And now, of course, the calls of media bias start. Look, folks- the reason the media is covering the Rove smear more than the alleged Durbin smear is because by and large, the people in the media can read. Durbin’s remarks, one more time:
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
No matter how many times you say it, he did not call our soldiers Nazis. He just didn’t. It was a stupid remark to make given that he had to know it would be distorted, but there is no way to claim he called the troops Nazis unless you just see whatever you want to see.
The reason Rove’s remarks are being attacked as a stab in the back launched all Democrats is because it is. He created a world with two lines of thought- one conservative, one liberal. The conservative position just so happened to be the one he thought was right, the one he aligned with the GOP, and the positions advocated by this Republican administration.
The other line of thought he attributed to the opposition, who is the Democratic party. There was no mention of ‘some liberals,’ or ‘some Democrats,’ and for good measure he threw in Drubin and Dean, just in case we didn’t make the not-so-subtle connection.
You are simply lying to yourself if you try to claim otherwise, and it is pretty clear right now that this is a coordinated strategy to mute opposition. Durbin was just the opportunistic opening they were looking for…
ppgaz
Aside from the fact that I am much more obnoxious that you are, I couldn’t have said it better myself. I agree 100%.
Aaron
A more reasonable comparison would be between Rove and Dean and respective media coverage.
Mike S
Hewy would see bias if every fromt page came out in full agreement with Rove. Sean Hannity isn’t even as disengenuous as hewy is.
CalDevil
John,
As much as I disagree with your perceptions of Durbin’s and Rove’s respective remarks, I think that in this case, the media bias in reporting was someting that Rove counted on and exploited. The GOP has to be thrilled that voters are now being reminded about what the left (the ones who now have been given the keys to the DNC) has said and the positions many have taken on the war on terror.
Jeff
Whenever i see “Media Bias”, I pretty much skip past it. It’s yet another one of those things where both sides will never agree.
When you have idiots on the left arguing that (former employee of Sen Moynihan and Gov Cuomo) Tim Russert, (former Carter Speechwriter and Tip O’Neill staffer) Chris Matthews, Judy Woodruff, Wolf Blitzer are all right-wing hacks, and then you have the Brent Bozell’s of the world arguing that there’s a master conspiracy every single time someone is called a “conservative”, but then no liberal label is applied to someone else, there’s just no point to trying to prove bias anymore.
Mark Borok
An interesting thing about Rove’s speech (I don’t know whether this is the right place to point it out); he brings up a MoveOn.org petition urging restraint and moderation in Afghanistan. I seem to remember signing that petition. It was in support of the ordinary Afghans who has already suffered under the Taliban and from years of civil war. Basically it was asking not to carpet bomb the whole country, but to take out the Taliban and al Qaeda with as few civilian casualties as possible. Which we mostly did. Rove took it out of context to suggest that MoveOn was urging moderation against the terrorists themselves.
The Republicans in this case are not only playing off the doves against the hawks, they’re also playing on the human tendency to see war in the simplest terms of killing as many of the enemy as possible. The roles played by diplomacy, intelligence gathering and “winning the hearts and minds of the people” don’t get much credit because they’re not as fun as blowing things up real good. Therefore, if liberals suggest a strategy for winning the WoT that doesn’t involve as much violence as the “conservative” strategy, the “conservatives” can paint them as wimps. The less-violent strategy may or may not be as effective, but the main thing is that it isn’t as satisfying at the gut level.
Ben Regenspan
Though maybe both sides can come to some agreement that the prevailing bias of the media is toward big headlines and profit-making, and this fact and simple laziness together could account for a good deal of perceived political bias.
Mike S
Ben
Laziness is big. It’s just so much easier to report by press release, blast fax and “he said/she said.” No one wants to dig and no one wants to follow up.
Access is a factor too.
Rick
John,
Are you complaining that Rove’s observation on the left’s oft-times reflexive contrariness or divisiveness is divisive? Or something?
Any viewpoint can be so construed, and offense claimed. Politics is too rough for your sensitivites, John. Maybe you should stick to Mountaineer lamentations, and cell phone abuses.
Interesting that you’ve taken his stab at liberals and morphed it into Democrats. I don’t think he was criticising (“Respected Maverick Senator”) Zell Miller.
Cordially…
Redleg
Rove’s speech is another example of the false dichotomy that Bush, et al. love to use as rhetorical tools. Rove insists that are are but two choices- trying to “understand the terrorists” and “preparing for war” and that those choices are opposed to each other. The reality, as any sensible person can see, is that one can do both- understand why the terrorists attacked us and prepare for retaliation.
The same goes for the idea that we either invade Iraq or we appease Iraq (i.e., continue the course of containment). Any thoughtful person can see that there are more than two options and that in fact there are a range of options in between maintaining containment and all-out-invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Bush et al. love the false dichotomy as a way of framing the debate. It makes it so much easier to say “if you agree with us you are right and if you disagree you are wrong.” “And furthermore if you disagree with us, you are un-American, treasonous and love the terrorists.”
Any person why buys the simplistic rhetoric of Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rummy, is either a fool or is deluded. These issues are complex and don’t have simple solutions and shouldn’t be framed so simply.
Darrell
You are simply lying to yourself if you try to claim otherwise
I see, there can be no honest disagreement with your opinion. How thoughtful and open-minded of you John. On one hand we have Sen. Durbin comparing the behavior of some of our troops with some of the most heinous mass murdering regimes in history.
But John Cole dishonestly distorts the argument to this dishonest straw man sh*t:
“he did not call our soldiers Nazis.”.
You’re right, he did not call our soldiers Nazis, but he most definitely compared their actions to Pol Pot, Nazis and Stalin. No matter how much you try JC, you are ‘simply lying to yourself if you try to claim otherwise.
Tim F
It seems clear that a number of our commenters here are simply unreachable. Maybe it’s the infallible Leader Cult that’s developed around Bush. Could be the victimization complex that every right-winger cherishes and nurtures at every opportunity. Whatever. You will never convince them that Atta was in the USA when they think he was in Prague, you will never get acrooss the idea that real and widespread detainee torture took place, and they will never accept that Rove is a poisonous and damaging influence in US government. As long as some internet rumor floats around somewhere supporting what they want to believe they’ll go on believing it.
Rick
It seems clear that a number of our commenters here are simply unreachable.
Tim,
Well, we have argreement! But you go straight downhill from there, with that pot/kettle stuff and all.
Cordially…
Tim F
I’d expect no less, my peripatetic friend.
Jaybird
The problem with the opposition is that every single member of the other side is either deceived, insane, or evil.
I wish that their side was one that an informed, intelligent, decent person could take (I wish the people that agreed with me were informed, intelligent, and decent!) but they are not. At best they are only two of the three.
You have no idea how much it saddens me to have to have posted this.
p.lukasiak
the only question there is with regard to Rove’s statement is whether he is stupid enough to actually believe what he said, or venal and corrupt enough to deliberately poison public discourse in that fashion.
And I’m not ever sure which is worse for America — but regardless of whether he is unutterably corrupt or as stupid as your average wingnut, he has no place being in the White House.
74sel
As a liberal who lost a friend in the WTC attacks, who supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and who even defended our Iraq policy until it became obvious how badly the administration had bungled things, I just want to say thanks to John Cole, for putting common sense and decency ahead of party-line rhetoric in pointing out the obvious: we all were profoundly changed by 9/11 and anyone who exploits those attacks for political gain is doing the devil’s work.
Also, to Rove, Delay, et al, along with their apologists on this blog and everywhere else on the internet: I have one thing to say to you, and it starts with “fuck” and ends with “off.”
Darrell
Maybe it’s the infallible Leader Cult that’s developed around Bush.
I love how leftists surround themselves with these cartoonish stereotypes of those with whom they disagree. Much easier I suppose, then trying to defend the merits of their kooky positions such as:
you will never get acrooss the idea that real and widespread detainee torture took place
Don’t ask a leftist to back up such positions, widespread detainee torture and all.. they can’t. So instead they blather incoherently over “infallible Leader cults..”. Much more comfortable for them than to deal with actual facts and realities
Rick
ommon sense and decency ahead of party-line rhetoric in pointing out the obvious: we all were profoundly changed by 9/11 and anyone who exploits those attacks for political gain is doing the devil’s work.
Please detail the exploitation. Rove made a liberal/conervative counterpoint generalization. But “exploitation?”
Cordially…
Kimmitt
I see, there can be no honest disagreement with your opinion.
There’s honest disagreement, but Mr. Cole has correctly identified the source of the divergence in opinion.
ppgaz
Rick, you can save a lot of time by just posting this, over and over:
Tut, tut.
Rick
ppgaz,
But that would get the question across, now will it? As far as that goes, John Cole would save the wear on this keyboard by doing the same.
But thanks for watching my six!
Cordially…
Darrell
As a liberal who lost a friend in the WTC attacks, who supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and who even defended our Iraq policy until it became obvious how badly the administration had bungled things
Sincere question 74sel, if you really did support the invasion of Iraq as you claim, what “bungling” caused you to change your position? Do you acknowledge that removal of a mass murdering whackjob like Saddam, resulting in free elections is a great thing? A really great thing. Not saying that any criticism is off limits, but there would have to be solid evidence of damn severe “bungling” for me to withdraw support of what we are doing and what we have done in Iraq.
Can you elaborate your position further, or do you feel more comfortable with name calling?
Mike S
Maybe the new liberal Tacitus can help with some of the bungling.
Ridiculous. It is completely accurate. To say that “the argument that we needed more troops on the ground has some merit” is like saying that Barbarossa was a strategic misstep: it’s a euphemism for the cardinal mistake (in this case, coupled with a lack of meaningful postwar planning) of the war. Incompetence has been the very hallmark of the war’s political and strategic (as opposed to operational and tactical, which has been oft-brilliant) execution.
I won’t tell you I’m unbiased: I have friends who are telling me what it’s like there, and what they are having to face. My friend Kim Hampton, an only daughter, was shot down and killed over Fallujah, in no small part because the strategic decision was then in effect to allow that wretched town to be an insurgent haven. My OBC commander Eric Paliwoda is dead of shrapnel to the heart, because there wasn’t manpower around Baqubah to run enough patrols to keep the mortar teams away.
Rick
But Tacitus was dead wrong about Schiavo, so let’s keep our heads on straight.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
Tacitus is a former military officer, not a former physician. This may be relevant when evaluating his positions.
Darrell
Regarding the decision to not crack down on Fallujah earlier, the rationale was like this: local Iraqi leaders and Iraqi forces said they could handle the problem themselves without Marine’s shooting up the place. Marine commanders themselves recommended that a’hearts and minds’ approach be given a chance, although once ordered into battle, they didn’t like handing it over to the local Iraqi forces. Now in hindsight, we know that the local leaders couldn’t/wouldn’t take care of the problem. But it certainly seems reasonable to have taken the chance at that time. Had it worked out, local good guys would have been empowered and lives would have been saved. A reasonable calculated risk at the time
I fail to see how this is evidence of severe bungling.
ppgaz
Darrell, you are nothing. I mean, you are nothing if not consistent, with those cut-paste GOP talking points.
Ah yes, the Saddam as Mass Murderer defense.
Putting aside the fact that you obviously used it to deflect from your failure to address the point you were, uh, addressing …..
Was Saddam a mass murderer when your (Republican) government was doing enthusiastic business with him? I’m just asking.
Was the Shah of Iran a mass murderer when your government was not only doing enthusiastic business with him, but regularly having him over for state dinners in the East Room?
When did the US adopt a zero-tolerance policy against Mass Murderers? When we decided to invade North Korea? When we are wishing we could invade Iran, but don’t have the military resources to do it with because we are busy spreading democracy in Iraq?
