Mehlt-Down
That screeching, grating, shuddering noise you hear is the Bush White House scraping bottom. First comes Tony Snow casting out the pathetic party line that anyone who criticizes the war in Iraq is encouraging another 9/11.
Given the latest poll numbers, that would mean that just about 3 out of 5 Americans have now joined up with Al Qaeda.
Then came the pathetic RNC spokesman Ken Mehlman who got mercilessly pantsed by Chris Matthews. Mehlman repeated the new party slogan that Osama Bin Laden was "encouraged" by the American withdrawal from Beirut and Somalia and therefore any withdrawal from Iraw would... you know the rest. Matthews then asked Mehlman if he was saying that Ronald Reagan who was, after all, the President who ordered the retreat from Beirut, was a sell-out to terrorism. Mehlman could only giggle and stutter and dodge.
During that same interview, Mehlman eschewed six -- count them, six -- opportunities to endorse the Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger now running against Ned Lamont in Connecticut. Six times Mehlman refused to say that Republicans should support Schlesinger over a possible independent campaign by Joe Lieberman.
What utter and repulsive political bankruptcy from the spokesman of America's ruling party. I've heard tin-pot poilitical parties in backwater banana republics come up with a more coherent and convincing public program than the current GOP strategy.
Three months to go until the mid-terms. Ninety days more of bad news from Iraq, and an administration with no political agenda other than smearing its opponents and engaging in blatant fear-mongering.
With clear majorities now opposing the war and other administration policies the only question, as Matthews put it, is if Americans are willing to let their thinking catch up with their thinking. Are they ready to accept and identify themselves as "anti-war" in the face of a war they, at heart, oppose?
August 9th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Are Americans ready to identify themselves as anti-war?
You might think so, considering that at least 60 per cent of Americans consider our elective war in Iraq a mistake, but you would be wrong.
Americans are now anti-Iraq war but not anti-war per se. They see the pathologies of Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbullah, the Iranian Mullahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, ad infinitum, and they don’t blame Bush or American foriegn policy, any more than they do Israel. They see genocide in Darfur, facism in Syria, Copts seige in Egypt — an entire region mired in theocracy, autocracy, kleptocracy and Jew-hatred — and they don’t blame Bush or the West or Israel or the Jews or colonial history or Orientalism.
Americans see and hear perfectly lucid, intelligent people chasing the Bomb, calling for the destruction of Israel, the reconquest of Spain, the installation of a Caliphate and “death to Americans ” and they pay them the respect of taking them seriously. Americans are not in the least anti-war.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:18 am
No one would deny for a second that far too disadvantaged young Arabs are exposed to the ruthless forms of fundamentalist religion but if you really believe that there is a mass movement seeking the “reconquest of Spain” then forgive me for not taking you too seriously. We’ve got people like the Samuel Scotts on this side of the world and noxious raving Mullahs on the other. A perfect illustration, I think, of what Edward Said called “a clash of ignorance”
August 10th, 2006 at 4:09 am
“they don’t blame Bush or American foriegn policy, any more than they do Israel.”
Who is he talking about? Millions and millions of Americans do blame Bush, even if not all. Bush’s approval ratings are one piece of evidence and the upcoming elections will probably be another.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:41 am
Marc Cooper:
Actually Marc, it is far less a “new party slogan” than it is acknowledgement of a principle of human behavior. Reinforcement-Theory And yes, I danged well do blame Reagan for pulling out of Lebanon prematurely without doing something about Hezbollah at the time.
What is it that some folk don’t understand about “if you want to see more of a behavior, reward it.” Try it with your kids or grandkids the next time you go shopping, give in to every demand they make and then a week later take them back and see what happens.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:58 am
Grandkids aren’t killed if they don’t co-operate. The simplistic view is forcing a Western “daddy knows best” on radicals in their part of the world. So far this is failing miserably. Mehlman is a foolish shill and and embarassment to reason.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:00 am
“And yes, I danged well do blame Reagan for pulling out of Lebanon prematurely without doing something about Hezbollah at the time.”
