not have been enough, and that’s why this is so important. The WMDs were not there. Bush and Powell said that we were dead certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were, and they were lying — because we weren’t dead certain, and because they weren’t there. That’s the issue.
Finally, Dean was right about the WMDs, too.
Kimmitt
And the world may be better off than it was, but I guarantee you that I could make the world EVEN BETTER OFF with $200 billion and 200,000 American soldiers at my disposal (not to mention the willingness to sacrifice over 1,000 of their lives). This was never about “Is it possible that the Iraq war will leave the world marginally better off than not doing it?” It was always about, “Is this the best expenditure of our scarce resources? Is this a good risk?” And the answer to that was always, “Maybe, if we are preventing a massive terrorist attack on the US.” It turns out we weren’t.
Sickduck
The world is better off without Saddam Hussein? The world, or at least the US, would also be better off without George W. Bush: no war, no thousands of dead soldiers and civilians, no deficit, no gay bashing, etc..
Steven
The only thing objectionable about the NY Times editorial is the word “fictitious”. Had they used “wrong”, there could be no objection. Isn’t the only plausible reason to keep troops in Iraq to support the new government? As John grudgingly admits above, WMD were used to “galvanize the will of the American people.” I don’t think Bush lied, though. I think he and his counselors convinced themselves they were there. Maybe I give Colin Powell too much credit, but I don’t think he would have put on that show at the UN if he didn’t believe it. I don’t think it’s about oil either. If that were the case, their actually would have been a plan for the post-war period that made sense. The problem is that in order to justify the invasion and to give political cover to the completely bollixed execution of the period after the fighting, Bush and his supporters have adopted this “WMD? Who cared about WMD? We were always after freedom for those poor people” line that just completely undercuts his and their credibility. I mean, if Glenn wants to talk about editorial dishonesty, look at the 2003 State of the Union speech he leads with in his “rich link festival”. Between his two money quotes, there are 18 paragraphs about WMD. Not a surprise that people would think that’s what the purpose of the invasion was. Clearly, what constitutes revisionist history is in the eye of the beholder.
Andrei
“So there are/were no WMD. I was wrong.”
This would have been a great post had you just stopped there.
Pozzo
To suggest that WMD were only one of many reasons for the war is intellectually dishonest. It is like saying I bought my car not just for the powertrain when that turns out to be messed up and focusing on the neat little cupholder, floormats, and AM/FM radio that I also was promised and also got. All the histrionics that lead to the war were about WMD. The stuff about smoking guns in the form of Mushroom clouds, “Reconstituted nuclear weapons”, stockpiles, mobile labs. There is no way this war could have been sold to the public in the absence of the threat allegedly posed by WMD.
JG
‘ I don’t think it’s about oil either. If that were the case, their actually would have been a plan for the post-war period that made sense. ‘
Their plan for the post war period was to hire a contractor to sweeep all the flower pedals off the streets. Nothing else needed to be done and even that would be paid for by the oil proceeds right? I still can’t believe President Bush had the balls to call out Al Qaeda and say come get us, we’re in Baghdad square. If I were an Iraqi I’d be pissed considering whats going on over there now.
John Cole
To suggest that WMD were only one of many reasons for the war is intellectually dishonest.
I can say with full honesty that WMD was one of only many reasons I was in favor of going to war with Iraq.
WMD, as I have stated, was the reason used by the administration to get popular support, but there were many reasons to invade. Many.
RW
Operation Iraqi ________ should be the first clue, Kimmitt.
Steven
John~
There may have been many reasons to invade, but there was none other than WMD that would have gotten the political and popular support that allowed the invasion to occur.
jag
how is trading a crackpot dictatorship for a broken tinderbox/failed state that requires our constant attention ‘changing the balance of power’ exactly?
did saddam ever use oil as an international economic weapon? seems to me he was happy to sell it to whomever wanted to buy it.
and juan cole, btw, said an invasion of iraq on grounds of genocide, of kurds and the marsh arabs, would have been justified.
though there were many reasons to invade, they apply to other countries as well. the bush team never bothered to lay the right political groundwork for the iraq experiment. and justifying the past is no plan for the future.