Last but not least, if Saddam as Mass Murderer – He’s Gotta Go was such a compelling idea, why did your government have to pimp nonexistent WMD’s, faux deference to UN diplomacy, nonexistent connections to 9-11, and a trumped-up but long-forgotten “nuclear threat” in order to sell its war? Why didn’t your government trust the people to just look at Saddam the Mass Murderer and give its support to taking him out? In 2000? In early 2001? For that matter, in 1991?
Darrell
Was Saddam a mass murderer when your (Republican) government was doing enthusiastic business with him?
Evidence that a Republican govt was doing “enthusiastic” business with Saddam after his use of WMD’s? Oh right, there is none. You’re a half-witted hack ppgaz
Was the Shah of Iran a mass murderer when your government was not only doing enthusiastic business with him, but regularly having him over for state dinners in the East Room?
The Shah was not perfect, but was angelic in comparsion to his successor Ayatollah and the mullah regime. Again, you a dim-witted hack
Why didn’t your government trust the people to just look at Saddam the Mass Murderer and give its support to taking him out?
After Gulf War I, Saddam brutally repressed uprisings resulting in the mass murder of tens of thousands. Only the stupidest of the stupid believe that an internal uprising would have removed Saddam
ppgaz
Wrong, Darrell. Hussein was a known despot and murderer long before Gulf War I. Or maybe you forgot King George the First’s impassioned speeches BEFORE that war telling us that this Saddam guy was the next Hitler? Using those words, Darrell.
Did Saddam become the next Hitler only after we became his butt buddy?
What happened, Darrell? What changed?
Darrell
Textbook example of a straw man:
“Wrong, Darrell. Hussein was a known despot and murderer long before Gulf War I”
I never said otherwise. So your point would be..?? Still waiting for evidence of all that “enthusiastic” business we were doing with Saddam
Mark Borok
We got rid of Saddam Hussein the mass murderer and (through our incompetence) replaced him with a mass of regular murderers. But I guess it doesn’t matter how many innocent Iraqis are killed, so long as their deaths aren’t caused by Saddam Hussein.
If you launch a war, you are responsible for the consequences, both intentional and non-.
Darrell
We got rid of Saddam Hussein the mass murderer and (through our incompetence) replaced him with a mass of regular murderers. But I guess it doesn’t matter how many innocent Iraqis are killed, so long as their deaths aren’t caused by Saddam Hussein.
Yes, eevil US, taking out a mass murdering lunatic like Saddam. I can tell you are *sincerely* concerned with the deaths of innocent Iraqis
p.lukasiak
Regarding the decision to not crack down on Fallujah earlier, the rationale was like this:
you seem to be forgetting the “timing” issue…. Bush didn’t want to take Fallujah until after the November 2004 elections, because he was afraid that there would be too many american casualties. As a result, there was no element of surprise whatsoever, and just about all of the “bad guys” who had gathered in Fallujah dispersed, and the “liberation” of Fallujah was accompanied by increasing attacks throughout the countryside….
Darrell
Bush didn’t want to take Fallujah until after the November 2004 elections, because he was afraid that there would be too many american casualties
Because there can be no other logical explanation, right? It’s always interesting to get a peek into the deluded imaginations of the left
ppgaz
Gee, I dunno, Darrell. Might have been before, during, or after the day in 1983 when this photo was taken?
Rummy Loves Saddam
Before, during or after the US began selling, uh, “dual use” material to Iraq to support the latter’s campaign and defenses against Iran?
You tell me.
Andrei
“Yes, eevil US, taking out a mass murdering lunatic like Saddam. I can tell you are *sincerely* concerned with the deaths of innocent Iraqis.”
From here on out, I won’t believe a word Darrell says until he quits his job to go fight the good fight in the desert of Iraq. Outside of that, it’s all bullshit.
In fact, at this stage of the game, almost 3 years into this thing, I’m inclined to tell all pro-war supporters to fuck off until they drop what they are doing and go put their lives on the line for their beliefs. And if you’re too old to fight, then send your kids.
Think how fast we could get out of this seemingly endless war if the 51% of the country who voted to keep Bush actually did more than pull a voting lever? If I’m going to be wrong about the war, can we at least please get this crap done sooner so we can all go back to yelling at each about federal health care?
James Emerson
Atually Darrell…when has the Bush administration ever ventured beyond the political calculus for it’s policies?
In other words, when has the calculation benefitted America at the expense of his base?
Mike S
Maybe instead of arguing whether we supported Saddam, we did, or any other despotic regime it would be better to think about the underlying issues. Is it time to stop thinking along the lines of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend?”
It’s a tough question because there is a very good argument for it since we will always need allies. Is there any doubt that if we had not allied with Russia in WWII there most likely would have been a different outcome? And behonest, if Saddam hadn’t kept Iran occupied how much more of a threat would they have been.
But the flip side is that we regularly end up fighting those very allies at some point down the road. Right now we are backing a regime in Uzbec. that boils it’s political enemies. Is that regime worh calling a “good friend” when chances are that it’s people will overthrow it at some point like Iran? Will those people have any reason to look kindly on us?
It’s a tough question with no pat answers. Either side has valid pluses and minuses. But this one aint partisan because it has been policy for ages and practiced by both parties when in power.
I think it’s stupid to bitch about Reagan/Bush backing Saddam. It was standard policy and done for a good reason. But it’s not stupid to at least give the policy another look.
Darrell
From here on out, I won’t believe a word Darrell says until he quits his job to go fight the good fight in the desert of Iraq. Outside of that, it’s all bullshit.
I’m perfectly willing to play by Andrei’s standards. Let’s let the military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan vote on the war, then abide by their choice.
Fair enough, jackass?
Far North
I would hope that if my party controlled the House, Senate and the Presidency, there would be enough of us with enough integrity to criticize our leaders when it becomes warranted. I commend John Cole for calling out those in his party as they utter absolute nonsense, such as Karl Rove. Cole called out Rove as he called out Durbin.
It’s obvious that many posters here feel that their leader, Mr Bush, and all his underlings are infallible and can do no wrong. These folks feel that they are not only entitled to their own opinion, but they are also entitled to their own set of facts. It’s easy to follow their pattern whenever a criticism of this administration is put forth. First it’s deny, then it excuse and justify. Finally, these loyalalist attack those with whom they disagree. These folks remind me of the Islamist extremists in that neither group can accept criticism of itself.
I hope too many Americans have not yet crossed into this mindset.
Once again, I applaud Cole for calling out his party leaders when they are deserving.
ppgaz
You’re right, Darrell. We’re all jackasses. Donkeys, you know.
You know, those Bell Helicopters we sold Saddam back in the 1980’s were probably for sightseeing. Yes, that’s it. You know how those mass murderers love their sightseeing.
Darrell
Think how fast we could get out of this seemingly endless war if the 51% of the country who voted to keep Bush actually did more than pull a voting lever?
Helloo Andrei, where are you? Using your own logic here, how about letting the active military vote then abide by their decision? After all, unlike you and I, they are the ones actually ‘putting their lives on the line’ is what you’ve said. We can all agree on that point. So how bout it?
ppgaz
That’s a great idea, Darrell! Drastic Gerrymandering!
I see a place for you in government …..
Floyd McWilliams
So because Durbin was sufficiently passive-aggressive, he gets a pass for comparing Camp X-Ray guards to the Khmer Rouge — excuse me, comparing the actions of those guards to genocidal Commies. (Let me know what happens when you go into a bar and tell someone that their face brings to mind the appearance of someone as ugly as a pig.) But you have no problem describing Rove as having “hinted liberals are triators.”
Who are you, and what have you done with John Cole?
And my Lord, what a fine bunch of commenters you have! It’s heartening how many liberals support the war on terror — though less heartening that they couldn’t be bothered to do anything about the aforementioned Durbin when he slandered Gitmo guards, and only got agitated when it was their own political oxe that was gored.
I’m glad to see that “I was a card-carrying supporter of Republicans until they went too far” is still in the liberal playbook.
So “John,” do you get a bounty of five bucks for each moonbat?
Floyd McWilliams
So because Durbin was sufficiently passive-aggressive, he gets a pass for comparing Camp X-Ray guards to the Khmer Rouge — excuse me, comparing the actions of those guards to genocidal Commies. (Let me know what happens when you go into a bar and tell someone that their face brings to mind the appearance of someone as ugly as a pig.) But you have no problem describing Rove as having “hinted liberals are triators.”
Who are you, and what have you done with John Cole?
And my Lord, what a fine bunch of commenters you have! It’s heartening how many liberals support the war on terror — though less heartening that they couldn’t be bothered to do anything about the aforementioned Durbin when he slandered Gitmo guards, and only got agitated when it was their own political oxe that was gored.
I’m glad to see that “I was a card-carrying supporter of Republicans until they went too far” is still in the liberal playbook.
So “John,” do you get a bounty of five bucks for each moonbat?
Floyd McWilliams
Sorry about the double post. The comment popup does not refresh the full comment list; it displays an MT error from “sprintf.”
Mike S
No wonder we have idiots representing us in office. Idiots vote for them.
Doug
Ah, but you see, the base believes they are America!
ppgaz
Wrong, Floyd. Durbin slandered nobody. That’s a deliberately deceptive characterization. Read his entire speech. What he said was the opposite of what you suggest: We’re better than this stuff, and we need leadership and policies that prevent this from happening.
Your insistence otherwise notwithstanding. His entire speech is out there for anyone to read and judge for themselves.
Far North
McFloyd, anybody home? McFloyd?
Sojourner
“how about letting the active military vote then abide by their decision?”
This is pretty close to what is going to happen. The military votes with their feet by deciding whether they will re-enlist. Of course, we can’t say for sure just yet because so many of them are still there because of stop loss. But it sure doesn’t look promising for the pro-war crowd. But I’m confident they’ll pick up the slack by enlisting themselves.
Yeh, right, uh huh.
Darrell
The military votes with their feet by deciding whether they will re-enlist. Of course, we can’t say for sure just yet because so many of them are still there because of stop loss.
Then we can agree that the military has already ‘voted’ with record re-enlistment rates of active military personnel. Stop loss does not apply to soldiers in active units already deployed.
David
Here’s a little information on the US doing business with Iraq AFTER he became a “mass murderer”.
“Iraq’s different”, is how Cheney put it, when pressed about it.
The fact that a US company was working with the Iraqi murderer at a time when the UN was also attemtping to disarm him…
Gee. Could that be construed as a bad thing?
I wonder.
What do you think Darrel?
Sojourner
Record enlistment but not for reasons one might think:
This administration “wins” only through bullying and threats. But I guess that meets your definition of the winning team.
David
Here’s a little information on the US doing business with Iraq AFTER he became a “mass murderer”.
“Iraq’s different”, is how Cheney put it, when pressed about it.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
The fact that a US company, led by the current VP, was working with the Iraqi mass murderer at a time when the UN was also attemtping to disarm him…
Gee. Could that be construed as a bad thing?
I wonder.
What do you think Darrel?
Darrell
Floyd, I agree, it’s interesting to watch the contorted logic John Cole and his defenders have to use in order to condemn Karl Rove, while defending and minimizing the outrageous comparisons made by Sen. Durbin, who compared, as you correctly described, camp X-Ray guards to the Khmer Rouge and Klaus Barbie. As Mr. Cole is often sensible, I’m giving weight to your theory of a moonbat bounty
Darrell
The fact that a US company was working with the Iraqi murderer at a time when the UN was also attemtping to disarm him…
Hello David. Were Cheneyburton contracts supplying Saddam with arms as you suggest? No?
ARROW
I was beginning to think that Emperor Soros had converted him to the dark side.
p.lukasiak
Then we can agree that the military has already ‘voted’ with record re-enlistment rates of active military personnel. Stop loss does not apply to soldiers in active units already deployed.
here’s a clue for you. Under United States law, the president can prevent any member of the active duty armed forces from leaving if there is a national security emergency.