GM, the US troops in Lebanon were supposed to be there as peacekeepers and not to “do something” about any of the antagonists, including taking sides with Israel–which they did anyway, which made their neutrality a sham, and which made them a target. So you can blame Reagan’s violation of the neutrality principle for putting those troops in harm’s way.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:26 am
More precisely, taking sides with Israel’s allies in Lebanon.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:36 am
Michael, I agree that the US Marines were there as peacekeepers, that role should have changed when Hezbollah attacked the Marine Barracks and the French Barracks… that was an act of war, not an invitation to a picnic and we would have been totally justified in taking out Hezbollah at the time.
I see yorkie is still incapable or reasoning.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:43 am
Michael, This CNN article kind of disagrees with your contention that “More precisely, taking sides with Israel’s allies in Lebanon” that seems to be a popular, if inaccurate misconception: 20 years later
August 10th, 2006 at 5:45 am
Tony Snow, as all Americans, should be concerned about terrorism. But, just watch. I bet that it takes no time for the Democratic Underground, Move On, Kos, and maybe some here to say that today’s terror threat involving flights from G.B. to the U.S. was contrived by Bush and was phony and comes conveniently leading up to the elections. You watch.
On Matthews, I quit watching him long ago. The way he “wins” arguments is to not shut up long enough to allow his guests adequate time to respond to his rapid fire screaming.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:46 am
Yorkie, this is the last time I’ll respond to your stuff on Marc’s blog, taking his exhortation to ignore you to heart, however, your attack on Mehlman and not refuting my comment regarding reinforcement of behavior is typical of you. What’sa matter boy’o, can’t refute the reinforcement theory? Too scientific for you? Prefer ad hominems do you?
Putz!
August 10th, 2006 at 6:15 am
GM, this chapter from a Rand study of peacekeeping gives a very detailed history of the US presence in Lebanon, including the background to US actions widely perceived as non-neutral even in the US Congress and the administration itself. You have to read pretty much the whole thing to get to that section, but you might find it of interest. Among other things it demonstrates that the US was indeed in an ambiguous situation, and of course I don’t condone the attacks on our troops; but it also shows that the realities were more complex than either of our posts might suggest.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html
August 10th, 2006 at 6:17 am
btw, as an old lefty one might expect me to be very hostile to Rand, but I have read a lot of their stuff recently in connection with my reporting for Science and find it impressive.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:34 am
I blame Reagan for retreating in Lebanon — but credit him for NOT retreating against the greater Evil Empire in Reykjavik. He wasn’t a sell out, he was choosing to fight the greater evil, only, at the time.
I blame Bush for too much US domestic spending, especially pork — but also credit him with what, 17 or 18 consecutive quarters of real growth. (Can we say “sustainable”? Maybe not quite yet…)
I only partly blame Bush for Iraq problems: the invasion was necessary to protect America; he gets big credit with me. The security problem was more because Saddam’s fighters never surrendered — the “war” was over so soon.
Not enough municipal elections, sooner; not enough Iraq control (over money, especially) & responsibility for their own reconstruction.
No “Oil Trust Fund” to return cash to Iraqis who register and start helping the new Iraq — an obvious way to reduce the Sunni fear of getting no oil revenue.
Terrible acceptance of Proportional Representation (like Slovakia and Israel and most Euro democracies), which support radical, sectarian, non-compromising ideologues.
But the biggest problem is that the Sunnis hate the Shia, and are willing and able to murder them — and increasingly, vice versa. This is the Iraq mess that is not Bush’s fault.
I’m not even sure Americans are anti-Iraq war so much as against so many of the bad effects, with too little explanation of alternatives and why the US policy chosen was the “best”. (Probably because it wasn’t?)
The war debate, even here, has been pretty juvenile, with competing unprovable assertions about the future (e.g. Saddam had no WMDs, and would never have been a threat.)
Marc had a nice post on many of his positions a while back, but I already forget if he favored continued sanctions on Saddam, or not; and if thought sanctions would end (in 5 years?) if the US had merely stayed in Afghanistan.
The Jew-hating, American-hating, West-hating Hezbollah in Lebanon, after Israel withdrew for peace, decided they wanted to murder more than they wanted peace.