Retief
Sure there were lots of reasons that you were for the invasion. That was the beauty of Bush’s push to war. Bush used a terrific political trick in pushing such an obviously false reason for the invasion as the idea the Saddam was a threat to us. Even supporters of the war could see that wasn’t true, especially when he started pretending that Saddam had drones that could fly to the US. But by it’s blatant foolishness this non-justification allowed anybody who could think of their own reason for the war to project that reason onto Bush as the “real” reason. Some, for example, have said that Bush’s real reason must be to upset the status quo in the middle east so that a more democratic order might flourish. But just as valid are those who suggest that we just needed to blow something up to show Al Qaeda that we were serious. Or those who, like me, think that we must take every chance we get to fight oppression. (Now I never believed that was Bush’s reason, but it is mine) From those, both for and against, who believe that Bush’s “real” plan is to station a large US military force in the geographic terrorist heartland, to those who still think that there must have been terrorist links too secret for Bush to tell us about, (the corallary of which is that what he has told us in unconvincing) all can delude themselves into believing that Bush’s true reasons match their own.
The now undeniable (except by K. Lo.) absence of WMDs doesn’t mean you, who supported the war for your own reasons, need to rethink. But it does mean that Bush, who used them as anchoring tuba in his march to war, should be held accountable for the incongruence with reality. And for the resulting loss of credibility, which will make going to war for any of your reasons ever again much harder.
Paul
According to the Deulfer report Saddam was holding out for the promise (by his oil for food scam cohorts) of the ending of sanctions and at that point would resume his WMD program with impunity and renewed vigor, and only a fool, or your garden variety leftist, would imagine he would not. This was the inevitable alternative to removing him with force. With A Q Khan still in business (another hugely important fringe benefit of OIF that the left scrupulously avoids thinking about) how long before Saddam had a shitload of WMD including a nuclear weapon? Five years? Ten years? Not to mention the continued slaughter and suffering of the Iraqis that the left seems so concerned about.
So let’s see, a nuclear Iraq, Iran, Libya, and eventually Syria and the KSA, since there would be no incentive for them not to join the nuclear club, a well deserved reputation that the USA was indeed a paper tiger afraid of bloodshed and held thrall to the whim of a terminally corrupt UN and world opinion, and the prospect that one of these basket case crazies would certainly, sooner or later, use one of their nuclear weapons, as opposed to…
A free Iraq, Saddam in the dock, his Baathist cohorts in they’re death throes, freedom in the air in Lebanon as Syria pulls out, aware that they are likely soon to undergo regime change, Iran surrounded by liberated Afghanistan, Iraq, and the world’s only superpower
jdm
Oh, f’r’chrissakes, Paul, everything you mention is true but you neglected to mention that you would also be supporting Chimpy McHitler Bush, that proto-fascist dumbshit who, along with his neo-con (read joo-ish) betters, schemes to take over this country.
You can clearly see how wrong you are.
Kimmitt
Operation Iraqi ________ should be the first clue, Kimmitt.
Wasn’t aware that the invasion of Normandy was for the purpose of producing Overlords. Less snarkily (but only slighty), we also have laws called “The Clear Skies Act” and “Healthy Forests Initiative,” too. Could it be that it was just a phrase that sounded nice?
AQ Khan out of business,
What color is the sky on your planet?
but then again I
ppgaz
Whether or not the “world better off without Saddam” argument is legitimate can be answered by simply giving honest answers to these questions:
1) Could a case for war have been made solely on the basis of regime change in Iraq? The answer is clearly no. And if you want to toy with a possible “yes” answer, then replace the word “Iraq” with the name of another country, wherein regime change would be a legitimate and sufficient cause for war. Then explain why Iraq is any different … because there is no cause for war in another country. There was no cause for war in Iraq. There was no cause for war when we propped up the asshole Shah of Iran, who also murdered his citizens and stole the wealth of his country … and dined regularly in the East Room of the White House.