And stop loss orders do apply to active duty military personnel — they don’t apply to individuals who are deployed in a war zone, because in general “individuals” are not deployed, units are deployed, and until that unit returns home, it doesn’t matter if someone’s enlistment is up, they (generally) stay with their unit (there are exceptions, of course — in the military, there are almost always exceptions.)
Darrell
This administration “wins” only through bullying and threats. But I guess that meets your definition of the winning team.
Let me see if I understand the big picture here Soj. On one hand, active military deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ones with the most 1st hand experience, are re-enlisting at record rates. They are, as you suggested, ‘voting with their feet’ so to speak.
Your only response is to cite an article about two soldiers in a unit in Colorado which was not deployed overseas claiming they were threatened to be sent to Iraq if they didn’t re-enlist. Regarding such claims: “An Army spokesmen denied, however, that soldiers who don’t re-enlist with the brigade were threatened”
So we have re-enlistment rates at all time highs, and all you have is a disputed claim that two soldiers were told they might be sent to Iraq. I’m sorry, but I’m having difficulty following your moonbat logic here.
Mike S
Darrell calls John contorted but then finds a way to shove his head into his butt to pull out David suggesting that Halliburton was selling arms to Iraq.
Cirque d Solei could find work for Darrell.
Darrell
Darrell calls John contorted but then finds a way to shove his head into his butt to pull out David suggesting that Halliburton was selling arms to Iraq.
I assume you missed this statement from David:
The fact that a US company was working with the Iraqi murderer at a time when the UN was also attemtping to disarm him…
but thanks for playing Mike
Mike S
Oh Snap! He inceted his head again and pulled out the same thing.
What an idiot. Hewy Hewitt would be damn proud.
Stormy70
It seems clear that a number of our commenters here are simply unreachable.
This applies across the board.
Maybe it’s the infallible Leader Cult that’s developed around Bush.
I am still waiting for my lapel pin.
You guys will have to do alot better than this to get me excised over Rove’s remarks. He certainly has you guys on the defensive.
Mike S had a great post up there about alliances, and their necessity at certain times in history. He said it all for me.
ARROW
“The fact that a US company was working with the Iraqi murderer at a time when the UN was also attemtping to disarm him…”
Darrell, I’m going to have to agree with Mike S on this one. I don’t think David was saying that Haliburton was selling arms.
The issue is how could Cheney allow two of the joint ventures of which Haliburton was a joint owner (49% ownership in one and 51% in another) do $73 million of business (presumably oil field equipment, pumps, etc) with Iraq. Especially when the U.N. was trying to disarm Iraq.
Even though Cheney claimed he had no direct knowledge of these transactions, this is a heinous act. And is proof of his direct dealings with the mass murderer , Sadaam Hussein.
ARROW
Somewhere along the line, “liberals” are going to have to own up to their own beliefs. I think a large part of the liberal population out there is anti-war and is orieted toward global “human rights.” Am I wrong?
Darrell
Even though Cheney claimed he had no direct knowledge of these transactions, this is a heinous act. And is proof of his direct dealings with the mass murderer , Sadaam Hussein
A “heinous” act? You mean like comparisons of our troops’ behavious to heinous regimes like the Khmer Rouge? Ok, I got off topic. But ‘heinous’ is not the word that jumps to mind when I think about selling oilfield replacement parts to Saddam’s regime, a transaction which by all accounts was completely legal, if morally questionable. As for Cheney’s “direct dealings”, the article clearly states it was done through 3rd party subsidiaries, although the directness of it really doesn’t make it wrong or right.
Presumably, you feel that private companies trying to sell widgets, beverages, and/or furniture to the repressive and murderous Iranian mullahs, or Fidel Castro are also “heinous”? I’m not trying to be a smartass, I’m asking for honest consistency in the criticisms
David emphasized the ‘during disarmament’ process, which suggested to me, that Halliburton had done something to interfere with that disarmament. Otherwise, why mention it at all?
ARROW
Darrell:
I was being a little sarcastic. I should have put LOL after my comments, I guess.
I don’t think what Haliburton did was any big deal, especially when you consider that these joint ventures were in France and not completely under his control.
I don’t recall, did the U.N. make in progress in its attempts to disarm Saddam? Or were they too busy raking in billions in administrative fees from Sadaam’s bribes to his buddies in France and other places.
Darrell
Ok Arrow, looks like you caught me flat footed on that one.. And regarding liberals, my big beef with them are their moral equivalencies, “Why do they hate us?” type comments after 9/11 and their confidence in the UN and ‘world opinion’. Some libs say their first reaction was to bomb the bastards and I believe them. It’s just that I don’t believe such ‘war mongering’ sentiments would have been welcomed in a majority of liberal circles.
ppgaz
Did the UN make progress, ARROWRove?
Uh, well, it depends on whether you agree with the exhaustive assessments of his armaments made hence. 9-11 Commission? You’ve read it, of course. I’m sorry, where are the WMDs, again? Where is the nuclear development facility, again? What is the consensus about Saddam’s weapons programs, again? Oh, I’m sorry, it seems to be that he essentially DIDN’T HAVE ANY.
Did the UN make progress? Let me answer you this way: Who cares? The fact is, Hussein had no motive or desire to mount expensive weapons programs. He was never any military threat of any consequence. His motives and desires were all centered around one and only one thing: Stealing his country’s wealth and putting it into the pockets of himself, his family, and his cronies. That’s it. Hussein was nothing but a large-scale mobster. He had neither the will, nor the need, nor the means to be a particular military threat to anything bigger than, say, Disney World. Or Kuwait, which was probably less well defended than Disney World when he went in there over a territorial dispute that probably goes back 1000 years, a dispute which was only exacerbated by the clumsy nation-building that the British tried 80 years ago.
How big a threat was Hussein to the United States?
I can answer you in two words: Mission Accomplished.
Hussein’s mighty military machine rolled over with scarecly more than a whimper. Why is that, ARROW? Because he had no damned military machine. Even if he had had the WMD’s he’d have had no effective way to employ them.
Did the UN make progress? I dunno. Is the moon made out of green cheese? Well, it is in the We Don’t Need No Stinking Scientists world of Bushworld, I suppose.
Sojourner
“So we have re-enlistment rates at all time highs, and all you have is a disputed claim that two soldiers were told they might be sent to Iraq. I’m sorry, but I’m having difficulty following your moonbat logic here.”
I’m sorry, Darrell. I forgot your cognitive limitations. Please allow me to explain.
At least some soldiers are being made the following offer:
Re-enlist and be sent somewhere other than Iraq or don’t re-enlist and go directly to Iraq. And, of course with the stop loss policy, that could translate into a really long stay in Iraq. Which would you prefer? Do you think that might influence the re-enlistment numbers?
Tim F
Somewhere along the line, “liberals” are going to have to own up to their own beliefs. I think a large part of the liberal population out there is anti-war and is orieted toward global “human rights.” Am I wrong?
I was hoping for this reply. “Liberals” have a number of beliefs that don’t hold up to daylight. Many even contradict each other, since “liberal” as a pejorative catchphrase describes a dizzying variety of people.
I’ve laid out three things that “conservatives” who continue to support Bush cannot allow themselves to believe. Torture is one, Atta in Prague is another and Rove’s unique poisonousness is a third. I could repeat John Cole’s yoeman work of laying out the case for torture for example but it won’t do a lick of good. That light must not be allowed in.
Global ‘human rights’ makes little sense as a cherished, but false myth. You could easily stretch such a vague concept into any of a dozen straw-man arguements. Something more specific, perhaps?
ARROW
Darrell, in other comments on this site I have as much as repeated your comments. My comment about “liberals” owning up to their beliefs was to say that a large part of them do hold anti-war and global human rights beliefs in a position that is superior to their beliefs in the good that America is doing in the war on terror. That is not to say they are “traitors”…
ppgaz
There’s a difference between a normal and healthy desire for revenge, Darrell, and “war mongering.”
Not surprising that you conflate the two. Especially since the former was manipulated into an excuse for the latter by your potatoheads in DC. AFter 9-11, all Americans were mad as hell at OBL .. well, except for Pat Robertson, who blamed gays.
And mad as hell is what we should be. It’s what we do with that outrage that counts. Blast into Afghanistan and try to get OBL? You betcha. If I weren’t old and high maintenance, I’d have gone over there myself to shoot the SOB. I’m a decent marksman. I’d have no compunctions about capping the bastard.
But Iraq? Forget blogworld, Darrell, the great middle of American voters has figured that one out. It’s a frigging boondoggle, but not one that we can walk away from. Too late for that.
Tim F
The sentence ended in an ellipse. Funny that.
ARROW
peepeegas
How many of the world’s intelligence agencies agreed with back in the run up to Iraq? How do YOU know he didn’t have WMD? It’s clear he had them at one time, he used them on the Iranians and his own people. If the world didn’t think he had them, why was the U.N. doing their smoke and mirrors routine just prior to the U.S. going into Iraq instead of making your argument?
It’s clear he had the scientific know-how, the opportunity, etc., to make them, even if he didn’t have large quantities available. How much WMD does it take to wipe out a million people in NYC, or some other metropolis?
Tim F
As long as we’re playing Rhetorical Question, why I wonder did Dick Cheney spend such an unprecedented amount of time at CIA HQ in teh runup to war? I doubt it’s because the White House squash courts were busy. One would think that if the CIA was so fired-up about Saddam’s big bad theoretical arsenal he could’ve saved the trips. If one takes the word of our own analysts, which I know you won’t, one could say that even our own intelligence agency wasn’t so hot on the whole Saddam WMD argument and a little “moral support” was needed to bring them around.
Other intelligence agencies…Italy’s CIA-equivalent cooked up the ‘Niger yellowcake’ forgeries. Maybe that counts? Britian had a bit of a scandal or three surrounding cooked intelligence as well. Otherwise I’m drawing a blank.
Darrell
TimF wrote: I’ve laid out three things that “conservatives” who continue to support Bush cannot allow themselves to believe. Torture is one, Atta in Prague is another and Rove’s unique poisonousness is a third. I could repeat John Cole’s yoeman work of laying out the case for torture for example but it won’t do a lick of good. That light must not be allowed in.
As you have pointed out re liberals, “conservatives” have a number of beliefs that don’t hold up to daylight. Many even contradict each other, since “conservative” as a pejorative catchphrase describes a dizzying variety of people.
I know of no conservatives who have staked their absolute faith in Atta being Prague, but beat on that straw man as long as it makes you feel better. I have a big problem with your position, which seems to be widely held on the left, that “widespread detainee torture took place”. I think that particular claim, without backup, amounts to a smear. You got a case to make that “torture” is “widespread”, then you’ll need to define torture, define widespread, and make your argument, because I know that patriotic leftists such as yourself would never smear our military without basis, right?
As for Rove being “uniquely poisonous”, in the context of Sen. Kennedy’s remarks that the Iraq war was nothing but a “fraud cooked up in Texas”, Cynthia McKinney’s and Hillary’s suggestions that Bush knew about 9/11, and Durbin’s outrageous comparison of US military prison guards to the Khmer Rouge.. in light of those statements from Dems, I think you need to get a grip on honesty and reality
Darrell
why I wonder did Dick Cheney spend such an unprecedented amount of time at CIA HQ in teh runup to war?
when you spend time dwelling on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories like that one, you *know* that you’re a kook
ARROW
“Global ‘human rights’ makes little sense as a cherished, but false myth. You could easily stretch such a vague concept into any of a dozen straw-man arguements. Something more specific, perhaps?”
How about outrage for the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, based on unsubstantiated memos and claims and to the detriment of the U.S. military? How about the constant outrage over the “torture” at Abu Ghraib, but very little outrage at the beheadings at the hands of “insurgents.” How about the use of the word insurgent to describe Arab terrorism?
Tim F
The only case of the three that I will bother defending is Atta in Prague, since John has done more work on torture and Rove than I either could do or would want to do.