This should be a clear lesson for those who want the US to withdraw from Iraq– it will be seen as a defeat, it will make the murderers more bold, it will make Iran get a nuke, it will make Tel Aviv go mushroom.
I sincerely hope the future doesn’t prove me correct.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:39 am
Tom Grey, you lambast the “competing unprovable assertions about the future,” and then a few lines later say, “This should be a clear lesson for those who want the US to withdraw from Iraq– it will be seen as a defeat, it will make the murderers more bold, it will make Iran get a nuke, it will make Tel Aviv go mushroom.” Um, can you prove that assertion?
And, your example of an unprovable assertion, that is, that Saddam had no WMDs, seems like it was pretty thoroughly proved. I’m not sure which Administration which desperately needed to save face you have been watching.
This may be a bit of gruesome realpolitik, but the Shia-Sunni violence which you so glibly claim is not Bush’s fault, is at lest partly Bush’s fault. See, it’s like a perfect experiment: Before the invasion, under Saddam, it was not happening, afterwards it was. QED.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:58 am
Dan O, under Hussein there wasn’t Shia-Sunni violence because Hussein controlled the outcome with threats of torture and murder. It was his way or the plastic recycling machine.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Yeah, GM, I think the “reinforcement” notion has a lot of validity. It was done when Reagan simply left Beirut with no consequences to the bad guys. It was done when Reagan gave military assistance to Saddam so he could commit war crimes. It was done when Reagan sent missiles to Iran illegally. It was done when Reagan armed and trained Islamic fundamentalists to take over Aghanistan because they were “the lesser of two evils”. It’s was done when GHW Bush brought the Saudi Ambassador into his extended family, turning a blind eye to the nature of the Saudi regime and their funding of radical Islam. It was done when GHW Bush had his ambassador tell Saddam, when he was threatening invasion, that our government was neutral in his dispute with Kuwait. It was done when GHW Bush sent signals that Shiites should rebel against Saddam, and then sat on his hands while they were massacred. And, of course, it was done when GW Bush refused to commit significant American troops to the effort to capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora but decided to rely on local militias led mostly by characters who would sell their sister for a goat. Arguably, it was also done when his administration made claims about Saddam’s WMD threat to the our national security (Rumsfeld: “We know where they are…”) that were founded on wishful thinking and hype, unilaterally ended renewed UN inspections in Iraq it had actually achieved by an aggressive posture, and proceeded to throw an entire country in to chaos and civil war with all of the strategic forethought that attends a crap shoot. This bungling “show of strength” will also have the same kind of negative consquences that attended other failures of effective response and weaken the U.S. in it’s further dealings with both allies and opponents, if only by the magnitude of it’s incompetence. Utlimately Iraq has become a massive demonstration of American weakness and “disingenuity”.
I agree with much of your thesis. But let’s not get carried away because the most important things to remember are that “the Democrats are the party of weakness and caving to our enemies” and “it’s Clinton’s fault”.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Now, now, reg, people on the right don’t want to be reminded of all this history. They don’t run on their record, they run on their rhetoric.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Michael, thanks for the link, I’ll get to it tonight and you are probably right in that the situation was and is more complex than either of us can comment on in this thread.
Reg, the thesis stands REGARDLESS of who does it. That is precisely the problem in that we do not hold people accountable for their actions. Either by the ballot or by the bullet. We instead fall back on cliches from the right or the left depending on what our particular pov is. You did a very good job of detailing the sins of the right in terms of reinforcement, I’ll not bother to detail the sins of the left on the same subject, as you know that it would be an equally impressive list.
Michael, this is no place to complain about anyone running on rhetoric especially coming from those of you on the left.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:26 am
“Michael, this is no place to complain about anyone running on rhetoric especially coming from those of you on the left.”
Yeah, I guess all of our cups runneth over.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:28 am
I did a quick search for Bin Laden Somalia “Strong horse” and came up with this quote.
“After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim.”
So is taking Bin Laden at his word considered a “party slogan”?
August 10th, 2006 at 9:42 am
“This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the leader of the Democratic House Congressional campaign. “This is not about the war. It’s blind loyalty to Bush.”