2. Could the war have been sold unless 9-11 had happened? The answer, again, is no. So, these lying bastards sit back and deliberately let anger and confusion over 9-11 stir a pot that they COULD NOT have otherwise stirred …. and for reasons that suddenly got replaced with “better off without Saddam” when those reasons came up lacking any factual basis.
All the subject spin in favor of this bogus war is based on nothing but speculation. There is no factual basis for believing that the muslim Arab world will support stable, liberal democracies. This country would not have gone to war on the basis of that wishful thinking … and without a plan for accomplishing the task, without a timetable, and without an exit strategy.
WMD was a smokescreen for these realities. Put lipstick on the pig all day, that’s the truth and words are not going to change it.
jdm
> Could a case for war have been made solely on the basis of regime change in Iraq?
> The answer is clearly no
Well. I’m convinced. Say no more.
RW
You weren’t there to tell us what Kos, Atrios & Drum said back then, so we’ll never know what the left-wing clap-trap was.
But, the *OFFICIAL* action was called “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. I know it hurts, but deal with it.
And move on.
Bob Munck
No, it doesn’t appear that you can.
Kimmitt
You weren’t there to tell us what Kos, Atrios & Drum said back then, so we’ll never know what the left-wing clap-trap was.
Dude, Kos, Atrios, and Drum weren’t born in 1944. HTH. HAND.
Retief
Hey RW, the Left Wing was in charge in WWII. Their “clap-trap” was Operation Overlord. Does FDR ring any bells?
Retief
Speaking of Rivisionism…
If you’re going to link to Glenn’s collection of times Bush had mentioned Iraq and freedom before invading, perhaps you’d also like to link to this collection of imminent threat comments, many of which cite the non-existant weapons.
ape
“The UN was wrong”..
only in one sense. They were right that the weapons inspections process was working and should not be ditched in favour of war on the grounds that it wasn’t.
Lets recap: Saddam had WMDs once. Then there was a weapons inspection process. After which he didn’t have them.
Like most everyone else, I think it’s good that Saddam is gone. But we can’t pretend that was the issue after the fact. In any case, the question ‘which regime do we most want removed?’ would not have come up with ‘Iraqi Baathists’ by any sensible process. And there are costs: It is because we are in Iraq that we are not in Sudan, for example. I’m no pacifist, but you can’t tell me that Saddam was the major threat to my wellbeing. The Afghanistani Taleban were number 1, and that’s why the world got behind that project. But Iraq was not number 2.
The hideous Burmese junta have been dropping mustard gas on its people in the last few weeks, not 2 wars and two decades ago.
Jorge
The thing that bothers me about the whole, “it was an honest mistake and everyone believes it” is the way the administration and supporters for the war treated Hans Blix. The man was skewered and his reputation was attacked every day he didn’t come back with information that supported the claims of WMD’s.
Key Blix money quote “Yes, I, too, believed there were weapons. I began to be skeptical when we went to sites that were given to us by U.S. intelligence and we found nothing. They said this is the best intelligence we have, and I said, if this is the best, what is the rest?”
There is a difference between believing wrong information and not wanting to believe the truth because it doesn’t suit your plans. Bush and Co. refused to accept any information that did not include the plans for invading Iraq which had been set in motion by Cheney, Armitage, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Project for a New American Century as early as 1998. Just go to their website for proof that this invasion was a foregone conclusion the day Bush won the 2000 election.
ppgaz
Sarcasm is always lovable in the face of widespread death and destruction. Please, jdm, more, more.
If you think that “regime change” was (and is now) a valid, convincing basis for a case for war, just answer this, please:
Why wasn’t it a sufficient argument during the runup to war? Did your government not trust the people to see the wisdom of this approach?
