BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Eeyores v. Poohs

74 comments on Eeyores v. Poohs

Eeyores v. Poohs

: Fred Wilson has a good post today responding to the notion that the silence from much of the left on the Iraqi election is the response of Eeyores. Fred’s not an Eeyore. Neither is Hoder, who wrote a similar post the day before. And here’s why…

The problem I have with the Eeyores is that for all intents and purposes, they refused to see the positive in the election and the start of a new democracy; they refused to think first of the human rights of the Iraqi people and instead thought of their own political agenda and political anti’s. That’s Eeyoreism. The worst of them — the rabid Eeyores, the Coles and Altermans — exhibited utter disdain to the point of hate toward anyone there who dared to say positive things about their freedom and America. That is decidely illiberal to me.

But that is not what Fred and Hoder and others have said. They said that they are, indeed, happy to see the Iraqi people exercising this new freedom but they are concerned about what is next and how America will approach the another dictatorship, another confrontation. That is a most reasonable position. And I agree with them.

Reasonable people can agree. Reasonable people should agree that the exercise of freedom and democracy in Iraq is good for the Iraqi people. Reasonable people should agree that we must be cautious about intervening in nations but should also take steps to defend the human rights of our fellow man when we can. Reasonable people can disagree about this war and its aftermath and its duration.

Reasonable people.

They’re not Eeyores. I prefer to think of them as Poohs.

74 responses to “Eeyores v. Poohs”

  1. Bumper@Sticker.ist Avatar
    Bumper@Sticker.ist

    As Dorothy Parker said of “House on Pooh Corner”
    “Tonstant Weader twowed up.”

  2. John Newquist Avatar
    John Newquist

    Maybe they’re Piglets.
    I don’t mean that (entirely) negatively. But Piglet often managed to be worried about everything without sinking to Eeyore’s level of “we’re all doomed” thinking.

  3. Glyn Avatar
    Glyn

    Here’s a piece from a British journalist who is both (a) left-wing, and (b) a supporter of the war, telling Brits that “Now it’s time for the war critics to move on”.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1403021,00.html

  4. Insufficiently Sensitive Avatar
    Insufficiently Sensitive

    These so-called Eeyores are prancing around demanding the limelight to say ‘lookit me, I’m so CONCERNED!’. Not good enough, when the limelight is better deserved by the people that Aaron McGruder calls suicide voters. They won, and their plaudits should have our undivided attention. The concerned posturers are far better called “Miss Piggys”, and left alone with their vanity mirrors.

  5. Hubris Avatar
    Hubris

    I dunno, one pessimistic group made a pretty strong argument.

  6. Bill Avatar
    Bill

    Your comments about Juan Cole are dishonest. If you believe what you are saying, you are a fool. If not, you are a liar.

  7. jeremy in NYC Avatar
    jeremy in NYC

    Well, Bill, I don’t know how anyone can argue with that. Your point-by-point rebuttal has won me over.

  8. paul_lukasiak Avatar
    paul_lukasiak

    I’m still waiting for some evidence that this election was a success. Not just “not a complete disaster”, but an actual success that will lead to real self-determination of the Iraqi people in a democratic society.
    We’re not eeyore’s, you are Dr. Panglosses and Pollyannas.

  9. Hubris Avatar
    Hubris

    I’ll take a stab: People voted for some other people, who will end up taking office and making decisions?

  10. Mikey Avatar
    Mikey

    The glass isn’t just half empty, it’s also dirty and broken.
    Mr. Jarvis, the problem is that a good thing was done by the wrong people. It was George W. Bush who led the overthrow of the dictator. It was American (and allied) arms that overthrew the dictator and are starting the Iraqi people on their journey.
    The eeyore’s are more committed to the idea of “America the Evil” than the are to human liberty.
    This Iraqi experiment may not work, but it is better to try than never to try at all.

  11. pianoman Avatar
    pianoman

    It appears that the bitterness is mostly coming about because those on the Left truly fear a neo-con revolution that will lead to catastrophic global disaster….and that these elections will be used as ammo to further along the neo-con agenda.
    Not that I necessarily agree. But I think this is the reason for the rage.

  12. SloppyDawg Avatar
    SloppyDawg

    I congratulate the Iraqi people on the first steps towards democracy. I really do. But echoing what Paul said above I’m still not convinced that the election was a success. After all, here in Jersey City during the Hague era, tens of thousands of people voted. Some didn’t get their votes counted at all. Some voted more than once. Some dead people voted.
    And this election has to lead (eventually) to a full-time, fairly elected, democratic government before anybody dances a victory jig.
    And though I’m very happy that the Iraqi people got their chance to experience this little bit of heaven, I still think the ends don’t justify the means. Over 1,400 U.S. soldiers dead and a spiraling national debt are just the beginning.
    So, while I’m happy for the Iraqis and their blue fingers, I have a finger of my own for the Bush administration.

  13. Cincinnatus Avatar
    Cincinnatus

    Sorry Jeff that we are not overly optimistic about what is going on Iraq. Sure democracy is a good thing, and I doubt there are many, if any, on the left who were not moved by pictures of Iraqi women voting for the first time in a somewhat real election. But given the absolute failure everything that has been done in Iraq thus far has been, we just are not ready to start celebrating because one election took place (which essentially excluded the ethnic group which has held power forever in the country).
    This war was about WMD’s, it was not about elections. We have many friends around the world that do not hold elections and were just as bad as Saddam. Islam Karimov anyone? I agree that we must keep these people as our friends for the time being given the state of the world, and our need for friends in certain places. But to somehow start proclaiming mission accomplised again, which has basically been the cry of many righty blogs (PowerLine anyone?) is premature.
    By the way Jeff, when are you going to admit that the primary reasons that you supported the war all turned out to be untrue???????????????

  14. Cincinnatus Avatar
    Cincinnatus

    And though I’m very happy that the Iraqi people got their chance to experience this little bit of heaven, I still think the ends don’t justify the means. Over 1,400 U.S. soldiers dead and a spiraling national debt are just the beginning.

    Second that. Not to mention the dead Iraqis, which by conservative estimates number at least 20-30K. Maybe Saddam did worse in some years, but still one has to wonder if this has all been worth it for them. We won’t know the answer to that for several years. One election does not a democracy make. (Indeed, the Lebanese once signed a peace treaty with Israel which many in Israel saw as “mission accomplished” in their disastrous Lebanon War. We all know how that turned out — the treaty lasted about three months.)