CBS/NYT Exit Poll
MAIN REASON YOU VOTED FOR LAMONT?
(Among Lamont voters)
Opposition to Iraq war 43%
He would oppose Bush 24
It’s just time for a change 21
Issues other than Iraq 9
His personal qualities 3
The DC Democrats will go down with this war.
August 10th, 2006 at 9:47 am
reg, listing Republican decisions that you claim are questionable without providing the underlying reasoning and circumstances behind them is too limited to be of use except for propaganda.
Oh, and yeah, since you expect us to blame Clinton…I don’t blame him. I wish that he had handled things differently, but the President has a difficult line to walk that I allow him that you won’t allow Republicans. Clinton treated the first bombing of the WTC as a crime for the police rather than as an attack on our country. A mistake. He said that he wouldn’t take Bin Laden from the Sudenese because Bin Laden only wanted to harm us but had not committed a crime against us (except bomb our embassy.) However, Clinton earlier launched cruise missiles to kill him, it seems around a convenient time when impeachment was being discussed. At least he agrees with G. W. Bush’s approach to the Taliban and Bin Laden. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/20/112336.shtml
And, the Democrats are the party of appeasement and lack the will to do militarily what has to be done. In fact, they traditionally gut the military to fund give-away programs, which isn’t surprising given the hatred (an appropriate word) of our military by the left, which thinks that it is “unfair” that we’re stronger than other nations. I don’t have to go to any length on that. Let’s just say that the Democrats act like they are French in their attempts to wussify America .
How much do “they” pay you for making comments here?
August 10th, 2006 at 10:30 am
So in other words, we now run our foreign policy in accord with proclamations from OBL. We have a war in Iraq that is costing $300 billion a year; has killed 2500 Americans; helped generate a widening civil war that is killing at a clip of 35,000 people per year. But we should NOT have any debate on whether or not this is really productive for us or anyone else. Instead we listen to OBL’s propaganda and on that basis we continue the course. Cool. Sounds to me like we dont need a CIA or a State Dept or even a national security council. All we need really is Al Jazeera so we know whether or not OBL is happy or not.
All I have to say is that the blind supporters of the war policy have a very big and uncomfortable surprise in their immediate future. Either in 2006 or at the latest 2008 there is going to an ELECTORAL tidal wave of rejection of the war. Make sure Karl Rove has a life raft ready fo you.
Woody, I have some books you might want read that details French military policy from Napoleon through Algeria right up to Rwanda. You can call the French a lot of things, but not wussies.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:11 am
“But the biggest problem is that the Sunnis hate the Shia, and are willing and able to murder them — and increasingly, vice versa. This is the Iraq mess that is not Bush’s fault.”
While Dan O does a fine job of exposing the error in the second half of this dubious claim, the first half is hardly resting on firm ground. The relationship between Iraqi Shia and Sunni doesn’t lend itself to such simplistic characterization. Ambitions toward a less-than-innocent “truce” in the making:
“But again, why would they seek truce with all the deeply rooted differences between them?
Well the unpleasant scenario I’m expecting is basically that these parties want this truce to fix one front and pave the way for the beginning of a Sunni-Shia joint Islamic insurgency against the US and the UK in Iraq, and I call it Islamic because that’s how the planning party wants it to look like to persuade militants of the other sect to join them in their next mischief or at least to guarantee that the other sect would remain neutral during the conflict they are planning to spark.”
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/07/war-preparations-disguised-as.html
August 10th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Right-Wingers think farting in front of the President is an “act of war”
Employing undocumented workers is an “act of war.”
Mugging a white dude in America is an “act of war”.
You right-wingers need to sober up.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Marc, go to Google and type in “French military victories” and then click the “I’m feeling lucky” button, which leads you to this: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html See?
Actually, I have less of a problem with the French military than the French themselves, who sure seem wussified to me. Balter would agree unless he’s joined them. If he doesn’t, well…..
Of course, today the French can’t lose if they don’t get in the game. They aren’t much help in Lebanon.