“Conservatives” here and virtually everywhere that I have found conservatives list Atta in Prague and Zarqawi as the two data points supporting the claim that Iraq had jack to do with the war on terror. Without those two, and Abu Nidal if you count fat retirees, all that’s left is the speculative case that Iraq might have shared his theoretical WMDs with a theoretical terrorist. Because you know, he was crazy. A weak argument becomes a laughable one.
So, either one defends those data points or else Iraq had nothing to do with the GWoT. If there’s an alternative I’d be eager to hear it.
ppgaz
Sorry to disappoint you, ARROWtonowhere.
I said in 1990 that Saddam Hussein was no threat the United States. He wasn’t. I said it in 2002. He wasn’t.
He wasn’t Hitler, as George the Elder said, right after we were finished using him as an ally. He wasn’t out to dominate the Arab world. He wasn’t crazy. He wasn’t mad. He was a sly thief, basically as I said, a mob boss on a grand scale. He was pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars, and wouldn’t have done anything to disrupt his racket. Anything.
I didn’t invent this idea last week. I knew it 14 years ago.
As for intelligence communities? One, we weren’t being told the truth about our own intelligence. I have no interest in your lectures on the subject now. If they don’t have the decency and the balls to tell me the truth, gotta tell ya, I don’t give a flying fig what they say about anything. When intelligence becomes just another appliance for political manipulation, then I reject it. I don’t need yet another onslaught of institutional lying and deceiving — I’m an American, and I have Congress for that.
arnott
should be filed under republican/conservative stupidity. :)
arnott
should be filed under republican/conservative stupidity. :)
arnott
should be filed under republican/conservative stupidity. :)
Sojourner
Let’s measure the degree of certainty held by these other individuals and countries that supposedly believed that there were WMD. Clinton didn’t start a war in Iraq. He chose to send over a bomb here and there. Rather a huge difference, don’t cha think?
The European countries, with the exception of England, wanted to give the UN inspectors more time to look for evidence. Presumably this would not have been a problem except in the event that there was an imminent threat. The problem, of course, is that the Bushies are now claiming that they never said there was an imminent threat. Which begs the question of why there was such a rush to war.
ppgooding
Uh, yes Darrell.. Downright dizzying.
Tim F
link
The article strangely reports on the Senate Committee finding ‘no pressure,’ which is strange because the question of whether the WH applied undue pressure was to be addressed in a separate report, due after the election. That follow-up, surprise!, was canceled after the election.
Tim F
We didn’t elect the insurgents. Having lived through the Clinton administration you might remember the feeling of holding your elected government responsible even though somebody somewhere might have done something as bad or worse.
Darrell
The only case of the three that I will bother defending is Atta in Prague, since John has done more work on torture and Rove than I either could do or would want to do
Coward. You made your smears, now you’re hiding under mommy’s skirt. John Cole has expressed concerns over allegations of torture, but I’ve NEVER read that he’s claimed that “torture” was “widespread”, so no, John Cole has not done your work on that point. Nor has Cole ever stated to my knowledge that Rove is “uniquely poisonous”. In fact to the contrary, JC has gone overboard pointing out excesses on both sides, cutting the legs out of any argument that Rove is “uniquely poisonous”
Conservatives “hear and everywhere believe”.. On what basis do you make that horsesh*t claim? I don’t stake my belief on it. Maybe Atta was in Prague, maybe not. Saddam was giving money to the families of suicide bombers and as Salman pak has firmly established, there was an active terrorist training camp in Iraq.
But you know what? Even those links don’t make the full justification. After 9/11, here we have sociopathic dictator with known unaccounted for WMD’s. Hell, Iraq had ADMITTED to having 3.9 tons of Vx + tons of weaponized chems before kicking out inspectors, his 532nd violation of his ’91 terms of surrender
So after 9/11, we are going to let a nutcase like Saddam, with tons of KNOWN WMD’s, continue to get away with refusals to show evidence of destruction of said known WMDS, shoot at our planes, etc, continuing to flaunt his original terms of surrender. BTW, any violation of his 91 terms of surrender = full justification to resume hostilies. Period. The only time Saddam ever cooperated with the UN was when a gun was pointed at his head, so continuation of UN weapons inspection was not realistically feasible.
yeah, Saddam could be trusted right?
Tim F
Aaaand a third and last consecutive post. It’s saturday, guys. Gout outside and yell at the neighbor’s kids or something.
That is exactly right. My entire phrasing was, “conservatives who continue to support Bush.” Unless this is North Korea onre can presumably be a conservative and be disappointed in their Leader.
ARROW
“If they don’t have the decency and the balls to tell me the truth, gotta tell ya, I don’t give a flying fig what they say about anything.”
I’m sure the feelings are mutual. As if you would know the truth! Were you a part of the process, or did you dream up your truth up while you were in a stupor, playing pivot man for your local circle jerk. Did the 9/11 report conclude that the President lied? NO! Do you remember the testimony of the CIA Director (a Clinton appointee)?
Josh
Media bias isn’t really something new, and it doesn’t just switch on and off depending on the subject of the story. That is why media bias is so repellant.
ARROW
“We didn’t elect the insurgents.”
What the hell does that have to do with anything. We didn’t elect the U.S. soldiers that were found guilty of the “torture,” either.
Why didn’t you address my point about the “torture” at Gitmo? About giving preference to the human rights of those terrorists to the detriment of the U.S. military? That’s right, you should go out and yell at the neighbors kids, or something.
John Cole
Let’s nip something in the bud here (although that may be too late, this being the 95th comment and all.
It isn’t media bias when the media refuses to report on wholesale efforts by one party to propagandaize, but does report when one of the more formidable leaders of a party essentially calls a sizable portion of the country traitors.
Even acknowledging that- the MEDIA DID WIDELY REPORT THE DURBIN comments.
How do I know- I asked my mom, and she had an opinion on it. She watches Fox Sports Pittsburgh and ESPN. That is it. If she had an opinion on Durbin’s remarks, it was widely covered.
So let’s stop with the silliness of media bias, at least in this case.
carot
“He created a world with two lines of thought- one conservative, one liberal. The conservative position just so happened to be the one he thought was right, the one he aligned with the GOP, and the positions advocated by this Republican administration.”
Rove didn’t create this, this has been the evolution of political philosophy for hundreds if not thousands of years. Rove is very good at criticising left wing philosophy, and implying that if there are some things Liberals are not competent in, like national defense then they are not fit to govern.
The problem with Liberals is they have no philosophers, only pragmatists, so they don’t fight back in this philosophical debate. They just call the Conservatives lazy, mean, and evil.
Rove is doing nothing wrong, he is just an idealist who believes in Conservatism, every country has people like him. The problem is he has no counterpart who believes in Liberalism to solve the world’s problems.
Thi is a strange situation since the country had so many Liberal philosophers in the past, that’s how things like social security got built. All the other democracies in the world have no trouble espousing Liberal philosphy and applying it with some success, even in national defense.
For some reason though this generation is congenitally incapable of criticising conservatism in general. I think this even frustrates Rove who seems to be spoiling for such a debate, no such luck though.
In fact I doubt there is a single blog in the whole blogosphere that consistently criticises conservatism, except for the occasional right wing blog.
David
Interesting. Darrel plays “move the goalpost”. And, badly I might add. Darrel also makes stuff up. Badly as well.
Darrel writes: Hello David. Were Cheneyburton contracts supplying Saddam with arms as you suggest? No?
Get it right Darrel. Here is what I said:
For the record, the statement by Darrel which I was responding to was the following:
That was the topic at hand. Darrel, you said there is no evidence that a “Republican govt was doing “enthusiastic” business with Saddam after his use of WMD’s…” and I simply linked to a NewsMax article which shows that, to the contrary, there was indeed business between the US and Iraq AFTER the use of WMD’s by the Iraqi’s.
I’ll grant you, the link I supplied did not focus upon a Republican GOVERNMENT doing business with Iraq AFTER the use of WMD’s… an ommission which I will clarify.
But, at no time did I write, or imply, that the Cheneyburton contracts (were) supplying Saddam with arms. You simply made that up, Darrel. But, since you bring it up…
Let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we?
A little history:
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons.
In May of 1986, the Reagan Administration, via the Department of Commerce, approved shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. (Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994) Source.
The first known use of chemical warfare by Iraq was in 1983, when they used mustard gas against Iranian troops in the Iraq – Iran War. But, let’s not quibble. That was only mustard gas after all, right?
So, for the purpose of this discussion, we’ll use the much more well known March of 1988 attack as reference: “The Halabja attack involved multiple chemical agents — including mustard gas, and the nerve agents SARIN, TABUN and VX. Some sources report that cyanide was also used.”
Here is a list of suppliers of chemical agents to Iraq, many dating after the 1988 use of chemical weapons by the Hussein regime.
Another more comprehensive list, which establishes the same facts.
What you will note (if you bother to READ the links offered) is that many of the shipments were indeed AFTER the March 1988 attack on the Kurds, and that such shipments were approved by the REPUBLICAN administrations of Reagan and Bush I.
Here is a rundown of diplomatic affairs on these matters, which cites the following fact:
John Cole
Rhetorically, Rove created the dichotomy in the speech- that is why it is silly to say he wasn;t talking about Democrats when he said liberal and mentioned Durbin and Dean.
he wasn;t talking about a few liberals here and there- he was talking about Democrats
David
Back to the real topic… (Darrel is good at diversion too.)
Of course Rove created the dichotomy. The best way to win in the political game is to define your opposition as “evil”. It’s the most time honored part of politics!
The problem is, such action is undermining the democratic process. It’s become more important than the fucntions of government. It’s become more important than the simple civilities of being in the public service.
Rove’s statement is untrue for many reasons, which I simply won’t give credence. It’s not meant to be true or not true. It’s meant to create divisivemess. It’s meant to confirm what the faithful already think. It’s meant to demonize the opposition.
And, most importantly, it’s meant to divert the focus of the opposition from other matters.
The real reason so many left of the White House are upset isn’t because it’s a slight. It’s because they are being demonized for their beliefs, and for their ideas.
It is being intimated that an entire segment of the American public are traitors for their beliefs and politican perspective.
That’s bad mojo boys and girls.
No matter how you slice it.
Mike S
Thanks Stormy70. I guess pissing matches are more fun than acknowledging facts on both sides and debating the merits of them.
You’re killing me. The least you could have done was waited a few comments after Stormy’s. I’m old and can’t take the excitement.
Mike S
Rove is a political operative who is willing to do anything to win, including sliming his opponents with baseless smears. His belief is in winning at all costs, even his soul.
ppgaz
“I’m sure the feeling is mutual” — Arrowinmyhead
Yeah, you know what, Arrow? See, the “intelligence community” doesn’t have “feelings.” They have “responsbilities.”
I’m the citizen. I have a right to the truth. I don’t give a damn what their feelings are. They work for me. I want the truth. Period.
Write your excuses here __. If you run out of space, then, you’re out of space.
Get it?
ARROW
“I’m the citizen. I have a right to the truth. I don’t give a damn what their feelings are. They work for me. I want the truth. Period.”
So what is the “truth,” ppgaz? Is the truth that someone who runs a huge government is going to have to rely on others for analysis, information, etc., often to his detriment? Or is the truth that any President that ends up believing his intelligence agencies when he shouldn’t have is a liar?
This stuff about some intelligence analyst having information that turns out to be the “truth,” information that was not given enough weight, is just plain bullshit (even if true). The President has to rely on his intelligence agencies to boil down ALL of the information into ESTIMATES. You act as if this is a science, and not an art. Grow up!
carot
“Rhetorically, Rove created the dichotomy in the speech- that is why it is silly to say he wasn;t talking about Democrats when he said liberal and mentioned Durbin and Dean.
he wasn;t talking about a few liberals here and there- he was talking about Democrats”
Every Democratic country in the world has a dichotomy that philosophically equates to Liberalism and Conservatism. See if you can think of one, just one, that doesn’t. Every other democracy also has regular debates on the differences between these two philosphies. Delay and Rove just carry on the tradition that for example the leader of the Tories might do in the United Kingdom.