  15. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    Cincinnatus,
    “It’s not easy being pro-war.
    Don’t think for a second that I’m enjoying my membership in the Donald Rumsfeld fan club.
    In fact, I think that George Bush did a terrible job making the case for this war — to us and to the world.
    Bush screwed up the diplomatic alternative — and the only thing that saves him is that Jacques Chirac screwed it up worse.
    And I’m hardly a hawk. I spent most of my life as a Vietnam-induced pacifist. Thanks to a lucky lottery number — the only lottery I’ve ever played — I never had to choose between Canada and jail. Instead, I went on Moratorium marches. I wore peace signs.
    But now I’m wearing the American flag — and waving an M-16.
    And that is because, on September 11th, men fueled by hate tried to kill me and did kill thousands around me just because of who we are — American — and who we are not — Muslim.
    I faced evil that day. I met my generation’s Hitler. And I soon realized that I had no choice but to support force against such a force.
    I’m not saying that Saddam Hussein was responsible for that attack. I’m saying that I lost my pacifism that day and so, I now have to make an honest choice about supporting force or not, supporting the President or not, defeating Saddam or not.
    And I’ve decided that as with Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Slobodan Milosevic, and Adolf Hitler, we bear a responsibility to defeat tyranny and to free its prisoners.
    But do not think that I come to this decision with glee. I am torn apart about resorting to sin to fight sin. I miss the apparent moral clarity of my former anti-war confreres. I dislike the moral smugness of my new pro-war confederates. I was appalled the other day when a newspaper called me “conservative” just because I am not anti-war in my weblog.
    Do not paint me with your Dr. Strangelove brush. Do not think that by choosing to support this war in Iraq, I am conservative, or bloodthirsty, or happy about it. This was a hard decision.
    It’s not easy being pro-war.”
    That’s what Jeff wrote on March 30, 2003.
    For Jeff, it has always been about freeing the Iraqis. Not that knowing what you’re writing about means anything to you.
    Our national debt is comapartively below that of Germany, France, Canada, Italy and Japan. Our casualty rate is historically low. The number of Iraqis killed post-Saddam is exceedingly low compared to Saddam’s murderous regime. The U.S. is trying to avoid killing anyone other than terrorists; murdering the innocent was official policy under Saddam.
    Nice try, though. Thanks for playing! Perhaps Jeff can ship you the cave version of BuzzMachine as a lovely parting gift.
    PS: Your rote talking points are addressed here. Enjoy.

  16. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Pooh as you will recall, Jeff, was quite close to Eeyore and Piglet, and in usual sympathetic fashion reassured them. On the other hand, Tigger ignored their qualms and pounced on them. I think we have a better characterization of Eeyores’ critics in Tigger, myself.
    Nobody is sorry to see Iraqis brave the threats and vote. The trepidation is addressed toward what’s next on the agenda.
    Surrounded by tyrannical regimes that want to repress their own populaces – can anyone feel reassured that threatened with an outbreak of freedom, those tyrants won’t see to it that there is a bad end to come to the Iraqis who exercised the right to vote, a right which was earned for them by ‘infidel’ U.S. army forces?
    No evidence of great planning preceded the vote.

  17. Mavis Beacon Avatar
    Mavis Beacon

    EverKarl, your quote doesn’t bear out your point that Jeff’s concern has always been the well-being of Iraqis. In fact it suggest Jeff’s support was predicated on the belief that Saddam was a danger to the US. (I’m aware he mentions disliking tyranny but he makes no real case for invading to protect Iraqis.) I’m sure Jeff can clarify if he so chooses, but if not so inclined, please try and find clearer support.
    Also, Jeff, I don’t think it’s fair to call Juan Cole just another gloomy gus. He’s incredibly knowledgable and even if you disagree with his assesment, it’s worth a listen. I’m beginning to wonder if you’re letting your Iraqi-blogger-grudge cloud your judgement.

  18. Cincinnatus Avatar
    Cincinnatus

    Our national debt is comapartively below that of Germany, France, Canada, Italy and Japan. Our casualty rate is historically low. The number of Iraqis killed post-Saddam is exceedingly low compared to Saddam’s murderous regime. The U.S. is trying to avoid killing anyone other than terrorists; murdering the innocent was official policy under Saddam.

    No.
    1. If our national debt is in such a great condition comparatively, explain why the dollar has been taking a nosedive relative to the currencies of the countries you list.
    2. Our casualty rate is not historically low. Our death rate is lower than that in previous wars, but this is mainly due to the fact that military medicine has (thankfully) advanced dramatically from where it was in ‘nam.
    Moreover, the “not that many dead” argument is insulting to those who died. Period. About three-thousand people died on 9/11 the day that changed everything. By your logic, we should not be that mad about it because compared to some other heinous attacks in the history of this world (the blitz, hiroshima, dresden, etc.), not that many people died. Absurd argument. Insulting argument.
    3. Please refer me to a source showing that Saddam killed about 30,000 Iraqis a year. No doubt he had his “good” years and killed more than that, but I don’t think that was his “average.” Regardless, 30,000 people (and that’s a very conservative estimate) is not something to scoff at.
    4. It is irrefutable that we will not know for years whether this election will be, in the words of PowerLine and your friend Lilleks, a “resounding success.” Any argument to the contrary is completely absurd. For every election in a prior dictatorship under foreign occumpation that went well (e.g. Germany, Japan), I can name you several that didn’t (e.g., Lebanon, South Vietnam, Palestinian Authority, Kuwait (yup, they held “elections” there after we “liberated” the place), etc.).
    5. Referring me to Lilleks as some sort of source that shows me as wrong is about as convincing as me referring you to Daily Kos to support my point. Thing is I know Kos is not an unbiased source of info. You don’t realize that about your buddies Lilleks, et al. Have fun in the echo chamber.

  19. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    Nobody is sorry to see Iraqis brave the threats and vote.
    Wrong. There were any number of such comments at DU, as noted here. DU, of course, has deleted the page to airbrush the record.
    The trepidation is addressed toward what’s next on the agenda.
    As always, but especially after something good happens.

  20. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    Thank you, Jeff, for asserting that reasonable people can agree! Or disagree! That is very reasonable. And appropriate.
    One of the stupid things about the way in which we’ve approached the whole issue of the Iraq war is that many on all sides seem to think the future is easily predictable. You hear this all the time from partisans of or against Bush, and the fact that both sides’ party lines have been proven wrong, repeatedly, doesn’t seem to discourage the same people from maintaining steadfast confidence in their predictions.
    But such predictions serve as the basis for policy, and that is troubling. America is drowning in its own hubris – we think we can accomplish anything. And by “we”, we mean “our government”, which is, at bottom, our enemy. It can be more or less tamed, but if you would remove its shackles you’re a fool.
    This is why I don’t believe in foreign interventions any more than domestic ones. You cannot trust the State to act in good faith – it will act so as to increase the perception of its own necessity. Interventions breed future interventions.
    We went to war in Iraq (illegally, which should be basis enough for any to oppose it regardless of its outcome) to.. to… well, the specifics are murky, but basically to get rid of Saddam. Why did we do this? He was a bad guy. Why? Because we fought a war with him some time ago (what more proof would anyone need that he was a bad guy?) after which Bush-1 realized how much more useful he was in power than thrown out of it. Why did we have that war? Because he invaded a neighboring state, after we helped arm him and told him that we didn’t care if he did…
    I know that many here are deeply invested in there being reasons for this war. If you were to entertain the idea, say, that it wasn’t for the sake of oil, or that it wasn’t to liberate the poor Iraqi people, you would feel almost personally threatened. Please let me assure you: you are not the sum of your prejudices. You can let go of that belief – it won’t kill you, and you’ll feel better because you can then dissipate all the contradictions you carry about with so much emotional weight.
    The fundamental reason governments go to war is that it consolidates their domestic power. This is why in America we have a long history of initiating hostilities that crosses party lines. This is why war is universal and interminable. It is one of the most compelling reasons to restrict the power of the State, particularly when it comes to warfare. It is also why any nation that would be free must be prepared to defend itself.
    But, look – nobody knows for sure what will happen in Iraq now. It seems likely to me that, whatever it is, it will “cause” (be used to justify) America going to war in the future. But we just don’t know. Unintended consequences are inevitable but unpredictable. America should stick to its founders’ advice and stop meddling in foreign affairs.