On the Iraq war, I’m not a supporter. It’s just that I’m not one to stab America in the back by quitting or, as some say, cut and run. If I could come up with the perfect answer, then I would have a good job in Washington or a job at NewsMax.
The debate on the war should not be a matter of whether or not we should be there, as both political parties put us there (and don’t let them lie,) but should be a matter on how are we going to get out. The voters need to understand that.
They also need to understand that we need leaders with conviction rather than leaders who read the polls to decide their positions of the moment. Which is Bush and which is Kerry? What is Hillary Clinton becoming?
August 10th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Woody, Sammy, GM, Tommy L, like any typical facsist, would support the right-wing alpha-male over his nation, any day.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:51 am
You’re right Marc. In my short post criticizing your use of “party slogan” I recommended disbanding the CIA.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Woody, the “underlying reasoning” behind most of those decisions was transparent and not particularly controversial. My point is that, taken even at face value, they were all decisions that had enormously negative consequences beyond any short term advantage, which in most cases was non-existent. And the consequences were predictable. I, for one, thought that the tradeoff of an Islamofascist takeover of Afghanistan as a tradeoff for ending a pro-Soviet regime was indefensible at the time and that we were promoting something far, far worse. I didn’t anticipate it coming back to bite us in the ass quite as disastrously as it ultimately did. For Iran-Contra, incidentally, Reagan deserved to be impeached. (The GOPer myth of Ronald Reagan’s greatness is so absurd that IMHO it’s definitive proof that the GOP ideology du jour is based on childish fictions.) I’m not trying to paint the world as simplistic as Ken Mehleman, god forbid, because his entire approach is absurd, but if you guys want to play that silly, reductionist game, beware.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Incidentally, Michael that was a very informative piece on the Reaganauts in Lebanon.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Woody, precisely why I called it a bit of gruesome realpolitik. Whatever kept the lid on it back then doesn’t change the fact that Bush and his pals took the lid off. This, as I said, is somewhat grotesque logic to even contemplate, but the facts are what they are. I guess this exemplifies the hellish alternatives that often confront people who make decisions about foregin policy. In this case, was the removal of Saddam, which I supported, worth the situation we now have, a situation not entirely unanticipated by the CIA and others? Those are infernally tough questions to answer, but it was answered in one way and psuhed by one person, and the consequences are his.
August 10th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
I don’t have time right now to elaborate in detail, but we should ask ourselves: If the goal was to remove Saddam (since there were no WMD) was there no other way to do it but go in militarily like gangbusters and uncork what everyone who knew anything about the country warned would be uncorked? The invade Iraq/leave Saddam forever dichotomy is a false one but very convenient for Bush apologists. The same question could be asked about any dictatorship: What is the best way to foster democracy? Cuba is also good example of where US policy has failed miserably in its stated goals.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Let me put this another way: Since Iraq had no tradition of democracy, only an ignorant, incompetent clown would think it was just a matter of invading the country, throwing out Saddam, and holding a couple of elections. Unfortunately, our country is led by a bunch of ignorant, incompetent clowns.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Marc I agree that the GOP message from people like Snow and Mehlman leaves much to be desired in the form of logic but they don’t care. Have you been watching the punditocracy at work? What I have been hearing (most recently on Charlie Rose last night) is that this Lamont win will be a gift to Republicans as they will paint the Dems as soft of terror. It was said best by the head of the ABC political unit – until proven wrong he’ll bet on Karl Rove’s strategy that worked in 2002 and 2004. And we heard again that Dems are divided. And while Adam Nagourney and EJ Dionne said otherwise that is the message you get from Cokie and Tweety and others. And I’m not talking FOX News here.
And Marc I know you like to lambast wacky professors like Ward Churchill for their looney ideas. Well how about examing a certain Harvard Law School Prof who suggested we should have “Torture Warrants” a few years ago and now is arguing that there are no innocent civilians in Lebanon since they have not stopped Hezbollah from attacking Israel. Therefore they are legitimate targets. Kinda like the logic of Osama in claiming no one killed on 9/11 was innocent. Maybe the Harvard Corporation should do something about Alan Dershowitz. Just a thought.