The only difference is every other democracy has a left wing party that questions the right’s philosophy and the Liberals never do. The left might think it’s a good tactic not to discuss the disadvantages of Conservatism, but they are the only politicial party in the world who believes in such a tactic. They also not coincidentally are the worst performing left wing party in the Democratic world.
Why? Because if you don’t believe the other side’s philosophy has disadvantages then you admit you have no reason to be in power. The Dems stand for nothing any more except a narrow kind of conservatism. In fact the best label for the Dems now would be Compassionate Conservatives.
carot
“Of course Rove created the dichotomy. The best way to win in the political game is to define your opposition as “evil”. It’s the most time honored part of politics!
The problem is, such action is undermining the democratic process. It’s become more important than the fucntions of government. It’s become more important than the simple civilities of being in the public service.
Rove’s statement is untrue for many reasons, which I simply won’t give credence. It’s not meant to be true or not true. It’s meant to create divisivemess. It’s meant to confirm what the faithful already think. It’s meant to demonize the opposition.”
You cab’t create dichotomy in politics, politics is dichotomy by definition. Rove doesn’t call the opposition evil, in fact Bush and Rove rarely even mention the Dems, they talk about the evils of the philosophy of Liberalism. Criticism of people, e.g. Hillary is usually based on that they are too Liberal. Sometimes of course they do try slander but that rarely works for them, like it doesn’t work for the Dems.
The Conservatives have protrayed Liberalism as perverted (in supporting Gays and pornography), evil (against Christians and religion in government), thieves (tax and spend), hypocrites (whenever Conservatives do something wrong they just say the other side does it too), etc.
So Liberals are a type of person that evolved to form the Democrats, not vice versa. Through history half the population of any country has always been definable as liberal. This is the natural target of the conservatives and it is pointless to criticise Rove for making the ancient historical arguments of Conservatism.
On the other hand Liberals characterize Conservatism as good at national defense (since they offer no alternative), has some rude people and some corruption, and that’s about it. Since they gave up criticising Conservatism they can’t mount a counter argument to Rove and DeLay except to call them nasty names and tell their own leaders to shut up every time they make a speech.
Nancy
David,
Thanks for that very informative post upthread. Appreciate the links.
On Rove, I read something interesting on the Washington Post OP/ED page. I think there is more than a little truth here.
No One to Demonize
Which is why, however perverse this may sound, the absence of an antiwar movement is proving to be a huge political problem for the Bush administration, and why the Republicans are reduced to trying to turn Dick Durbin, who criticized our policies at Guantanamo Bay, into some enemy of the people. The administration has no one to demonize. With nobody blocking the troop trains, military recruitment is collapsing of its own accord. With nobody in the streets, the occupation is being judged on its own merits.
I’ve read in several places (Redstate and Dkos) that Rove’s speech was distributed and the response prepared before Rove delivered it.
The White House sent out copies of Rove’s speech to its political appointees and friendly contacts yesterday, and Mehlman’s response to the Democrats attack on Rove had the appearance of being prepared in conjunction with the writing of the speech.
If this is true, I can only conclude that we will be hearing a lot more of this over the top rhetoric in an effort to;
1-change the subject
2-bring back the angry base
3-distract the democrats
4-further divide the country
In my view, this stategy will fail, in fact backfire. Americans know that we were all attacked on 911 and Americans don’t like anyone using 911 for political gain. The American public may not be paying close attention, but they will remember this because Rove used 911.
Sojourner
“On the other hand Liberals characterize Conservatism as good at national defense (since they offer no alternative), has some rude people and some corruption, and that’s about it. Since they gave up criticising Conservatism they can’t mount a counter argument to Rove and DeLay except to call them nasty names and tell their own leaders to shut up every time they make a speech.”
You haven’t been paying attention. Liberals do not agree that Conservatives are good at national defense. In fact, this administration has clearly made the U.S. weaker, not stronger both before and after 9/11. The reality is that a Liberal would have finished the job in Afghanistan rather than starting an unnecessary war. So it’s absurd to blame them for not having a solution to cleaning up Bush’s mess.
Conservatives have been challenged on their attempts to privatize Social Security (major windfall for Wall Street but disastrous for the people who really need SS), reduce our civil rights through the Patriot Act, gut environmental regulations, bias federally funded science by putting corporate hacks in funding decision making positions rather than real scientists, undermine the public education system through underfunded and badly thought through No Child Left Behind, placing activist judges like Brown and Owen on the bench…. And the list goes on and on.
The problem the Liberals face is the incompetence of this administration is so broad that their efforts necessarily must focus on damage control (reducing the extent of the administration’s disastrous policies) rather than proposing new ones.
ARROW
“Since they gave up criticising Conservatism they can’t mount a counter argument to Rove and DeLay except to call them nasty names and tell their own leaders to shut up every time they make a speech.”
Carot, are you British? I agree with your analysis of the Democrats. They were in power for so long, that they forgotten how to govern. Pretty much across the board, I don’t trust any of them. And I was one at a point in time.
The faux outrage over Rove’s comments is a perfect example. Had these comments been made by a liberal, they would have been considered a compliment. But in the context made, they take the position that they were made to take advantage of 9/11. Rather than elucidating what they stand for, they attempt to make the Republicans look bad. They grasp at every straw they can find to engage their base (Durbin’s comments are a good example).
The best thing that could happen to them is to completely clean house. But starting over when you stand for everything that the Republicans don’t stand for, seems to be a loser.
David
Nancy, Yes, it’s understood that Rove’s speech was dispersed beforehand. It’s common practice. Democrats do the same thing.
Of course, such practice gives the “troops” a bit of time to come up with their own information.
It was interesting to me how fast many of the conservative sites had all those neat quotes all lined up, the same quotes actually, ready to use as “proof” that Rove’s points were “true”. Of course, if you actually look at those quotes in a more factual manner, they fall apart. But, that’s the point. It’s all about the first 48 hours.
Get it out there, doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, or if it’s generalizations or not. People will believe it and incorporate it.
The goal for Rove was to reestablish the “Demorats/Liberals are Traitors” discussion. It’s diversion. It’s divisive. And, it mobilizes the faithful in thier common hatred of the opposition. It also mobilzes the opposition to focus on an attack that has nothing to do with anything, so they are unable to unify and focus on important matters.
It was an impressive offensive move by Rove. Which nearly everyone on the left and right fell for…
Emotional attack is the strongest weapon in the propaganda arsenal. It serves the dual purpose of affecting both the opposition and the true believers, albeit in different ways.
As said before, it’s not condusive to the democratic process. It degrades it.
A case could be made that such practices, being that they weaken the democratic process, also weaken the state, and therefore the entire country.
I happen to be one of those persons. And, I apply it to both sides.
ARROW
“The reality is that a Liberal would have finished the job in Afghanistan rather than starting an unnecessary war. So it’s absurd to blame them for not having a solution to cleaning up Bush’s mess.”
Do you actually believe that killing every Taliban soldier and killing OBL and all of his lieutenants would actually end the war on terror? The problem is ignorance.
The dictatorships in the Middle East control the press and spread ignorance to the people under their control. Does anyone on this blog believe that Al-Jezeera tells the truth. They make some of our newspapers (such as the NYT) look like pikers when it comes to spinning the facts.
The Saudi’s have bred enough terrorists to last your lifetime. The only way to defeat this enemy is to educate the people, and the only way that this is going to happen is to bring democratic reform to the region. The evidence speaks for itself. In 10 years this part of the World will be much changed because people are starting to believe that they can have a say in their lives.
ppgaz
The truth, DullARROW, is right there in your stack of old newspapers. The UN had it right in 2003. No clear evidence of the reputed WMD programs was being found. Inspectors asked for more time. In time, their earlier findings were confirmed .. the WMD weren’t there. The programs were essentially defunct. A war, based on fear of those weapons and programs, was not necessary. That was the truth. That is the truth now. With more time, and some honesty on the part of government officials, we’d have learned that.
But a funny thing happened: We “had” to have the war. There was no time to lose. It was, you know, urgent.
The intelligence surrounding WMD was so murky that the president himself questioned its veracity during the pre-war planning stage. We all remember the answer he got, as documented in the Woodward book … the CIA director was excited! It was a “slam dunk!”
They were lying cocksuckers. They had no “slam dunk” evidence. The Downing Street discoveries are showing that the information stream was being “adjusted” to fit a decision to go to war already made. WMD was considered essential to convincing the public that it was necessary. Thin evidence was presented as thick. Ambigious evidence was presented as unambiguous. Theories were presented as facts. How do we know this? BECAUSE THE GODDAM WEAPONS AND PROGRAMS WERE NEVER THERE, as we no know with certainty.
Figure it out, you dumb sonofabitch. It’s not rocket science.
Birkel
Golly but you liberals are awful quick to get worked up.
I’m sure all of you are glad we’re in Afghanistan and are glad the Bush Administration freed that country with relatively little bloodshed. I know I read all the “attaboys” the Left had for President Bush after the fall of Kabul. Somehow I just can’t find them on the internet. Funny that.
Could somebody please point me to all the kudos that President Bush received for terminating the Taliban? Thanks in advance. (Oh, and in case you can’t… Quit yer bitchin’!!!)
Birkel
Golly but you liberals are awful quick to get worked up.
I’m sure all of you are glad we’re in Afghanistan and are glad the Bush Administration freed that country with relatively little bloodshed. I know I read all the “attaboys” the Left had for President Bush after the fall of Kabul. Somehow I just can’t find them on the internet. Funny that.
Could somebody please point me to all the kudos that President Bush received for terminating the Taliban? Thanks in advance. (Oh, and in case you can’t… Quit yer bitchin’!!!)
Birkel
Golly but you liberals are awful quick to get worked up.
I’m sure all of you are glad we’re in Afghanistan and are glad the Bush Administration freed that country with relatively little bloodshed. I know I read all the “attaboys” the Left had for President Bush after the fall of Kabul. Somehow I just can’t find them on the internet. Funny that.
Could somebody please point me to all the kudos that President Bush received for terminating the Taliban? Thanks in advance. (Oh, and in case you can’t… Quit yer bitchin’!!!)
Birkel
All I hit was preview. Honest.
ppgaz
Birkel, the posting routine is under repair. We have to be patient with all the changes being made.
Meanwhile, your comment is just bunk. Quick to get worked up? We’re almost 4 years from 9-11 and we still don’t have the asshole who planned it. Nobody gives a damn about the Taliban. For one thing, they haven’t gone away. They fight to this day. For another, the Afghanistan mission was built around OBL, not the Taliban. Remember him? I’m sure we’ll get a new video soon. Maybe he’ll have some baseball predictions … the NL West looks wide open. What do you think?
ARROW
“The Downing Street discoveries are showing that the information stream was being “adjusted” to fit a decision to go to war already made.”
“Downing Street discoveries” …The memo says what it says, but what does it say that is so damming? What a joke!
So tell me again why the U.N. wasn’t making the “there are no WMDs” argument back in 2002 and early 2003? What happened to the WMD Iraq admitted having but never turned over to U.N. weapons inspectors? You did this last time we got hooked up on an issue. Spin away my deluded friend.
Birkel
Yeah, ppgaz, that answered my search for support for the Afghani campaign nearly precisely.
Like a smart bomb to the idea that Karl Rove was wrong. You hit the mark yet again.
Rick
Arrow,
You know, I think you are getting to the mild-mannered ppgaz. All that remains is for him to fling “Limbaugh” at you, and you’ll know you own his head.
Lively reading it is, for a while anyway.
Cordially…
ppgaz
The UN was saying they couldn’t find them, ARROW.
What in the living hell did you think that meant?