  21. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    Oh, I forgot to ask: does that posture make me an eeyore, or a pooh?

  22. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    Cincinnatus,
    I note that you chose not to respond to my first point, so I will infer that you have conceded it.
    Now on to your numbered points:
    1. You don’t dispute the numbers and want to change the subject to monetary policy. The value of the dollar also has to do with money supply. You might want to look into that whole supply-demand thing.
    2. I’m insulting the soldiers who died? I think that describes those who want to hide behind our troops — who overwhelmingly support the mission — to undermine that mission. And that battlefield medical care is a tribute to our military as well. The bizzare argument is yours, where you weep for the Iraqi dead post-Saddam without acknowledging the enormously larger number killed as a matter of policy by Saddam. In March and April of 1991, Saddam Hussein’s forces killed somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 Iraqis, most of them civilians. That was two months. The U.S. has been there for close to two years. And you’re also playing the moral equivalence game, which is sad.
    4. The future is unknowable, so we must not be happy at Iraq’s first free election in 50 years with few casualties? Or is a reason to not have an election?
    5. I know Lileks is biased. But he also happens to be right about the moral vacuousness of some people.
    And if you have a link where PowerLine declares “Mission Accomplished,” I’d be glad to read it. But I suspect any reading of that blog you may have done was about as careful as your reading of this one.
    Mavis,
    Maybe you need to give Jeff’s quote a second read:
    “And I’ve decided that as with Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Slobodan Milosevic, and Adolf Hitler, we bear a responsibility to defeat tyranny and to free its prisoners.”
    He’s been consistent about it ever since. And note the absence of reliance on the WMD claim, which is what Cincinnatus brought up (but has now dropped).
    stevek,
    In a spirit of comity, I won’t touch your question.

  23. Ryan Avatar
    Ryan

    “Also, Jeff, I don’t think it’s fair to call Juan Cole just another gloomy gus. He’s incredibly knowledgable and even if you disagree with his assesment, it’s worth a listen. I’m beginning to wonder if you’re letting your Iraqi-blogger-grudge cloud your judgement”
    Or it could be that Juan Cole is the Charles Johnson of the left? Great for bomb throwing, not so great for reasoned discourse.

  24. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    For everyone’s reading pleasure:
    Antiwar columnist Mark Brown: “What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?”
    Enjoy!

  25. Eric Deamer Avatar
    Eric Deamer

    “I prefer to think of them as Poohs.” I realize that this is meant as a compliment, but it just don’t sound nice.

  26. furious_a Avatar
    furious_a

    “The trepidation is addressed toward what’s next on the agenda.”
    Just the department-store-priced way of saying “Time to move the Goal Posts…AGAIN!“.
    Don’t your arms and shoulders get tired?
    –furious

  27. flaime Avatar
    flaime

    Hey! Quit dissing Eeyore. Eeyore wouldn’t have cared about politics. Hell, Eeyore wouldn’t have known there was such a thing. He was too busy truing to find his tail. Rabbit was the fussbudget negative worrywort.

  28. Cincinnatus Avatar
    Cincinnatus

    In March and April of 1991, Saddam Hussein’s forces killed somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 Iraqis, most of them civilians.

    Look, I have no clue whether that is true. About three years ago, I would have believed that without question, just as I believed without question that Iraq had chem and bio weapons. We have now found out that Iraq not only had no chem and bio weapons, but that they had not even been trying to develop them after the Gulf War.
    Saddam — in retrospect which I admit is an easy perspective — was not the threat he was made out to be. To rewrite history and claim that this war was about giving Iraqis a chance at elections is absurd, and sad. The support would have never been there for that had we were told that was the case.
    As for me not responding to your first point re Jeff’s motivations, that was already responded to by another.
    And let’s agree to disagree on the rest because I don’t have the time to respond. But the dollar is taking a nosedive because of our multiplying national debt, and because people around the world are losing confidence in our ability as a world leader — yes that has something to do with the value of the dollar. This is why demand for the dollar has gone down. Come on now, that’s basic sh–.

  29. Kevin Avatar
    Kevin

    Jeff has now wasted more blog “ink” dissing Eeyores than celebrating the election. Hmmmmmmm. Seems like this was always more about Jeff than it was the Iraqis.
    Or am I missing something here?

  30. Cincinnatus Avatar
    Cincinnatus

    The future is unknowable, so we must not be happy at Iraq’s first free election in 50 years with few casualties? Or is a reason to not have an election?

    OK, I have to respond: Of course that is no reason not to have an election. What Jeff is asking is why we aren’t all jumping for joy at the “success” of this election. We are not doing so because some of us feel betrayed — you don’t know me but take my word for it that I supported this war, I argued with, and ridiculed, people who were against it. Now, look where we are at. It’s hard to get all excited about an election that may or may not lead to better things. . . . Again, to tell us that we should be jumping for joy about the election is just too much. I addressed why above. I don’t see how you can make the argument that somehow I am just repeating talking points, etc. I have a legitimate view here. . . . As for Lilleks: anyone who has such a love affair with a Hack like Hugh Hewitt has zero credibility with me.
    And Jeff: where are you Mr. First Amendment lover when Fred Barnes and the editors of the Weekly Standard just issued an editorial saying that Bush had to delineate the permissible bounds of dissent re Iraq. Sounds a little fascist to me.

  31. Cincinnatus Avatar
    Cincinnatus

    And if you have a link where PowerLine declares “Mission Accomplished,” I’d be glad to read it. But I suspect any reading of that blog you may have done was about as careful as your reading of this one.

    No problem. I expect an apology:
    “Reid and Pelosi were cowed by the stunning success of Sunday’s election.” Hindrocket today. (If nothing else, I think we can agree that Hindrocket is a very homoerotic name, and so is “Big Trunk” — what is going on over there?). How you can call an election a stunning success when we know nothing about how it will play out is absurd. Period.
    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009408.php

  32. dick Avatar
    dick

    What is going on with the statement by CNN’s Jordan Eason about the troops killing journalists? He made the statement that he knew of 12 in Iraq, but when Barney Frank (of all people) charged him to produce the proof he was unable to. What should be done about this and by whom? This was at the Davos meeting with all our “European allies” present as well as the Hollywood anti-war faction. Not good but should he just be made to prove it and then have it dropped or should there be an investigation of this or what?