August 10th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Woody,
So Hussein wasn’t another self-interested partisan to further drive home my point? it’s the winger brigade on the attack. That’s not NPOV. More evidence on the pile is good.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Dan O : “was the removal of Saddam, which I supported, worth the situation we now have, a situation not entirely unanticipated by the CIA and others? Those are infernally tough questions to answer, but it was answered in one way and psuhed by one person, and the consequences are his.”
I give Bush credit for elections and agree some of the consequences are his — but it is racist of you to argue that Iraqis are unthinking, amoral beasts. That their choice to kill and murder is merely instinct. To claim Bush is responsible when murderers kill, you are saying the murderers are not responsible.
Failure of the Left to give any moral responsibility to the Iraqis is one of the big juvenile argument problems.
Similarly is Marc’s snide “We have a war in Iraq that is costing $300 billion a year; has killed 2500 Americans; helped generate a widening civil war that is killing at a clip of 35,000 people per year. But we should NOT have any debate on whether or not this is really productive for us or anyone else.”
Was it good to boot Saddam? (yes! for me)
Was it worth $300 bil./yr? –I think yes; but offered ways it could have been done better AND cheaper, thru reconstruction loans to locally elected Iraqis. It’s pretty teenage cowardly to imply the answer is “no”, without indicating how much the US should have been willing to pay. Same with casualties — would 2000 or 1000 or 500 have made it OK?
Anti-war folk have no standards of how many casualties would be acceptable; how many are “too many to be worth it”. (2500 or less, A; 5000 or less, B; 10 000 or less, C for me).
Iraqis killing Iraqis, or supporting foreign murderers to do it — I grant them full human rights. And full human responsibility. The murdering terrorists are guilty of murder — it’s their fault, not Bush.
(Though one mistake of Bush & America was thinking “America” could stop Iraqi murder, when it was always only Iraqis who could stop it.)
Those who support the terrorists are supporting the murders, and are not-innocent.
I’m pretty sure, by 2008, the Iraqis will have quieted their own terror murders down quite a bit. But if they haven’t, if that 35 000 murders a year continues, it is likely a Dem will be in the WH in 2009. So I doubly hope the Iraqis stop the murders!
August 10th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Tom Grey, I’ll refrain from telling you to fuck yourself sideways which was my first impulse upon being called a racist. I’ll just say it’s boorish and stupid on your part especially considering the context of my comments, which were, if you read them, (and since you quoted them I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt) about the emergent sectarian violence which it now seems obvious was kept under wraps by Saddam’s thuggery. Of course, it’s possible, and likely, that Saddam has exacerbated already existing tension by so thoroughly dominating one sector of the population.
The implosion in Iraq is looking like ethnic or religious ones that have happened elsewhere, like Yugoslavia. This in no way implies an inherent bloodthirstiness on the part of Iraqis. Just old-fashioned run of the mill religious hatred, that some Iraqis are engaging in.
Next time you want to pull the pin on the racism grenade I suggest you think more carefully about what you’re saying….it’s a debate ender and I said nothing to warrant it.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Of course, I have very little to contribute to this post – or, what would be considered the acceptable contribution. What we have is a systemic problem, and neither Dem’s or Repub’s are going to contribute to solving root problems. So, I will spare you the seeming diatribe.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
And another thing: “That their choice to kill and murder is merely instinct. To claim Bush is responsible when murderers kill, you are saying the murderers are not responsible.” This is one of those two thoughts moments….of course they are responsible for the killing they engage in, and this is, I would think, so elephant-like in its obviousness as not to need utterance. The two thoughts opportunity for you is: Who made the conditions where this kind of deadly anarchy can happen?
August 10th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
I have no idea what Rightall is saying above.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
The French resistance get part of the credit for subverting the Nazi occupation, before the allies got there. You’d know that had you known someone there at the time. History makes mincemeat of one-dimensional “thinkers.” They are always wrong, but then mockery is the antics of schoolyard punks who know very little about the world they live in. In fact they don’t even want to.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
“On the Iraq war, I’m not a supporter.”–Woody.