Which story are you going to latch onto:
A) The poor overworked intelligence community was just wrong, and uh, it’s not our fault that we didn’t know they were wrong
B) We knew they didn’t have convincing evidence, but we didn’t bother to really say so. We had to have a war, you see.
If it’s A, then fire every single one of the incompetant bastards in the Pentagon, the CIA, and the White House.
It it’s B, then fire every single one of the lying bastards in the Pentagon, the CIA, and the White House.
Are they incompetant, or just liars?
There’s ample evidence to support either hypothesis. Or both, really. Such a hurry to have a war that there was no time for diligent analysis of the postwar problem set. Poorly equipped troops placed in greater risk for no apparent reason. How would the world have suffered if this unnecessary war had been delayed 6 months until after the Iraqi summer, again? How would be worse off today? According to WAPO-CNN reports today, there in an insurgent attack in Iraq every 25 minutes, around the clock every day. That’s the average. Why did we rush in there, again?
Never mind, I’m sure you can find a great snappy answer on the Limbaugh website.
I dunno, ARROW. Do you want to sleep on it and give me your choice, A or B, in the morning? Take your time.
ppgaz
ARROW is Limbaugh, Rick. As if you didn’t know.
Birkel
ARROW and Rick,
Does the 12:15 post of ppgaz pass for logic where you guys are? (That’s a non-gendered guys, btw.)
Ever read a better false dichotomy?
ppgaz
Really, Birkel?
Why don’t you offer your alternate explanation, then?
ARROW
“I dunno, ARROW. Do you want to sleep on it and give me your choice, A or B, in the morning? Take your time.”
Honestly ppgaz, you’re a hopeless mess. The “Limbaugh” card, huh. I vote for C: The intelligence community, including the British (since you mentioned Downing Street), believed Iraq had WMDs (a reasonable conclusion, since Iraq never surrendered all of the WMD they admitted having) and, based on the Joint Resolution “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq,” the President sent our troops in (about 5 months later).
What is so complicated about this? The Joint Resolution was signed in October of 2002. Kohn Kerry signed on. Iraq had plenty of time to avoid the conflict. If Sadaam Hussein didn’t have these WMDs, why didn’t he just give the U.N. inspectors unfettered access?
ARROW
Excuse the Freudian slip.. Kohn (as in con) Kerry.
ARROW
“ARROW is Limbaugh, Rick. As if you didn’t know.”
Thanks for the compliment ppgaz. The other day someone said I was Stormy70. I am flattered to be considered either one. But no, nothing that exciting.
ppgaz
I’ll give you points for trying to put lipstick on it, but your answer appears to be “A”: The “intelligence community” was wrong. And that, of course, begs the question: Why did the potatoheads in the White House go along with them, when even the president … the Chief Spud …. sensed that the evidence was lacking?
But, your answer is “A”. They were wrong. The UN inspectors were right: They said they couldn’t find the WMDs. Nothing fuzzy there, Arrow, we know why now: THEY WEREN’T THERE. I put that in caps because you apparently don’t get that. Maybe you are old like me and you can’t see small type.
So let’s review: UN right, can’t find ’em. US intelligence, wrong, they were sure they had ’em.
UN right, US wrong. Do you see the pattern?
If the leaders didn’t lie, then they were fools. These guys were pimping information to CNN, just before the war, about how accurately we were tracking sales and movement of oil shipments from Iraq to neighboring countries. So, we could track oil, but after watching Iraq like a hawk for ten years, we were just wrong about the WMDs. Ooops! Who knew?
Tell me again, please, why the war could not have been delayed six months while more information was gathered, and more preparations made? Is it possible, just possible, that a delay would have seen the WMD bamboozle completely unravel? What then? It did unravel, but of course, too late.
ppgaz
Uh, no, you are not Stormy. Stormy is a nice person. You are … well, you.
And I told you this the other day, and this is the last time:
ppgaz is made up of a combination of my initials and the abbreviation of Arizona, my state. Your ridiculing it because you think it sounds funny is making you look like a shithead. You don’t want that, do you?
Why don’t you put your initials out here and lets’ see if we can make a gradeschool joke out of them?
ARROW
Rick:
Good call on Limbaugh. Does it bother you, just a little, to know that you can anticipate ppgaz’s thoughts?
Well, it’s my conclusion that it’s lively reading not. This rebel scum is headed for a cold one.
ppgaz
In other words, you lost this argument, ARROW.
I would say “nice try”, but it wasn’t a particularly good try.
Maybe Birkel, your lawyer, can help you with an alternative to my “false dichotomy?” Since you can’t answer any pointed questions. He’s had over a half hour now but I guess he’s still working on it.
Birkel
Quite clearly I am not offering legal services on this or any other website. ppgaz is wrong on this and many other things.
I’m sorry, ppgaz, you meant to find all those articles written by liberals supporting our demolition of the Taliban and al Queda in Afghanistan. Somehow you were sidetracked with your own false dichotomy and forgot to prove the point that it wasn’t liberals who were in favor of understanding why they hate us.
Don’t forget to diligently tilt your head as you type the answer to my query.
ARROW
Andrei
“I’m perfectly willing to play by Andrei’s standards. Let’s let the military serving in Iraq and Afghanistan vote on the war, then abide by their choice. Fair enough, jackass?”
My god… Are you really that stupid Darrell or is it you can’t read or parse simple logic?
You support the war, right? Well, why aren’t you over there fighting it?
Did I mention anything about letting the military currently fighting the war to be the only ones voting? No numnut… I said those who voted for Bush and are pro-war need to join the ranks, pick up a gun and start fighting. And if all fo you did, we’d probably have been done with this ages ago *if* you are all so right about the war on terror policy.
Why aren’t you, Darrell? Why aren’t you fighting right now on the other side of the planet? What, too much of a pussy?
And I’m the jackass? LMAO.
carot
“You haven’t been paying attention. Liberals do not agree that Conservatives are good at national defense. In fact, this administration has clearly made the U.S. weaker, not stronger both before and after 9/11. The reality is that a Liberal would have finished the job in Afghanistan rather than starting an unnecessary war. So it’s absurd to blame them for not having a solution to cleaning up Bush’s mess.”
That’s not a Liberal philosophy of national defense, that’s just second guessing what the Conservatives do, blame them for any mistakes in hindsight when they had no better ideas, and when an election roles by they say they’ll do just what the Conservatives would, but a bit more moderate.
Liberals might so they wouldn’t have gone into Iraq then why did they vote for it? Why did Clinton say it was a good thing? Why don’t they make it policy now to leave? Why does Tony Blair who is a left wing politician agree with invading Iraq?
The Liberals had no policy on Iraq other than paralysis while 500,00 Iraqi children died under sanctions. That was their own presidential policy under Clinton.
There was only one other position to take, offer Saddam a removal of sanctions in exchange for continual and permanent monitoring for WMD’s and accept he would be in power for a long time. Threaten new sanctions if he violated human rights more than say Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria.
Would that have been a good policy? I don’t know, in hundsight it would probably have been. It seems the only policy alternative to what Bush did except for dithering for another 10 years. I think that would have been a reasonable policy in line with Liberal political philosophy.
Liberals have no policies any more except a second guessing version of Compassionate Conservatism. If they want to be a political party they need to refute conservatism not join it.
carot
“Carot, are you British? I agree with your analysis of the Democrats. They were in power for so long, that they forgotten how to govern. Pretty much across the board, I don’t trust any of them. And I was one at a point in time.”
No I’m not British but Blair is a good example of Liberal political philosophy, well thought out and attacking Conservatism as bad for the country. This is so successful there the Tories are on the point of no longer even existing any more.
You’d think the Liberals would look at this and see something being done right, a left wing government supporting the war, Blair making the nuanced case they should have made, Blair being extremely popular and admired in the US. They should get Dean, cut out his vocal cords and get Blair to say his lines for him.
There are plenty of examples of what Liberals should be doing around the world, but all they can come up with is Christians are evil and lazy.
carot
“So let’s review: UN right, can’t find ’em. US intelligence, wrong, they were sure they had ’em.” Did you notice Clinton said he thought the Iraqis had WMD’s?
I also read Hans Blix’s memoirs and he seemed to think the WMD’s were still there.
The problems the Liberals have with these arguments is trying to have it both ways. They voted for the war so they should take responsibility for this. Clinton and Blair are Liberals and they supported it, and thought the WMD’s were a threat.
The only reason they are really against it was because they are afraid it makes Bush look good. What sort of principled position is that?
Making a democracy out of Iraq and stopping human right violations and starvation with sanctions should be Liberal goals. They can’t just toss their principles aside because Bush did a Liberal policy.
The argument they should make is the policy was good, they would love to invade all the dictators and get rid of them, and let democracy bloom everywhere, but sometimes the costs and side effects can outweigh the benefits. Liberals should be happy to be wrong on this.
In any case Liberals are still back seat driving on this, they have no plan to get out of Iraq different from the Conservatives. All they can do is say they were against the war they voted for, and then whatever goes wrong in Iraq in the future they’ll just second guess it.
p.lukasiak
Damn, John, look what happens when a thinking conservative like yourself tells the truth…
the freepers come out in force! You stepped outside the line of acceptable conservative discourse….and you will pay for it (in bandwidth charges, if nothing else).
Darrell
And if all fo you did, we’d probably have been done with this ages ago *if* you are all so right about the war on terror policy.
Typical liberal pussy. You want others to do the fighting for you, so that you can safely criticize their efforts typing away in the security of your parents’ basement
Darrell
I’m sure all of you are glad we’re in Afghanistan and are glad the Bush Administration freed that country with relatively little bloodshed. I know I read all the “attaboys” the Left had for President Bush after the fall of Kabul. Somehow I just can’t find them on the internet. Funny that.
Could somebody please point me to all the kudos that President Bush received for terminating the Taliban?
An excellent point. Liberals now tell us how much they supported the war in Afghanistan.. I suppose we’re supposed to forget about the massive “no blood for oil” protests that went on during the Afghanistan campaign, the “Why do they hate us?” (i.e. what did you do to make him rape you ma’m), and all the “Quagmire” predictions which came from the left at that time. And even now, they snipe away with whining over Afghan poppy production, as if they had ever cared about that before
So liberals, if you really were so wholeheartedly in support of invading Afghanistan, tell us, where are all the kudos you would have given Bush for carrying out your will? Your supportive statements of his decisive actions in Afghanistan? Seriously, where are they?
Many (most?) liberals, are of course, lying their asses off when they say they ever supported the Afghan campaign to any extent.. although I hold open the possibility that a few may have stopped their protesting after it became clear there was no “Quagmire” as they had earlier predicted. Hence the lack of evidence, kudos or ‘attaboys’ to Bush or otherwise, that they ever supported it. But instead, sniping over poppy fields without recognizing the great strides that have taken place in that country.
AJStrata
I am afraid I find your analysis woefully wanting. Durbin did equate GITMO, and by extension our military and national policies, to Nazis, Gulags and Pol Pot. He had pleny of opportunities to correct these ‘misconceptions’, but he did not because he intended for them to be out there. To literally parse words and assume these determine what they communicate is not understand the complexities of human communication.
What Durbin did was, in the eyes of our enemies, admit America was the second coming of the Nazi’s. What Rove did was focus on a self described political ideology which did have a loud and clear ‘no war’ voice. They did think law enforcement was the preferred solution, as the left demands through non-military trials of detainees, as they say to this day (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/228).
But Rove’s comments are based on their statements and policies proposals. Durbins was has not policies or statements that our policies are designed to mimic those of the Nazis.
Finally, Durbin compared our military to Nazi’s, and equated the terrorists to innocent jewish men. women and children being slaughtered. If Rove was equal to worse to Durbin, use this example to demonstrate how?