  33. Kevin Avatar
    Kevin

    Jeff,
    A challenge: Call Mark Maron an Eeyore the next time you pimp your ego as a regular gueston his Air America morning show. Lord knows he wasn’t too crazy about this election or the “neocon death cult” (his phrase) that engineered it. Or better yet, refuse to go on his show until he declares the election a stunning success.
    If anyone needs me I’ll be over here laughing my Eeyore off.

  34. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    EverKarl,
    Thanks for the link to the antiwar column – I haven’t seen very much opinion along those lines, and I think we all should. It’s good for ideologues to reassess things. (Hmmm. I am an ideologue, too…)
    But I still don’t think that the election – nor, indeed, anything at this point – could vindicate the actions of Bush. He and his administration misrepresented the facts so as to inflame our baser passions, to win support for the war. It was the same sort of evil propaganda used throughout the 20th century to motivate the masses… and its effects will be with us for a long time. It doesn’t matter, after that, how successful he may be in pursuing his ends. I feel betrayed, and I think that every American should.
    A precedent has been set: a President can violate his oath of office left and right, spreading contemptible lies in every direction, make stupendous strategic blunders, send Americans to die for his lust for power, and the American people will reward this behavior at the ballot box.
    We get the government we deserve.
    They should throw Bush into the same jail cell into which they should’ve thrown Clinton. The outrages keep getting worse and worse with every administration. Only now, it is the right that has utterly compromised its deepest principles – heaven help us. I can no longer call myself a ‘conservative’ for the same reasons I can no longer refer to my mood as ‘gay’, or to the burning things in the fireplace as ‘faggots’.
    And, EverKarl, thanks for not touching the which-wtp-character-am-i question…

  35. DPH Avatar
    DPH

    stevek, you are an idiot. Sounding like Michael Moore makes you sound…well…like Michael Moore. Learn your facts. Start here:
    The Brilliance of the Bush Plan
    and go here
    Where are the WMD?

  36. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    I don’t feel betrayed by Bush–I feel betrayed by the Left. I truly think some of them are on the side of the terrorists. I truly think some of them believe this islam is peace crap, and I don’t think some of them realize we are at war with a bunch of islamist fanatics who want to take over the world–Bush does not want to take over the world–he wants to stop muslims doing that…and some on the Left want to help them.

  37. Cincinnatus Avatar
    Cincinnatus

    I don’t feel betrayed by Bush–I feel betrayed by the Left. I truly think some of them are on the side of the terrorists.

    McCarthy lives!

    You are either for Bush or for the terrorists. That’s your attitude Kat, and it’s sad that there are many Americans like you. Whither the First Amendment? Whither dissent? Whither the recognized strength of a loyal opposition?

  38. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    Dear DPH,
    I won’t deny being an idiot – my actions testify against me more than words could. I take great offense, though, at being likened to Michael Moore. Does anyone who distrusts the President (or the Presidency, for that matter) fall into that camp? All who blindly trust their ‘leaders’ are worse than mere idiots. (And yet you have the gall to think of yourselves as being on the side of freedom!)
    I will definitely check out the links, though. Where better to learn the facts than something titled “The Brilliance of the Bush Plan”?
    Dear Kat,
    I don’t feel too betrayed by the left because I’ve never identified with them. I feel by them, but I don’t think they’re on the side of the terrorists… I just think, on the basis of years of experience, that they want to dictate to me every detail of how I live my life, insisting (as the right has taken to) that their good intentions justify any outrages they may commit.
    But really, I think this point is crucial:
    we are at war with a bunch of islamist fanatics who want to take over the world
    I really don’t see any evidence whatsoever to support that point of view. Do you really envision America living under the dominion of the likes of OBL?!? Not in this millenium. I know I’m going to get flamed for pointing this out, but terrorism is really not that serious of a threat to our lives, liberties, or property. It pales in comparison to what we faced from Communism, which, in turn, was also a greatly exaggerated danger.
    I am not saying this out of any sympathy you may imagine that I have for Islamic terrorists – I just really think that we have enormously (and deliberately, on the part of our leadership) misunderstood the threat we are facing. I think it is also worth mention that the carnage created by terrorists pales in comparison to that created by governments, often in reaction to or under the auspices of stopping terrorism. How many men did Gavrillo Princip kill?
    And if the “Global War on Terror” proceeds apace (or at a faster pace, flush with the brilliant success of its early stages) it will ultimately make the destruction and horror of 9/11 seem small in comparison.
    Let me see: I’m living with a pre-9/11 mindset, right? Surely everyone accepts that “9/11 changed everything!” Well, no. Everything changed because everyone accepted that proposition.

  39. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    That is the ticket–a LOYAL opposition–not a traiterous one like the Teddy Kennedy, Ward Churchill, Juan Cole, Michael Moore, Barbara Boxer, etc. types. There is no pleasing some leftists–they’d sell out the country to get at Bush.
    I respect dissent when it comes from people like Clinton, who puts America ahead of leftist lunacy.

  40. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    Also: I don’t much agree with this, but it is stimulating, and pretty honest by Weekly Standard standards. Maybe you all will enjoy it.

  41. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    Kat, I really like you, but:
    I respect dissent when it comes from people like Clinton, who puts America ahead of leftist lunacy.
    Please. Just some examples. Whenever I see Clinton, I see a man whose administration took campaign contributions from a latently hostile foreign power in exchange for better weapons technology. Among other things. Tell me: when did Clinton ever put America first?

  42. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    I didn’t say I liked Clinton or agreed with him. I said I could accept dissent from him. I don’t have to agree to respect. I respect you most of the time stevek, and we don’t agree on much.:)
    I don’t see Clinton as a hard left lunatic. Dissent is healthy, siding with the terrorists is dangerous and unforgivable. Minutemen, my ass. Bleeping barbarians. Islam, not Bush, is the greatest threat to world peace. The sooner the Left realizes it, the better.

  43. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    Kat writes:
    I don’t feel betrayed by Bush–I feel betrayed by the Left. I truly think some of them are on the side of the terrorists.
    Cincinnatus responds:
    McCarthy lives!
    You are either for Bush or for the terrorists. That’s your attitude Kat, and it’s sad that there are many Americans like you. Whither the First Amendment? Whither dissent? Whither the recognized strength of a loyal opposition?
    Considering that Kat used the word “some,” it seems like a little bit of a leap to characterize that as “you are either for Bush or for the terrorists.”
    And there are some:
    “One of the things I

  44. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    …and the fine folks at Democratic Underground, before they sanitized their site. (seems to be a common tactic)