And I am still a supporter of the troops efforts in Iraq to make that country a liveable place, regardless of the present poll numbers. I hope that you take this into account before the next time that you think about calling me names like a “lefty” or a “liberal,” since by this admission you are a granola munching, latte sipping hippy compared to me. Obviously, my stance and your stance on the war reveals the futiility of coming up with buzzwords to categorize other people, which you frequently do, you know.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
I think current conditions in the Middle East make a mockery of BF Skinner. Psychology is the vaguest, and least valid of the sciences. Biology departments only deal with the “animal” world for this reason. After the test thus far the resistence has grown, not shrunken, so as Dr. Phil would say, “How’s that workin for ya?” Not very well since we’re just hated even more. These groups run on religiousity. It’s a fixed action pattern at this point and never will change in response to strongarming. They have to be killed, thus unless new tactics are employed it will only continue to be necessary. Think hamster on a tread wheel.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
And yes, I was opposed to us getting involved in the first place, but when an operation is underway you don’t leave the patient bleeding to death on the operating table. Which is what will happen to Iraq’s citizens if we hightail it out right now without ensuring stability. They will bleed to death.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
David, I am going to brief with this answer – this is why you do not allow medical quacks in the operating room in the first place.
Although the analogy is false, because there was never an intention to cure the patient in the first place, in this instance. I will leave the remainder for cogitation.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
David, that quickly and carelessly written sentence of mine does not do justice to what I believe and have written here before. Perhaps you already knew that. What I have said is that I did not agree with us going into Iraq at the time it was announced, but I accepted that our leaders had more information and combined intelligence than did I, so I would support them and our effort–which I do. It would have been more accurate to say that I was not an advocate of the war when it was announced. Perhaps you and I are alike on that.
I don’t remember applying a label to you in the past, but you might be a Ben & Jerry’s commie ice cream licker who wears sandals with shorts and dark knee socks.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Woefullly off topic I know but….Toni Morrison, José Saramago, Eduardo Galeano, Gore Vidal, Rusell Banks (one of my favorite comtemporary American fiction writers, but i digress), Noam Chomsky and some other prominenet writers are running an excellent petition in major newspapers throughout the world. Take a look
The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press. The following day the Palestinians took an Israeli soldier prisoner–and proposed a negotiated exchange against prisoners taken by the Israelis–there are approximately 10,000 in Israeli jails.
That this “kidnapping” was considered an outrage, whereas the illegal military occupation of the West Bank and the systematic appropriation of its natural resources–most particularly that of water–by the Israeli Defense (!) Forces is considered a regrettable but realistic fact of life, is typical of the double standards repeatedly employed by the West in face of what has befallen the Palestinians, on the land allotted to them by international agreements, during the last seventy years.
Today outrage follows outrage; makeshift missiles cross sophisticated ones. The latter usually find their target situated where the disinherited and crowded poor live, waiting for what was once called Justice. Both categories of missile rip bodies apart horribly–who but field commanders can forget this for a moment?
Each provocation and counter-provocation is contested and preached over. But the subsequent arguments, accusations and vows, all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.
This has to be said loud and clear, for the practice, only half declared and often covert, is advancing fast these days, and, in our opinion, it must be unceasingly and eternally recognized for what it is and resisted.
PS: As Juliano Mer Khamis, director of the documentary film Arna’s Children, asked: “Who is going to paint the ‘Guernica’ of Lebanon?”
John Berger
Noam Chomsky
Harold Pinter
José Saramago
Eduardo Galeano
Arundhati Roy
Naomi Klein
Howard Zinn
Charles Glass
Richard Falk
Gore Vidal
Russell Banks
Thomas Keneally
Chris Abani
Carolyn Forché
MartÃn Espada
Jessica Hagedorn
Toni Morrison
August 10th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
“all serve as a distraction in order to divert world attention from a long-term military, economic and geographic practice whose political aim is nothing less than the liquidation of the Palestinian nation.”
Please, they want no such thing. What they want is for the borders to be safe and secure without miltant whackos who operate without the sanctioning of the governments in the countries they infiltrate. In this case Lebanon. For that matter Palestinians could liquidate to Syria and Jordan tommorrow. But apparently they aren’t citizens there either even as they came from there in the first place.