Was it the media, or the people, who dreamed up the baloney WMD and Al Qaeda connections and stormed the White House gates demanding war?
Did our intelligence agencies, who apparently were able to track individual truckloads of oil being sold to Iraq’s neighbors (you know, in violation of sanctions) …. just forget to check the satellite photos and the border monitor reports for, um, weapons and weapon materials?
Regime change (now spun as “world better off without Saddam”) wasn’t good enough to sell the war in 2002-2003. That’s why it only appeared in the Repuglicans’ talking points when it started to become obvious that WMD would not be found.
Just how little honesty are you willing to settle for in your government, pal?
Honesty is really a nuisance in an Ends Justify Means world, eh?
Pozzo
John, there may have been many reasons YOU supported the war, but you aren’t responsible for getting us into it. There’s no way this war could have been sold to a majority the public without WMD and the threat supposedly posed by them. Die hard Bush supported would have supported this war without a stated reason, judging by their shifting rationales when the WMD failed to materialize. If WMDs were the overriding reason, why did Bush supporters spend so much time telling us we would have egg on our faces when they were found, and keep making excuses for why we failed to find them (It’s as big as California, they’re buried in the sand, they’re in Lebanon, They’re in Syria, etc.)?
RW
retief,
Unless I can find where FDR was saying “screw them” about Americans being killed abroad, I’d say that today’s far-left wackos bear few similarities with the lefties of the 40s.
No comment on who they’d put in internment camps, though.
over it
Just out of curiousity….who is it that is saying ‘screw them’ about Americans being killed abroad?
Or, is it that no one is saying it…you just attribute the sentiment to anyone who disagrees with you on the war?
I have an older brother and 2 cousins(one female) in Iraq right now. My brother is an officer and my cousins are enlisted. ALL three of them(and the rest of my family) are adamantly OPPOSED to the war. This, obviously, does not mean that we are against the troops. To suggest otherwise disgusts me….and I hear it all to often.
Something tells me you are one of those “patriotic Americans” that has often asked the now laughable question ‘Why do you hate America?”.
I love my Country. I love and Support the men AND women in our military. I am neither Republican nor Democrat….but am against much of what the current administration is doing/has done(both abroad and here at home). I am against the war in Iraq…but am aware that we are now trapped there till we can help the Iraqi people restore some form of civilized structure. I am no less patriotic than someone who does support the war. I am sick and tired of hearing otherwise.
Maybe I misread/misinterpretted your post….if so, my bad. If not, I will be quite blunt here…Go To Hell.
Sorry for the rant.
ape
over it:
re
‘screw them’: one person (a blogger called Kos) said it once, referring to some murdered contractors.
It’s like the Protocols of Zion for the right-wingnutosphere. It’s our true agenda.
This can be proved because one blogger was trying out some fiery rhetoric to emphasize his point.
This was something like: “the death of Americans in this particular incident, much less the way photos of them are used after their death, is not the most important issue in the debate about the war.”
He said, regarding some photos: “Let the people see what war is like. This isn’t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush’s folly.
That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”
Retief
RW, FDR, shamefully, and the right wing, predictably, both said screw you to the Brigadistas, the only Americans fighting Facsism at the time.
BTW what does a mercenary’s nationality have to do with anything?
RW
The correct answer is “ignorance” on your part.
“Your bad” will do.
Don’t forget that I beat my children, poison old people and am mean to little puppies, as well.
I mean, as long as you’re going to create strawmen on a whim, go for the gusto, dude! It’s not like credibility is something you’re going to fall back on.
Ah, yes, a bon-a-fide kossack is here to defend his man!
Sorry, the diminutive kos got caught and no amount of spin or recitation of his “they’re mercenaries” blather is going to change it. If you want to lie down with that dog & waller, don’t be suprised when someone laughs at you for trying to lie about the fleas you’ve picked up.
BTW, where can one find the FDR “screw them” quote that you stated as fact? You didn’t, like, make is up or anything, did you? A kossack wouldn’t do that.