  45. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    DPH,
    OK, I checked out the links you provided. I wasn’t being entirely facetious – I really did expect some facts, provided, as always, by someone with a viewpoint.
    Here are the links to which I’m referring:
    The Brilliance of the Bush Plan
    Where are the WMD’s?
    The latter does advance some facts. The meat of it, though, is a twisted and barely applicable drug bust analogy. (If you consider even the most basic facts about the way we went to war, it seems that the Bush administration is both the cops and the ACLU.)
    So, granted that Saddam once had NBC weapons (really, only BC weapons) – what happened to them? I have to agree (sigh) with Rumsfeld that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” – it is possible that they were moved to Syria. I doubt it, since we surely would have noticed and done something to call attention to it, but it is not impossible. But if this is true, aren’t we less safe from such weaponry today? How does this consititute a success?
    What I think is more likely is that Saddam complied with the (sovreignty-infringing in a way that may come back to bite our behinds one day) UN resolutions ordering him to disarm. Of course, for a Bad Guy, there is no real honesty – this was just a despicable ruse to get us to tarnish our credibility. We became victims of our own propaganda: it was simply inconceivable that Saddam Hussein would not have such things. After all, hadn’t everyone acknowledged so, for over a decade?
    Saddam did everything in his power to avoid getting his butt kicked. The only terms we offered were, essentially, indistinguishable from what we see in Iraq today – go to jail, hand over your whole country to us.
    The Brilliance of the Bush Plan is much less substantial. It makes the tired, cliched compairson of America to Rome (the comparison still has merit, though) and uses this to argue the necessity of engaging the enemy everywhere. And, perversely, of lying about our motives and intentions in order to accomplish this. It’s just downright horrid, when you get to the bottom of it.
    Well, anything for the Empire, eh?

  46. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    EverKarl –
    Wow. I’ve heard a lot of heated, um, rhetoric, but those quotes really peel the paint. I hope you don’t equate my position with that.
    And, like I said, I never heard those comments before, but that sort of thing is why it really does hurt to be likened to Moore. As many on the left have said to many on the right, if he feels that way, why doesn’t he go over there and fight?

  47. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    Kat,
    I respect you a great deal, and like reading your posts. We don’t seem to agree much, indeed, but I had thought this was just because of the subjects we’re discussing. I imagined that if we were to discuss a broader range of topics, we’d find a lot of common ground… maybe so. But I’ve really got to disagree with you about Clinton. I know he wasn’t a crazy ideologue (like me) and that such people should generally be kept out of office by the voters… I see what you are saying about some of these leftists. Being right is more important to them than America is, and that’s pretty sick. I agree.
    But Clinton shares, I think, all of their vanity and then some. I kept trying to tell my leftist friends that Clinton was no leftist – and found that they were all entranced by his charisma. (It breaks my heart to go through the same futile efforts again these days.) But he was really driven by a lust for power, and was very clever in allowing his ‘trivial’ faults (if perjury is trivial to you) to obscure his enormous faults.
    And so, really, I want you to face this, I want to try to wipe away the vestiges of that evil man’s vile sorcery: when did Bill Clinton ever find his personal fortunes at odds with America’s future, and opt for what was best for America’s future?

  48. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    stevek,
    In no way do I put you in the group quoted. Nor does Kat, if I’m reading her correctly. I’m somewhere between you and Kat on Clinton. I was responding to Cincinnatus.
    Although I sometimes disagree with your point of view, you are usually consistent. So in a friendly spirit, I must respectfully note the following from your post at 11:30–
    “…it is possible that [BC weapons] were moved to Syria. I doubt it, since we surely would have noticed and done something to call attention to it, but it is not impossible. But if this is true, aren’t we less safe from such weaponry today? How does this consititute a success?”
    You have just explained why the Administration wouldn’t want to call attention to it.
    Iraq Survey Group

  49. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    I won’t get into Clinton bashing cause I’ll start sounding like the leftists I abhor. I also won’t defend him. I disagreed with a great many things Clinton did–including Kosovo –but I did not wish for Americans to die so Clinton would fail there. Some on the Left cheer American deaths in Iraq and on 911. That I can not accept or tolerate. I have no use for people like that. They are not much better than the terrorists themselves. They enable and encourage terrorist scum.

  50. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    EverKarl,
    You make some pretty good points that I really should have taken into consideration myself. The Syria angle seems quite a bit more plausible to me now… yet it still seems plausible that maybe really did get rid of his prohibited weaponry… I’m just maybe a little high-strung about the issue because it made me feel, well, embarrassed and foolish. I had thought it almost beyond belief that we’d find no stockpiles of such things in Iraq, and there were quite a few people I know who took the other side, and really dug in over that.
    Kat,
    I’m sorry if I’m getting into some Clinton-bashing! (I’m very bad about this, sometimes downright childish.) But there are always so many powerful forces promoting Great Leaders… it makes me lash out. I felt so desperate back then, because Americans were not only allowing a Presiudent to flout the law, they were celebrating his doing so… nobody would listen to anything I said about the implications… I began to develop something of a Cassandra complex. Still not over that.
    I felt even more impotent whenever I tried to point out the majority of Clinton’s evils that had nothing to do with the sex scandals… I just couldn’t penetrate that..
    Anyway, whatever disagreements I may have with the two of you, I must say that you show this to be one of those very rare places where genuine civility and decency can be found. Goodnight and God bless.

  51. Eileen Avatar
    Eileen

    Okay Stevek, maybe you’re off to bed by now…,
    Even though I find us to be (sometimes) oceans apart – in a minute :) – you sound like a really nice guy, and at least you’re not angry. I like that about you. Those of the angry far left ala those quoted by EverKarl, and those who are clearly rooting for our demise or expressly for the other side, as pointed out by Kat and others, also make me want to….not become angry like them.
    Eeyores who can’t for even one moment consider that something fabulous happened on Sunday in Iraq for Iraqis!, regardless of anyone’s opinion on the war, Or it’s precursors, Or it’s aftermath, drive me to distraction. Not even for One Moment could they consider anything other than their own agendas. The self-centered, Must Be Right at all costs attitude is utterly self destructive and self defeating.
    I don’t consider you to be angry or self destructive. But Stevek, no one even questionned you on this: “Do you really envision America living under the dominion of the likes of OBL?!? Not in this millenium. I know I’m going to get flamed for pointing this out, but terrorism is really not that serious of a threat to our lives, liberties, or property.”
    I don’t need to state the obvious do I? C’monnn.
    And while you may think our own Democracy is imperfect (which of course it is), are you familiar with any Other form of government which does a better job of giving it’s people their voices via the ballot box and in a myriad other ways; of balancing power within it’s branches; and which is fundamentally interested in preserving human freedom?
    I’m hoping you’ll wake up in the morning and smell at least a few roses along with your coffee. Just for a moment, eh? Then in a minute we can get back to considering what Syria (with those WMDs?), and Iran might ‘accomplish’ in tandem in the region, or Russia along with China (yeah they’re yappin’) and, let’s say, N. Korea – (maybe throw in France and Germany in one of those alliances, too)….and I see the chess men being moved into place in the ME for very strategic, and Also very democratic reasons.
    As to the article you cited (a good one) was Bush stupid to ‘befriend’ Pakistan in this little chess game?… Or to coax Pakistan and India to rapprochement? The dynamics of global power have been injected with a new knight of terror. And it’s now a whole new chess game.
    I wish for damn once – just for one day – we Americans had been able to raise one jubilant (that means You MSM) voice to the rest of the world. Loyalty and solidarity exhibit strength, and I have a feeling we’re going to need our strength in the days ahead. I’m hoping the SOU address will remind the world of the strength of long lines at ballot boxes across the world.