AJStrata
I am afraid I find your analysis woefully wanting. Durbin did equate GITMO, and by extension our military and national policies, to Nazis, Gulags and Pol Pot. He had pleny of opportunities to correct these ‘misconceptions’, but he did not because he intended for them to be out there. To literally parse words and assume these determine what they communicate is not understand the complexities of human communication.
What Durbin did was, in the eyes of our enemies, admit America was the second coming of the Nazi’s. What Rove did was focus on a self described political ideology which did have a loud and clear ‘no war’ voice. They did think law enforcement was the preferred solution, as the left demands through non-military trials of detainees, as they say to this day (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/228).
But Rove’s comments are based on their statements and policies proposals. Durbins was has not policies or statements that our policies are designed to mimic those of the Nazis.
Finally, Durbin compared our military to Nazi’s, and equated the terrorists to innocent jewish men. women and children being slaughtered. If Rove was equal to worse to Durbin, use this example to demonstrate how?
Sojourner
Bush didn’t finish the job in Afghanistan so why the hell should we give him kudos? As to finishing off the Taliban, you can’t be serious. They’re doing quite well and are actually trying to make their way back into power.
As to conservative philosophy… Please share with me who these great conservative philosophers are. Given how poorly thought through their policies have been, given them the title of philospher is pretty darn high and mighty. Nor should arrogance, hubris, and greed be confused with philosophy.
W.B. Reeves
Carot,
Reading your comments is a blessed relief from the barking that has tended to predominate. They are thoughtful, hardheaded and largely free of partisan cant.
So it pains me to dispute your fundamental premise:
“Every Democratic country in the world has a dichotomy that philosophically equates to Liberalism and Conservatism.”
I suspect this depends on how expansive a definition of the terms liberal and conservative you are using. Your use of this formulation is a reason why I’d never confuse you with a Brit or a resident of any parliamentary democracy. It’s easy to believe in the duopoly of political views you propose if you live in a two party political system. Somewhat harder to swallow if you’re operating in a multi-party setup.
In the U.K., for example, you have three major parties. That would suggest that you have at least three separate points of view, not to mention those of a plethora of minor parties. You can get around this by claiming that these exist on a spectrum from liberal to conservative I suppose.
However, this solution requires defining the two terms so broadly that they take on the characteristics of overarching natural phenomena rather than a limited, clearly defined political philosophy. Taking France as another case for examination, where do you place an outfit such as Le Pen’s National Front? Conservative? Liberal? Something in between? Going historical, do you really want to argue that Fascism and Communism are subsets in a Liberal/Conservative divide?
All of which leaves aside the fact that Liberal and Conservative are terms whose content varies as widely as the locales in which they are used. Traditional European conservatism has it’s roots in authoritarian, pre-liberal democratic forms. That’s why Thatcherism represented a very real break with traditional Toryism. It is also why, to cite France again, the left and the right can’t agree on the significance of the French Revolution, the Enlightenment or even, God help us, the Dreyfus Case.
By way of contrast, in U.S. politics the left/right division has been subsumed in a liberal democratic tradition from the begining. The most reactionary, even fascistic, movements in our history have found it expedient to clothe themselves in the rhetoric of liberal democracy. Until recently, that is.
Perhaps for the first time in our history we now have a large, powerfully influential political faction that rejects certain fundamentals of that tradition. With their mixing of religion and politics, their rejection of Enlightenment values, their embrace of brute force in Foreign affairs, the ease with which they accuse their opposition of treasonous behavior and their apparent sense of divine mission, they resemble the European reactionaries of the last century far more than any traditional conservatism in the U.S. context. The accuracy of this judgement can be measured by the degree to which they have attempted to re-write the rules of American politics in order to cement their current dominance by institutional rather than political means. Coercion and intimidation are their prefered weapons.
None of this undermines your central point about the current state of U.S. Liberalism. To succeed Liberals must present a compelling choice rather than a defensive echo. To do so, however, they must break out of exactly the sort of either/or framework in which you have placed the question. They must do this because their opponents have already done so, albeit in a fashion that obscures this reality with a patina of phony patriotism. What passes for official Conservatism in the U.S. today is really a stew of radicalism, at war with some of the fundamental principals of U.S. governance as well as being at odds within itself. Again, the resemblance to earlier reactionary movements in Europe is pronounced.
I hasten to add that I don’t oppose radicalism on principle. Radicals have played an important role in our history, from 1776 onward through the civil war to the present day. The crisis of present day Liberalism has been brought on by it’s failure to recognize the radicalization of politics on the right, a prerequisite for forging an effective response. I don’t think that subsuming this historic reality in the Liberal/Conservative dichotomy that you present will aid them in mounting a winning challenge to the radical right.
Rick
Don’t forget to diligently tilt your head as you type the answer to my query.
Birkel,
LOL, oh LOL! Would I be correct in deducing that you’re appreciative of Tim Blair’s fun at the expense of the “We’re Sorry, World” feebs back in November?
Giving you the “power fist,” I am. cordially…
Andrei
“Typical liberal pussy. You want others to do the fighting for you, so that you can safely criticize their efforts typing away in the security of your parents’ basement”
Wow… you still just don’t get it.
That’s what I’m accusing you of.
ARROW
W.B. Reeves:
While your reasoned exposition did no bark, as you would put it, it did contain some muffled yelps, to wit:
ARROW
Carot:
I asked if you were British because of the way you spell “recognise.” No Z, that is.
David
No reply from Darrel concerning my post?
Gee.
Imagine.
That.
W.B. Reeves
Arrow,
In order for me to justify spending time and energy responding to you, I’d have to believe that you are asking your questions in good faith. Frankly, judging from your comments here and elsewhere, I don’t believe this.
Aggravating such distrust is the fact that you couldn’t manage to quote me accurately in your question. In context, it is clear that I was speaking specifically of the liberal democratic tradition that has been the hallmark of U.S. politics since it’s inception, not some vague notion of general tradition as in your misquotation. That, combined with your ignoring the other points raised, indicates your disinterest with the substance of my comment. Evidently, you’re interested in scoring points rather than dialogue and you’re not particularly fastidious as to what means you employ, tough guy that you are.
We could rehearse the various ways the current majority has jiggered Congressional rules to exclude the minority from any meaningful role in legislation. We could talk about the attacks on the Judiciary, the Schiavo tragi-farce, the attempt to alter Senate rules by a simple plus one majority upending the power relationship as it has existed in that body for over a hundred years. We could discuss the factional power plays that lay behind these actions. We could examine the propriety of any political entity attempting to establish itself as a permanent ruling party, particularly when some of it’s partisans have announced their goal as promoting a “biblical worldview” in Government.
We could do all these things but I believe it would be a waste of time. A waste because I don’t believe you give a tinker’s damn for the opinions of anyone who diverges from you politically, except as a pretext for your own dogmatic expressions. You are free to spend your time this way if you choose but I have no intention of enabling you.
That’s my take. Until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, that is where I stand.
ARROW
W.B. Reeves
Get off your high horse pal. If you don’t want to respond, just don’t respond. I didn’t misquote you!
I raised the question about liberalism because I don’t believe any of today’s liberals are willing to define what it means. A vague question leaves room for a lot of responses, including yours.
If you choose not to respond to the limited questions I raised, so be it. But don’t blame my attitude on your lack of aptitude.
carot
“All of which leaves aside the fact that Liberal and Conservative are terms whose content varies as widely as the locales in which they are used. Traditional European conservatism has it’s roots in authoritarian, pre-liberal democratic forms.”
This is why it’s so important to talk in terms of two opposing philosophies, Liberal and Conservative ok because they are the terms people use. In Britain one might use Whigs and Tories, and so on. A Conservative is not a Republican because not all Conservatives vote. For example John Cole is a Conservative who might not vote or even vote Democrat if he gets disgusted enough but he is still a Conservative. Liberals, who Rove attacks, half of them don’t vote anyway. Rove is not trying to get votes he is saying there is something too pacifist or perverted about Liberalism to run the country. Liberals according to him will sell out the country by being too soft on its enemies (like Liberals are too soft on criminals generally), and are too tolerant on deviant and socially undermining behavior (pornographers, gays, welfare recipients, drug users, etc). You could take his remarks word for word from the British Tories but instead of using the countering arguments British labour would the Liberals just get rude and this just looks like they don’t have an argument.
While there is some fracturing in political views, these offshoots have no trouble working out if they are on the left or right wing. For example Libertarians know they are on the right as does Le Pen in France. Michael Moore and various environmentalists know they are on the left. Some might have difficulty working out how leftist or Liberal Michael Moore is or how far to the Right Pat Buchanan is, but that is for them to work out. Thatcher always knew she was on the right and not the left. Moore might be on the left but 90% of his message is “I hate the Bushes”.
“Going historical, do you really want to argue that Fascism and Communism are subsets in a Liberal/Conservative divide?”
Yes. Communism has always been associated with the left as a more extreme and dictatorial socialism. Fascism is historically on the far right where a corporate right wing philosophy becomes a dictatorship of those interests.
Conservatives often try and claim they represent individuals and Liberals as society and Government taxing and spending and otherwise regulating the individual. In fact both extremss represent a control by a certain group, which then dictates control of the rest of the people using the controls of government. So the far left and right enact laws which regulate and tax people from the opposite wing to the benefit of their own base. The only time the individual prospers is when there is a moderate Liberal or Conservative government with not enough strength in its base to persecute the opposition.
As we’ve seen Bush has moved further to the right and tax and spends, or borrow and spends as much as the far left would. Why does he do it? Because he can and because his base benefits. If he borrows and gives that money as tax cuts to the rich then eventually when taxes rise to pay it back the rich will have had the use of that money and will have made a profit. Or will have to pay less in taxes later than they receive tax cuts now. If a hard left or Liberal government was in charge they might do the same thing, borrow to give to welfare, unions getting higher wages, etc. They also would end up paying less back later when taxes had to rise, the rich would lose money in that case to pay to the Liberal base.
I think though this is not caused by the Conservatives as much as by the Liberals not understanding and criticising the excess of Conservatism. Since no one is targeting their excesses as bad they have no reason not to indulge these excesses. Calling Conservaties names is not an ideological debate.
carot
“What
carot
“We could do all these things but I believe it would be a waste of time. A waste because I don’t believe you give a tinker’s damn for the opinions of anyone who diverges from you politically, except as a pretext for your own dogmatic expressions.”
It sounds like something Howard Dean would say. If Dean said it do you think Arrow would be more inclined to vote Dem next election? If you don’t want their votes then you can’t complain about not winning elections.
carot
“To do so, however, they must break out of exactly the sort of either/or framework in which you have placed the question. They must do this because their opponents have already done so, albeit in a fashion that obscures this reality with a patina of phony patriotism. What passes for official Conservatism in the U.S. today is really a stew of radicalism, at war with some of the fundamental principals of U.S. governance as well as being at odds within itself. Again, the resemblance to earlier reactionary movements in Europe is pronounced.”
If they break out of this framework they break out of all political philosophy which is based on it. No other Democracy in the world disavows a political dichotomy like this, and Liberals there get things much more their way than the US does. It’s only in the US that Liberals have a problem.
In fact the Right in the US is highly conservative and ideological. They get a free pass on this because Liberals ignore it, not because it doesn’t exist. Calling their patriotism phony is like something Howard Dean would say, which would be quickly taken up by Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Hannity as insulting the troops and those firefighters who died on 9/11. If you refuse to believe Conservatism is an ideology then you can’t criticise it without getting into trouble like Dean does so well.
I think you are also implying the Republicans are Nazis as well, but Howard Dean doesn’t need that talking point, he already got himself into trouble with that one last week.
W.B. Reeves
“Get off your high horse pal. If you don’t want to respond, just don’t respond. I didn’t misquote you!”
Sure you did. As follows:
“What
David
Well, at least you got an answer W.B.!