J. Caesar
Getting rid of Hussein = Good
Creating an environment where terrorist groups can recruit people to their cause = Bad
Yes, John, there was many reasons why we should go to war with Saddam. There were also many reasons why we should not have gone. These were placed on the balance scale, and the threat of WMDs was used to trump the reasons against.
This war will go down in history as the greatest strategic blunder ever made by the US President.
over it
“Unless I can find where FDR was saying “screw them” about Americans being killed abroad, I’d say that today’s far-left wackos bear few similarities with the lefties of the 40s.”
So, it is ‘ignorant’ of me to interpret the above statement to mean that you imply ‘far-left wackos'(or, at least your definition of them) HAVE said “screw you” to Americans being killed abroad?
If, indeed, that shows my ignorance of the meaning…how, exactly, is it supposed to be read? So, please…where exactly do get off calling me ignorant? Or is it merely a lame attempt to goad me into an argument? Sorry, I do not play those little reindeer games. ;)
I threw you no strawmen…I merely stated an opinion(a strong one, granted) based on your words. An opinion that I stand all the more firmly by based on your response.
You high and mighty uppity ass verbage does nothing but make me laugh. I am guessing that I am not the only one that does so. Your condescending tone eliminates any respect anyone would have for your responses.
“Don’t forget that I beat my children, poison old people and am mean to little puppies, as well.”
I don’t seem to recall insinuating that, however, it seems no more farfetched than people on the left saying “screw you” to Americans abroad.
I am not going to bother saying “don’t bother to reply”….just know that I am done.
BTW—I am not a ‘dude’. I happen to be a young lady….a patriotic one who is very proud of her big brother. :P
over it
Ahhhh….I did not see the above comment from ‘ape’. So, some random ass makes a stupid comment and all of sudden he is the voice of the left? Why bother making comparisons between someone like that and FDR?
Gimme a break.
That would be like using quotes from Timothy McVeigh as sample of the Right. Both sides have lunatics that are not representative of them. Their words should be ignored…not used as examples in making a political point.
Though, if indeed you were only referring to the one individual who made that disgusting comment(and not to those on the left as whole)….I say again….my bad. It does not read as though you are speaking of merely one person though.
I do have 2 questions though. If it shows more of my so called ‘ignorance’ , so be it. I am fairly new to this site(or any site for that matter)….what exactly is A) a strawman, B) a kossak?
RW
“over it”, ignorance doesn’t mean “stupid”, it means “unknowing”. You were obviously ignorant of the kos controversy, which was followed by legions of his fellow far-left wackos defending him. That doesn’t mean you’re unintelligent in any way….it means you didn’t know.
You mean akin to someone on the far right stating the opinion that the words of the anti-war crowd means they’re “unpatriotic”?
Come on, get real…..you miffed on the interpretation and went overboard. No biggie, but you *did* go a bit far overboard. And your asking of what a strawman means later sorta belies your argument that you threw me “no strawmen”, btw. :)
Now, let me attempt to bring down the tension: I abhor the people who say that those who disagree with them are “unpatriotic” (although, I really haven’t seen anyone do that, but the victimization claims from those who declare that such people abound are aplenty). I have no problem, zero, with those who were against the war. Further, I think this admin should have a jaundiced eye turned in its direction when it makes proclaimations precisely because they were so wrong about the WMDs.
Now, does that help any, or do you simply assume that I’m some far RWer?
“Dude” is slang for either sex.
You should be.
If you’re not, I am. Those folks are heroes.
When a person creates their own weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted by themselves. Example: “You’re against tax cuts? Well, I guess you’re a communist, aren’t you?”
“Strawman” in the sense that you can beat a strawman at will because it can’t fight back, much like a fallacious argument.
A devout follower of the hyperpartisan and rabid-far-lefty who runs the dailykos.com. He’s a smart fellow and very influential among Democratic circles, but he also typed that offensive comment….which was defended by many.