  52. CharlesJ Avatar
    CharlesJ

    If everthing were reversed and Democrats held the positions that Republicans have and Republicans held the positions that Democrats have. It would be the Dems who would be crowing Democracy and the Republicans lying low after having spent alot of energy predicting failure. There would only be a handful of senators whose positions would be what they are now regardless of party. Why do we insist on thinking of these politicians as people even remotely like “us”? They are nowhere near like us.
    They only cheer for the victories on their team. Just as the GOP didn’t want to end the brutallity in Kosovo.
    Remember Kosovo and how Sen Graham admitted he was against going in b/c it would give Clinton a victory on an issue. Liberating brutalized people (Read “Worth the Fighting for” by John McCain) Graham was a frontrunner at the time and led the opposition on that issue. They had the exact opposite positon they have today. You and I (meaning the general public) probably did not. b/c we aren’t political jerks motivated the power or bloggers who just want to make a name for themselves…
    You’d have to be pretty short sighted not tho know the majority of pols are only interested in cheering the victories of their party…period end of story.

  53. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    CharlesJ – Good observation.
    It’s been sad to watch what it took for the GOP (Grand Old Party) to move from conservatism to neocon.
    In the name of politics to move from supporting the constitution to attempting to amend it in order to deny a faction of the public equal rights, from economic responsibility to selling out future generations to win support from the shallowest of me-first aspiring financial blindmen, from respect for the elderly to the attempt to condemn them to poverty in their old age, from respect for this government by law to unlawful restriction of freedom to the point of illegal jailings and illegal trial procedures … it becomes a tragedy of biblical proportions for this country. And all for political gain.
    I expect to see more beards in the GOP because of those who are unable to look themselves in the mirror in the morning.

  54. LT Avatar
    LT

    Wow…Good job Eileen.
    LT Green

  55. Kat Avatar
    Kat

    The Governor of Colorado has spoken against the piece of crap,churchill, and is demanding his removal. Will some lefties scream his right to trash speech have been violated? I don’t think the First Amenment sanctions the right to be a terrorist.
    {“Not only are [Churchill’s] writings outrageous and insupportable, they are at odds with the facts of history. The thousands of innocent people

  56. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    Ruth,
    Apparently, CharlesJ’s observation was so good that you couldn’t help demonstrating it perfectly.

  57. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    EverKarl,
    If you really think of the eroding of basic values that were involved in the U.S. constitution is a victory, then your comment makes sense, even if your position is sad.
    Otherwise you need to reread the comments you were alluding to.

  58. DPH Avatar
    DPH

    Stevek:
    You miss the point as usual, blinded by your irrational desire to find demons hiding in the Oval Office.
    The point of WMD essay is not facts, but logic. Of course you are not going to find contraband when the criminal is warned months in advance you are coming for the contraband. Is there something that your ilk misses in this? Second, when facts do contradict your bitter worldview, like the Duefler Report talking about Saddam’s subtle strategy of retaining WMD capacity and bribing the UN, you happen to, in a breathless demonstration of factlessness, think: “What I think is more likely is that Saddam complied with the (sovreignty-infringing in a way that may come back to bite our behinds one day) UN resolutions ordering him to disarm.” Here, you want to rely on the very cop the crook is bribing to enforce the law. That’s why that essay is helpful to the deluded left. Sometimes you have to “boil it down” to reveal the absurdity.
    Here’s another one:
    Inspections

  59. oodja Avatar
    oodja

    Yes, Jeff, reasonable people should agree on all of these things. Reasonable people should also recognize that democratic elections in Iraq are at best an incidental good arising from the American invasion. Nothing – including the voting in of a majority Shiite government after years of minority Sunni/Baathist rule – has gone the way that the Bushies intended. If the people who had dreamed up this war had their druthers, Free Iraq would have been a Hashemite monarchy, not a democracy.
    I look at this vote like a rainbow after a summer storm. It’s a thing of beauty, yes, and a marvel to behold, but once it fades you’re still all wet. If that makes me an Eeyore, well then color me guilty as charged. I’ll start being a little more optimistic about Iraq when people stop dying on a daily basis – Americans and Iraqis alike.

  60. pele Avatar
    pele

    Don’t forget the UK people. We’ve got people dying too.

  61. tb Avatar
    tb

    Jeff I am not sure why you are obsessing so much about what people in this country think of the Iraqi elections. Your getting a little ahead of yourself here. There is a long way to go, relax dude. Reasonable people can see that this whole thing is up to the people of Iraq, not to the wishful thinkers and well meaning doo gooders such as yourself in this country. If everyone in the world shared your view Saddam would never have happened in the first place, but they don’t and he did. You do fine work as a cheerleader keep it up, as political commentary you’ve got to learn to relax a little man.

  62. jeremy in NYC Avatar
    jeremy in NYC

    …remember, people: Friends don’t let friends post while stoned.

  63. ralph phelan Avatar
    ralph phelan

    stevek sez:
    “But such predictions serve as the basis for policy, and that is troubling. America is drowning in its own hubris – we think we can accomplish anything.”
    Using uncertain predictions isn’t hubris, it’s the nature of life. Unless you own a crystal ball, you have to make your best guess as to what you think will happen, and decide on that basis – and also consider the cost of being wrong.
    My analysis of the Iraq situation pre-war was that if we believe the pacifists and those who say Iraq isn’t a threat, and they turn out to be wrong, we lose a city. If we believe the hawks who say Iraq is a threat and they turn out to be wrong, we spend blood and treasure to save a bunch of strangers from torture and tyranny, and put a good jolt of fear into our enemies.
    I’m glad we chose to make the second class of mistake.

  64. Eileen Avatar
    Eileen

    Many, many thanks, LT, on ALL fronts. I am so very proud of our armed forces, and so very grateful for all you’ve accomplished and sacrificed on our behalf – and for the nations and people of Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Here’s to You, and countless more purple fingers beginning tonight…