W.B. Reeves
David
Yes but getting an answer isn’t hard if all you want to do is get an answer. Getting one that’s worth the trouble of reading, now that’s a bit tougher. Carot makes the effort to actually say something worthwhile whether I agree or not. Unfortunately, I have to get to work right now so I haven’t time to respond. Perhaps later. Cheers.
Darrell
No reply from Darrel concerning my post?
Gee.
Imagine.
That.
Wahhhhhh!! Darrell didn’t pay attention to me. Sniff, sniff. Yes, yes David, your post was so devastatingly brilliant and insightful, I couldn’t pick myself off the floor to respond, especially the part where you write:
“Let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we”
Yes David, let’s shall.. that is, if I could figure out what your point is. I think your point was that the US was doing booming business with Saddam… is that correct? Well, if 1 contract in 12+ years worth $73 million, of which even that had to be halved up with the French.. if that’s what you consider “enthusiastic” business support, well then, shall we say, getting back down to those brass tacks, perhaps you should reconsider your definition of ‘enthusiastic’.
ARROW
W.B. Reeves
What
Darrell
W.B. Reeves, I read and re-read your original post. You were not misquoted. In fact, I see Arrow quoted your entire excerpt VERBATIM to make sure you point was kept in context.
Anyone can read what you wrote and see for themselves. If you want to be taken seriously, stop lying your ass off about being misquoted
ARROW
W.B. Reeves
“Yes but getting an answer isn’t hard if all you want to do is get an answer. Getting one that’s worth the trouble of reading, now that’s a bit tougher.”
I agree with you on this point. In the context of our “conversation,” little so far of what you’ve posted is worthy of reading. Obviously, the same could be said for my “contributions.”
You seem to be wary of dealing with me without considering how I have dealt with others on this site. In other words, you’ve prejudged me. I can live with that. Generally, I give what I get. You treat me with respect, I’ll give it back.
The point of my original comment was to probe and understand your underlying assumptions. The comment was obviously pointed, as was the comment that prompted my comment. After all, you go on and on about the legislative process like one party is pure as the wind-driven snow, and the other party is evil incarnate. It
W.B. Reeves
Arrow
As if you were ever interested in the first place. FYI judging behavior (ie comments) is not “pre-judgement”, it’s judgement based on experience. If you don’t like the judgements people make about your behavior, change the behavior or live with it. It’s called personal responsibility.
Darrell
Arrow ostensibly quoted me twice. The first being a block quote. The second a purported snippet. I reproduced both of these in my previous post. A cursory examination will show that I never used the second phrasing which Arrow chose to put quotation marks around. The last time I checked those quotation marks indicate a direct quote. It isn’t. Rather it is Arrow’s rephrasing (spin?) of my comment.
To be fair, Arrow conceded this point by reposting the question with the true quote. Credit where credit is due.
Seriously now. You knew all this already. Didn’t you?
Carot
I’m not ducking you but I just got in from work and the dogs need walkin’. Response after that. Cheers.
Doc Rampage
If I read this post to you and did not tell you that it was a moderate blogger describing what two political operatives have said, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by a fascist, a communist, or some anti-American traitor. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of John Cole, who claims to be a moderate.
No matter how many times you say it, I did not call John Cole a fascist. I just didn’t.
Can’t you folks read?
Sojourner
Reading just gets in the way of making shit up.
W.B. Reeves
Carot,
Well, it may be too late for a response since this thread has gone to the archives but you’ve provided such a lot of grist for the mill it’d be shame to not reply, so here goes.
First, to clear away a few misconceptions. I’m not a Democratic Partisan or strategist, so my purpose is not to harvest votes for the Democratic Party. My interest in the Democratic Party is the same as my interest in the Republican or any other electoral party; tactical and strategic. You may have heard of something called “American Pragmatism.” I have a broad streak of this in my thinking. My views are my own. If my comments provoke critical reflection and fruitful discussion as a basis of action, they will have achieved all I desire. If they don’t, the failure is no skin off of anyone’s back but my own.
You have me at something of disadvantage. You’ve spent time in the U.S. while I’ve never been downunder and have little knowlege of politics there. Perhaps this is why I was so far off base in presuming that you did not live in a Parliamentary Democracy.
That said, do you have more than two parties in your legislature? If so, do they all consider themselves mere variants of liberalism or conservatism? If they do, why do they maintain separate identities? If all politics is simply an expression of Liberal or Conservative ideology, why would there be more than two parties?
My view is that political parties do not exist solely, or even primarily, as expressions of ideas. They are expressions of differing interests in the body politic. What ideology they follow is usually governed by their conception of their own interests. That is why the party ideology can alter over time to the point where it stands in utter opposition to the same party’s original views.
Examples of this are plentiful. Here in the U.S. , Democrats have been seen as the Party of Big Government since FDR’s time. The Republicans have taken up the pose of defenders of Federalist small Government and State’s Rights. Yet, prior to the New Deal, the greatest concentration of power in the Executive and expansion of Government occured during the Republican Presidency of Abraham Lincoln while it was the Democrats who railed against the despotism of the Federal Government and sang paens to the divine ordination of States Rights.
So, if ideology is fluid, flowing from and following after a party’s perceived interest, what sense does it make to build an analytical model that defines politics in terms of an ideological scale? Would it not make better sense to look at the composition of a particular political entity in context of the content of its actions rather than emphasizing its ideological pedigree?
That is the theoretical difference I have with your view. It does lead to some practical differences as well.
I also think that you are conflating two distinct concepts in your argument, the left/right and liberal/conservative dichotomies. These models are related but not identical.
Your observation that various factions have no trouble sorting themselves out on the left/right spectrum actually undercuts your equating these terms with Liberal/Conservative. It’s likely that these same factions that identitify comfortably as left or right would reject any such equation with Liberalism or Conservatism. Take your following statement:
“Yes. Communism has always been associated with the left as a more extreme and dictatorial socialism. Fascism is historically on the far right where a corporate right wing philosophy becomes a dictatorship of those interests.”
True enough but Communists and Fascists repudiated Liberalism and Conservatism respectively and were repudiated by Liberalism and Conservatism in return. Liberalism and Conservatism fall along the Left/Right continium to be sure but they don’t define it. A Liberal is not a Communist any more than a Conservative is a Fascist. Of course, anyone may fly false colors. What defines these terms is the content that action gives them.
BTW, did you know that a not insignificant portion of Right Wing opinion in the States holds that the Nazis were Left Wingers? After all, they called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party. See? It says “Socialist” right in their name. Hence epithets such as feminazi, abortion as an American holocaust, ad nauseum.
Likewise, your example of Libertarianism is less unequivocal than presented. Prior to Ayn Rand’s appropriation of the term some fifty or so years ago, libertarianism was not considered rightwing, as the writings of Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin and Malatesta will show. The present day heirs of 19th Century Libertarianism would not situate themselves with the acolytes of Rand on the political spectrum.
The trouble with the idea of attacking American Conservatism as an ideology is that the rude coalition currently traveling under that rubric is not a single ideology. Rather, it is a gaggle of disparate right of center interests that are united solely by the common desire of liquidating the legacy of the post WWII Liberal consensus. Some of these factions qualify as Conservative, some do not. Some are clearly radical.
(I would note that radical is a term that transcends both the Liberal/Conservative and Left/Right dichotomy. Radicals exist in all colorations across the political map. The term is defined by the challege that the radical poses to the existing order of business.)
The current success of the GOP is not rooted in ideological coherence but in opportunism and cynicism. Its triumphs are based not on ideological debate but on caricature and a willingness to pander to extremism. To say so is not to accuse them of not being Liberals. It is a clear eyed recognition of what Liberals, Moderates and principled Conservatives are up against.
Some thirty odd years ago, GOP strategists realized that to end the Democratic national political dominance, it was necessary to shatter the electoral coalition that supported it. Consequently, they set out to identify wedge issues that would accomplish that demolition. A central tactic was to attack radical elements within the Democratic periphery and portray them as the true face of Liberalism and therefore of the Democratic party as well.
The GOP sold itself as the tough, common sense party. The party of the adults who’d quash the irresponsible, alternately threatening and squishy “radical libs”. They didn’t do this by being dainty in distinguishing individuals from ideology. Who can ever forget Newt Gingrich’s suggested adjectives for describing Liberals and Democrats? “sick”, “weak” and “degenerate” are my favorites. Who can forget Gingrich’s assertion that a Mother’s murder of her two sons by drowning could be laid at the door of Liberals and Democrats? Who was it who accused the last Democratic President of everything from personal corruption to Murder?
The GOP strategy succeeded in large part because of actual fears that the electorate harbored about radicalism within the Democratic Party, aggravated by the reality that decades of political dominance had bred arrogance, corruption, inertia and remoteness within the Party establishment. We are now witnessing the flowering of similar fears about the GOP and the extremist elements sheltering under the right flap of that party’s tent. For Democrats and Liberals to not give a strong voice to these rising concerns would be the height of political stupidity. To do so without drawing a distinction between true Conservatives and Radicals posing as such would be a blunder, unless Conservatives insist on continuing to embrace the extremists. In which case, it would be wise to to hang the Dobsons, Robertsons, Delays, Frists and Santorums around their necks. If Conservatives choose to define themselves through this lot they’ll have no right to complain.
I notice you made numerous references to Howard Dean. I’m not sure what significance you attach to him but you have confused him with Sen. Durbin. It was Sen. Durban not Dean who was at the center of the recent flap over Nazi comparisons vis a vis Gitmo.
As far as comparisons to the Nazis are concerned, since they were both a political party and a popular movement, comparisons to other political parties or movements are perfectly legitimate, so long as equal weight is given to differences as well as similarities.
As a matter of fact, my comparison was a general one, citing reactionary European political movements from the last century. If you class the Nazis among these I suppose you could claim that I was making such a comparison. The validity of that comparison, as I’ve indicated, would be entirely dependent on the number of shared characteristics one could identify. In any case, I did not draw such a comparison. You are free to draw your own.
Obviously, given my opinions, I don’t agree that breaking out of the Liberal/Conservative dichotomy would be a bad thing, especially if it means breaking with the political philosophy that flows from that intellectual construct. The value of any analytical conceit lies in it’s correspondence to reality. I don’t consider Liberalism or Conservativism to be anything more than two gradients among others on the political spectrum. It follows that I don’t accept the manichean construct you posit.
Despite our differences I have to say that I think some of the tactical suggestions you’ve made have solid merit. We may not come to agreement but its been a good opportunity for a mental workout, a clear head being a prerequisite for effective action. Cheers.
David
WB wrote: Yes but getting an answer isn’t hard if all you want to do is get an answer. Getting one that’s worth the trouble of reading, now that’s a bit tougher. Carot makes the effort to actually say something worthwhile whether I agree or not.
Agreed.
Example, this little gem from Darrel (in response to my rhetorical “bitching” about getting no response, which was, of course, meant to taunt him, since he responsds to taunts):
Wahhhhhh!! Darrell didn’t pay attention to me. Sniff, sniff. Yes, yes David, your post was so devastatingly brilliant and insightful, I couldn’t pick myself off the floor to respond, especially the part where you write:
“Let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we”
Yes David, let’s shall.. that is, if I could figure out what your point is. I think your point was that the US was doing booming business with Saddam… is that correct? Well, if 1 contract in 12+ years worth $73 million, of which even that had to be halved up with the French.. if that’s what you consider “enthusiastic” business support, well then, shall we say, getting back down to those brass tacks, perhaps you should reconsider your definition of ‘enthusiastic’.
Can you say “cherry picker”?
Yes, I’m sure you can.
ARROW
David:
Interesting… You make an allegation, point to link that is supposed to support that allegation, and then accuse Darrell of cherry picking when he uses the info at the end of the link?
David
Arrow, if you had bothered to follow along, which you did not, the information that Darrel mentions is to the first link in the dialogue, which I had addressed. He was using that link to refute a point made with later more detailed links.
But, you didn’t read those? Or did you?
Amazing. Truly Amazing.