See, I’m really not the ogre that I prolly came across as being. :)
Kimmitt
If you want to lie down with that dog & waller, don’t be suprised when someone laughs at you for trying to lie about the fleas you’ve picked up.
Speaking of lying down with dogs and fleas, how’d that whole “Rally With the White Supremicists of Faith” thing with Bill Frist work out in terms of your “The South was racist under the Democrats but is now colorblind and motivated by a rainbow vision of society” meme? Still pushing that crap?
RW
Speaking of strawmen, Kimmitt just provided the quintessential example for everyone to use.
In actuality, Kimmitt, I simply asked you to provide some proof of your claim (no doubt, as usual, cropped from someone else and pasted) over a year ago that ALL the Democratic racists from the 60s switched over to the Republican party. And, after waiting a year (showing that the premise was made up & you didn’t know jack squat about your charge but were simply restating someone else’s words — most likely, Duncan Black’s), you did a lame google search and came up with with all of three names.
One of which wasn’t even a Republican!
Showing that your habit of reciting the words of others also includes the practice of not even reading them.
Now play nice. And at least try to post the comments about things that you read on other sites (was it kos, willis or eschaton that you got the Frist crap from?) on places where they’re relevant. Going off topic is sorta rude.
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? :)
over it
RW- Thank you for your clarification and for your answers to my questions. Yes, I was thinking you were rather ogreish….but not anymore. ;)
Kimmitt
In actuality, Kimmitt, I simply asked you to provide some proof of your claim (no doubt, as usual, cropped from someone else and pasted) over a year ago that ALL the Democratic racists from the 60s switched over to the Republican party.
My claim was that the Dems lost the South Federally because they lost the racists — that the Dixiecrats switched Parties. Both the Dixiecrat politicians and the Dixiecrat voters switched. Some of the Dixiecrat pols actually just bounced over, while others held on for a while as blue dog Democrats, but retired and were replaced by Republicans. And others were simply defeated by Republicans. The process just happened to start when the Civil Rights Bill passed.
Your counterclaim is that racism has nothing to do with why the Dems lost the South, and your support for this (somehow) is that, despite the fact that the Dixiecrats ran opposing Presidential candidates in the years in which Democrats nominated candidates who were particularly committed to civil rights (and not Southern), the Dixiecrats represented mainstream Democratic opinion. Meanwhile, the Republican Party was and remains the Party of people who are not racists.
Therefore, the South must not be racist anymore, since it is now a Republican stronghold.
Kimmitt
Apologies, yellow dog Democrats.
RW
Once again the facts get in the way, Kimmitt.
Undeniable, irrefutable, damnable facts.
After that sinks in, you can stop bastardizing my words. It’s not cool to do an Oliver Willis and lie about what others have said, Kimmitt, which is what you’re doing. You’re a nice guy and I have fun debating and all, but really…..stop lying about what I’ve said.
Very uncool.
Kimmitt
What the hell? Your stats prove my point — that the Southern wing of the Democratic Party was and remains well to the right of the national Party’s mainstream. That views held by Southern Democrats were and remain different from views held by the rest of the Party, and when the northern wing of the Party took over the national Party, the Southern wing of the national Party revolted, then faded away. On the Federal level, when Southern voters are forced to confront the pro-gay, pro-minority views* of the national Party, Democrats lose. On the state and local level, we don’t. This isn’t difficult.
I’m not trying to distort your words; when you say things like, “[The states which had Jim Crow laws are] the states which were run by Democrats!” you make it pretty clear what your opinion is of the two Parties, and that opinion is profoundly ahistorical. Any Party which wants to be competitive in the South needs to at least pay lip service to the region’s values, and while the racism is definitely in decline, the antigay bigotry most certainly is not.
*and, granted, other centrist and liberal views
RW
No, you went passed “distortion” and simply lied.
Stop it.
Kimmitt
Your Jim Crow quote.