  65. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    Eileen,
    That was a really great post – and I can’t seem to find any roses, but I’ve been so bad to my lawn that it’s bursting out with wildflowers…
    I am also of the belief that our system of government, with democratic elections that result in representatives who are strictly limited in what they can do, and whose powers are set against each other both by dividing the Federal government into its three branches and by leaving many matters to the states, or to the people.
    That’s why I am perpetually outraged and/or despondent. We are losing this system of government. It would be better to suffer “another 9/11” every day than to do that – to give up our freedom is, in my view, to make moot the sacrifices that so many better men than me have made for this nation. There is no greater shame that we could bring upon ourselves, and if in the future, history is written by the free, they will hold us in contempt for it.
    DPH,
    First, what exactly is my ilk? I’ve been puzzling over that for years. Second, I just don’t buy the argument made on that site. What are you (and they) trying to suggest – that we should have not given Saddam the chance to disarm, nor had any inspections at all through the 90’s – just attacked, unannounced? That seemed to be the point of the author on that horrid site – to fight the barbarians, we must become the barbarians!
    What is incredible to me is just how much currency this despicable idea gets. When I now hear that our ever-loving government, in its eternal (well, interminable anyway) quest to abolish evil and tyranny, is mulling over (of course, we mustn’t have disclosure of such things, which would only help the enemy) the possibility of setting up, well, terrorist operations, in order to bag terrorists, it makes my blood run cold. And yet I know that even that is not the bottom – we have a long way to go.
    (Really, DPH, I can’t abide that site – it’s like listening to guys who wanted to be Randians but were too stupid and self-righteous even for that crowd. Their basic idea seems to be “We use logic, which brings about results in reasoning that are convergent and unassailable. Thus, if you disagree, you are just not rational.” It would be amusing twaddle if those same ideas were not presently steering our nation.)
    It is quite possible that Saddam really did comply with the U.N. He is a self-interested tyrant, not a fanatic given to martyrdom, and he is not stupid. And to the extent that it is believed he complied, he has succeeded in isolating the U.S. and stealing the relatively high moral ground. This is not good for America, and refusing to recognize it doesn’t make it not so.
    I think it is obvious that our view of the world has been severely warped, not only by government and media propaganda, but by the action-figure types of narratives in which we’re constantly immersed. After 9/11, a friend made an almost- keen observation: Al-Qaeda is COBRA.
    (Side note: Hilariously (I laughed various body parts off, both because it is really funny and because I was relieved that there is not, in fact, some American soldier waiting for his execution) a terrorist group in Iraq posed an action figure so as to resemble a U.S. serviceman with a rifle pointing at his head…)
    But, seriously, we paint the world into Good Guys and Bad Guys, all the time, and scarcely notice when our leaders “paint over” one of the guys on the board. (It shocked me during Gulf War I how easy this proved to be.) The caricature of “Bad Guy” not something that exists in the real world, so we are fighting our enemies as we imagine them to be. What could better assure our failure to win? We have, in the words of Screwtape, become victims of our own propaganda.
    But, worse yet, we are the Good Guys – unconditionally. Any evidence to the contrary can be rationalized and flushed right down that memory hole before you can blink. (If Bush had led this nation to repentance when the Abu-Ghraib (and other!) torture and death story broke, I might have some respect for him. Instead, he led us in rationalization. “That’s not the America I know!” – hasn’t he ever looked at the stuff we put on the Internet?!!?) This compromises our conscience – not only will this make us look dastardly in the eyes of the world, it will morally and spiritually destroy us.
    Self-justification is worse than the original offense. What has happened is akin to King David, confronted by the prophet Nathan, saying, “well, the neat thing about being King is that I’m not accountable to anyone. No, others are accountable to me for the things they might say…” No, Bush, you’re dead wrong – no matter how many of your countrymen you sacrifice at your Altar of Changing Names (yesterday, “security”; today, “democracy”) it is not that false god to which men are held accountable… there is, indeed, an “accountability moment” for human beings, but Democracy, Security, Patriotism – these will not be the judges.
    Ralph,
    Out of all the arguments for war, the “Pascal’s wager” one strikes me as one of the most interesting. I’m not going to say it isn’t compelling in some ways – but where does it lead, if we take it as our maxim? And this gets us back to some of the points Eileen made in that awesome post – we’ve got to consider the whole chessboard, so to speak.
    And that is what worries me. I don’t think that “Islamofascism” is likely to take over any nations that could project power against the U.S. to a serious degree. I do, however, note the emergence of what can best be described as fascist tendencies all across Eurasia. And I note that Russia and China are getting more cozy. And France and Germany, too – I’m not historical scholar, but am I mistaken in saying that France and Germany have never been allies ever since there was a “France” and a “Germany”…? The other powers of the world are, quietly but surely, preparing for the next world war. If such a war comes and finds us isolated from the rest of the world, with a “light” military suited for the “generational” war on terror (it generates more terror is what they mean by that, I guess), and with a population who are skeptical of any threat because the government just cried “wolf” too many times…
    That is my nightmare.

  66. Cincinnatus Avatar
    Cincinnatus

    Kat: Get out your brown shirt. Sieg Heil! Please somehow tell me (without quoting Bill OReilly) how Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy are traitors to this country? (The latter is quite insulting considering that all three of his brothers gave their lives in service of this country.)
    EverKarl: I am sure I can cherry-pick some quotes from people on the right as well saying ludicrous things. How about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blaming America for 9/11? What about Pat Buchannan slipping up and saying that “we” (i.e. the South) would win the Civil War this time around . . . We can play that game all day.

  67. EverKarl Avatar
    EverKarl

    Ruth,
    I read CharlesJ’s post, which began with this sentence:
    “If everthing were reversed and Democrats held the positions that Republicans have and Republicans held the positions that Democrats have.”
    and goes on to talk about how politicians cheer their own side.
    You thought that was a good observation, then went on to make another rote partisan attack.
    Cincinnatus,
    Are there nutjobs on the right? Sure. In fact, had I remembered the Fallwell-Robertson quote off the top of my head, I would have included it, though they apparently both apologized. I might be cynical enough to consider that the initial exchange is reflective of what those two really think, but I would note that if they apologized under pressure, no such apology has been forthcoming from those I quoted. Indeed, I would suggest that such public pressure would immediately be branded as the crushing of dissent.
    When Kat wrote that “some” on the Left were on the side of the terrorists, you objected. I was merely pointing out that there are, in fact, “some.” Reprinting the quotes merely proved that limited point. I did not state or imply anything more than that.
    Of course, if you’re going to be hyper-sensitive about such things, perhaps you shouldn’t resort to suggesting that your opponents are Nazis.