That thread makes your opinion regarding the racist opinions of the Democratic and Republican Parties extremely clear. If you’re saying now that you weren’t serious about claiming that the Democratic Party is and was the Party of racism and that the Republican Party is the party of colorblindness, then that’s great. I’m quite familiar with your little dance of “I’m serious now, oh wait, I’m not serious, oh look I’m serious again.”
RW
That you posted no quote in its entirety to parallel with the quote you attributed to me earlier (something about me saying that the south was free of racism or whatever) shows that you can’t even lie well.
Stop lying or prepare to be ignored.
I don’t think you’re familiar with anything other than reciting Kos & Atrios. Look, there’s a difference in not taking things too seriously (meaning that people shouldn’t take debates about politics personally) and not being serious. I’ve been going out of my way to let some folks know (YOU) that they shouldn’t take this stuff too seriously because they can sometimes get prissy (YOU).
Apparently, that also went over your head. Consider yourself educated.
If you’re attempting to get the point across to me that you want to be ignored in the future by being nothing more than a trollish pissant, message delivered.
Kimmitt
The following quote I attributed to you:
“[The states which had Jim Crow laws are] the states which were run by Democrats!”
I misquoted you; it should have been”
“[The states which had Jim Crow laws were] the states run by Democrats.”
I don’t think my misquotation misreprented the sentiment behind the statement, though.
Look, if you really don’t believe that the Republican Party is a colorblind paragon, fine, but when you say,
“We will not hire/admit based on race, gender, creed, religion or national origin”. One party can’t say “yes” to that basic concept. The DNC.
I can only go based on what you say. If you want to clarify your statement, great. But your consistent theme seems to be that my belief that the Southern racist vote, which was different from the mainstream Democratic vote, switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party on the national level starting in 1968, is false because the Republicans are incapable of garnering the racist vote as a class.
RW
Emphasis on “seems to be”.
Meaning it’s your interpretation.
Or, inferenece.
Which is wrong.
You have been notified.
Now, grow up.
Kimmitt
Thanks for clearing me up on your opinion. I am curious as to what a more accurate statement of it would be.
RW
I doubt it’s possible since you somehow concluded that I think that the south is free of racism (or whatever the latest edition is).
Not worth my time.
Kimmitt
That’s not even a little bit reasonable; I post a couple different interpretations of your text, you respond that they are all invalid, I accept that you’re the author so you’d know more than I do and ask for a clarification, and you respond with a petulant blowoff.
How’s this for another interpretation: there’s no particular philosophy behind what you’re posting; you just enjoy being contrarian and calling liberals stupid. So any attempt to link the posts into a coherent whole which can be discussed is a waste of time; you’re just having a good time without putting a lot of yourself into it.
RW
Instead of you grasping for “interpretations” that fit your prejudiced mold, a cogent approach (that just about everyone else has taken) would be to take the words written at face value.
Apparently, too much to ask on your part.
Therefore, I bid you adieu. One of the great things about this medium is that you can see who says what & scanning to see the author of a comment is as easy as turning the roller on my mouse, thus I’ll never – ever – read another comment put forth by you.
Have a nice life, though, and I hope your “household income” (read: daddy & wifey do the heavy lifting) is gazillions and you reap the benefits of paying the tax rates that you’ve longed for others to pay.
It’s been real.
Wasteful.
Bye. And God bless.
Captain Video
I was right! I opposed the War. (Gloat).
The majority of the Democrats in the House who voted against the War were right.
Scott Ritter was right.
The corageous Americans who demonstrated against the War were right.
And most importantly THE FRENCH WERE RIGHT!!!!
dylan
The French were right, so RW is taking a page out of their book: rolling over.
What’s that noise, RW? I think it’s an argument. Better run!
RW
It’s not a face-to-face venture, “dylan”, so things must be handled differently (as if half of you would have the testicular fortitude to even approach the trash talk you find so easy on your keyboard).
Thus, I’ve started to ignore idiots.
For further examples, pay close attention to how much more attention you garner in the future.