  68. DPH Avatar
    DPH

    Well, first of all, your “ilk” is long-winded and unclear. In the context I used the term, it means so hateful (fearful) of the current conservative movement you are detached from reality. Last try to tackle your nonsense…
    “DPH, First, what exactly is my ilk?
    ANSWERED THAT.
    Second, I just don’t buy the argument made on that site. What are you (and they) trying to suggest – that we should have not given Saddam the chance to disarm, nor had any inspections at all through the 90’s – just attacked, unannounced? That seemed to be the point of the author on that horrid site – to fight the barbarians, we must become the barbarians!
    NO, YOU MAKE A FAULTY ASSUMPTION – THAT SADDAM WANTED TO COOPERATE. HE DID NOT. GIVEN HIS INTRANSIGENCE AND OUR DESIRE TO AFFECT CHANGE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, IRAQ BECAME THE LOGICAL POINT OF ENTRY.
    What is incredible to me is just how much currency this despicable idea gets. When I now hear that our ever-loving government, in its eternal (well, interminable anyway) quest to abolish evil and tyranny, is mulling over (of course, we mustn’t have disclosure of such things, which would only help the enemy) the possibility of setting up, well, terrorist operations, in order to bag terrorists, it makes my blood run cold.
    WHAT, ARE YOU DELUSIONAL? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ABU GHRAIB? THEN YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
    And yet I know that even that is not the bottom – we have a long way to go.
    WHATEVER.
    (Really, DPH, I can’t abide that site – it’s like listening to guys who wanted to be Randians but were too stupid and self-righteous even for that crowd. Their basic idea seems to be “We use logic, which brings about results in reasoning that are convergent and unassailable. Thus, if you disagree, you are just not rational.” It would be amusing twaddle if those same ideas were not presently steering our nation.)
    I CAN SEE WHY YOU WOULD REJECT A SITE THAT TRIES TO ADVANCE THE IDEA OF “THINKING” BEFORE FORMING AN OPINION. NOTHING YOU HAVE SAID SO FAR MAKES ANY SENSE. LET’S CONTINUE.
    It is quite possible that Saddam really did comply with the U.N.
    OPINION. AGAIN, NOT ONE REVEALING EVIDENCE OF “THINKING.” READ THE DEUFLER REPORT.
    He is a self-interested tyrant, not a fanatic given to martyrdom, and he is not stupid. And to the extent that it is believed he complied, he has succeeded in isolating the U.S. and stealing the relatively high moral ground. This is not good for America, and refusing to recognize it doesn’t make it not so.
    THE US HAS A COALITION, IN CASE YOU WERE UNAWARE. THAT THOSE RECEIVING BRIBES REMAINED OUT OF THE COALITION FURTHER VALIDATES THE COALITION. YOUR BELIEF THAT CORRUPT COUNTRIES AND VARIOUS 3RD WORLD TYRANTS NEED TO ENDORSE US ACTION GIVES EVIDENCE TO YOUR LIKELY MORAL RELATIVISM, A STATE WHERE YOU CHAFF ANYTIME ANYONE SUGGESTS THEY HOLD A MORALLY SUPERIOR POSITION, WHICH OF COURSE THE US DOES AND YOU DENY.
    I think it is obvious that our view of the world has been severely warped, not only by government and media propaganda, but by the action-figure types of narratives in which we’re constantly immersed. After 9/11, a friend made an almost- keen observation: Al-Qaeda is COBRA.
    CUCKOO, CUCKOO…
    But, seriously, we paint the world into Good Guys and Bad Guys, all the time, and scarcely notice when our leaders “paint over” one of the guys on the board. (It shocked me during Gulf War I how easy this proved to be.) The caricature of “Bad Guy” not something that exists in the real world, so we are fighting our enemies as we imagine them to be. What could better assure our failure to win? We have, in the words of Screwtape, become victims of our own propaganda.
    MORAL RELATIVISM. SPARE ME THE CS LEWIS MISQUOTES – ONE OF THE WORLD’S FOREMOST ABSOLUTISTS – IN TRYING TO DEFEND MORAL RELATIVISM.
    THE REST IS MORE CUCKOO STUFF. INTERESTING LIFE YOU LEAD.

  69. stevek Avatar
    stevek

    DPH,
    Ah, now I know your ilk: THE GUYS IN ALL CAPS. I can stand being called delusional – but to call me a moral relativist… I am trying to stand up for some absolutes, actually. It is your ilk that has pushed us into the morass of relativism in which we are currently drowning. Think not? Recall that not too long ago, it was pretty uncontroversial to state that torture is wrong. Put that on a bumper sticker today and see where it gets you. Yeah, you’re quite an absolutist.
    You have misconstrued everything I’ve said in the basest way. When I find the leisure, I will respond more fully.

  70. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    evercarl,
    I wasn’t aware that ‘doesn’t agree with me’ = ‘rote’. By that definition you would make sense and I’m relieved that you don’t think the constitution is to be sabotaged to promote your views, but would really suggest you read it.
    stevek,
    Misconstruction is neocon method for devaluing the other side. If they can’t deal with the actual content, they can set up an argument that won’t hold water, claim it as yours, and then knock it down. You risk wasting your time trying to expose seriously closed minds to substance.

  71. chuffy Avatar
    chuffy

    I’m confused…I thought that to democratically elect someone, you needed to know who was on the ballot (you know, their name and a little about them) before you went in and cast your vote. Some democracy…
    Also, I think that having even fake elections is probably a good thing, but elections don’t make a democracy…just look at who they elected before we went in to Iraq, for WMD’s (in case you all forgot) ready to blow up within 45 minutes. That’s right, Saddam Hussein. That was an election too. Didn’t make it a democracy.
    Eeyores? You’re all a bunch of Prince Johns…

  72. ralph phelan Avatar
    ralph phelan

    “Out of all the arguments for war, the “Pascal’s wager” one strikes me as one of the most interesting. I’m not going to say it isn’t compelling in some ways – but where does it lead, if we take it as our maxim?”
    It leads to cost-benefit analysis, careful examination of historical parallels, and lots of messy decisions you’re never quite sure of.
    But that can’t be helped, because deciding not to do anything, or even deciding not to decide yet, are also decisions. No matter what you do or don’t do, there will be consequences. “Do nothing” is a pretty wise default choice, but it can’t be the ultimate answer whenever a situation involves uncertainty.
    This approach leads to saying we should have stayed the hell out of ex-Yugoslavia because none of the people there seemed to have a taste for exporting their madness, either for ideological reasons or for profit, and their madness only involved conventional weapons.
    It leads to us staying the heck out of Burma so long as the nasties running that country keep their nastiness local.
    Historical parallels make me think that invading North Korea is less promising than Iraq was – on the one hand, they’ve had even less contact with the outside world and willtherefore be much harder to occupy and pacify, and on the other hand the Lil’ Kim doesn’t have Saddam’s pattern of starting wars he can’t win, so deterrence is more realistic option. (One of the factors in my evaluation of the Iraq situation was the wars with Iran and Kuwait, both of which ended badly for Iraq. Deterrence won’t work on someone who’s too dumb to know a losing proposition when he sees one.)
    If you’re worried about the expansion of Federal power, consider what would happen to civil liberties in this country if terrorists ever *did* manage to set off a nuke in Port Elizabeth, dump a ton of ricin into San Francisco’s water supply, or spread ebola in Disneyworld. The best way to protect liberty at home is to fight these guys abroad. Let someone else’s country be the battlefield.

  73. LT Avatar
    LT

    hey chuffy
    The people over here in Iraq new who they were voting for. Just because you don’t doesn’t mean that they didn’t. And about Hussein’s “election”. Kinda hard to pick someone the oposition when that means death huh? WEll, let me tell you how far the Iraqi people have come. The terrorists gave them the same choice – cooperate with America and die, or stay home and don’t vote. Guess what they did. At over 5000 voting centers nation-wide, they showed up to express one thing they didn’t have under Sadam – political freedom.
    Ralph, great job of summing up our course of action in your last paragraph. That’s very true.
    LT Green, Iraq

  74. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    Anyone looking for some really substantive ideas about the new government’s possibilities for forming a viable Iran might want to read “But What about the Sunnis” an editorial by Gary Anderson on the Washington Post website, containing very positive reflections such as:
    “The opposition in Iraq is a fragile coalition of forces with incompatible views as to its goals — other than the goal of getting the Americans out of the country. In fact, some of the most radical members probably want to see us remain, since shooting at Americans is their sole claim to legitimacy. Fracturing that coalition is the key to success. ”