Unfortunately this is a cause celeb with one-eye blind. Both eyes have to open on this one.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Ahmed:
Thanks for posting the petition – this is the first I’ve seen of it.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Death to communist, wussy, spineless democrats. Terrorist-loving, weak on defense, criminal-coddling, and eating the fabric of our society. I say send them all to …. (name your favorite horrible place) Only conservatives can save our nation.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Send ‘em to France!
August 10th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Conservatives got us into this mess in the first place. How about we send them to the former colony of French Guiana?
August 10th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Thanks Mr Ed Watters. Nice prose on your site by the way
August 10th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Marc Cooper says:
“All I have to say is that the blind supporters of the war policy have a very big and uncomfortable surprise in their immediate future. Either in 2006 or at the latest 2008 there is going to an ELECTORAL tidal wave of rejection of the war.”
The assumption here is that “the war” is our campaign in Iraq and not the wider war. The nut-jobs in Iran, of Hamas, Hezbullah, of Al Queda, et. al., won’t be sitting still in the next weeks and months. They interpret the fact that they aren’t dead yet as a sign of Allah’s favor: time to kill more Jews and blow up more Westerners!
They will keep provoking. They can’t help themselves; that’s what they do. The Republicans will win in both 2006 and 2008, on the only issue they deserve to win on.
Ahmed says:
No one would deny for a second that far too disadvantaged young Arabs are exposed to the ruthless forms of fundamentalist religion but if you really believe that there is a mass movement seeking the “reconquest of Spain†then forgive me for not taking you too seriously. We’ve got people like the Samuel Scotts on this side of the world and noxious raving Mullahs on the other.”
This is like a car salesmen trying to close on what kind of sound system you want. You are invited to believe that a mass movement that blames the Jews for Arab-Muslim poverty and oppression won’t demand Andalusia, after they have exterminated all the Jews. In all seriousness Ahmed, are you really arguing that tens of millions of Muslims don’t beleive in converting the world to Islam, by conquest?
And finally, Ahmed’s last point bears repeating:
“We’ve got people like the Samuel Scotts on this side of the world and noxious raving Mullahs on the other.”
Yes, exactly, if only there weren’t people like ME in the West, everything would be sunshine and lollipops in the East. For instance, Ahmed, if you had to choose between a town in which I was the mayor and an Iranian Mullah was the mayor, why, gee, you would just have to flip a coin, because what is the difference between me laughing in your face and telling you that you are deluded apologist for facists and the mullah telling you to grow a beard and bow to Allah five times a day, before stringing up your somewhat fey cousin?
I’ve known dozens of people like you Ahmed. I’ve never known a one who didn’t carry a Western passport. What? You don’t have one? Anything is possible.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
P.S. You would think that an allegedly left-wing, or liberal or progressive blog, or whatever you care to call it, would be full of expressions of solidarity for Arab and Muslim left-wingers and liberals and progressives and modernists, because after all, these are the brave people fighting the power and giving a voice to the hundreds of millions who just want a better life. You would think, but you would be wrong.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:06 am
So where can I sign up for the “Samuel Stott for mayor” campaign? perhaps i can dutifully put up some signs or work the phones for you. Is that possible. Listen, Scott, youve made it quite clear where you stand on the Huntingtonian divide. Lets just say that our disagreements are so vast at this point that im really not sure where to begin. As for progressive and secular voices in the Muslim world I’ve had deep differences with Tariq throughout the years but his perpective is always worth listening to.
http://tinyurl.com/ofa5d
August 11th, 2006 at 3:22 am
Dan O, I don’t think you should be SO offended at being called a racist; I’ve also called those who want to close the American border to “them” racists. I consider a big F* U to be more offensive than “you racist”, especially if there is some reason for the racist label. (When younger, I used F* a lot; don’t, now.)
In the book Ender’s Game, there’s a scene with the hero calling a future friend “nigger.” The author (Card) has revised the book, based on many complaints about the word, and taken the word out.
However, I consider those who assign moral responsibility for action to one group, but not another group, to be racist. The “condescension of low expectations” is related to this. I’m sorry if this offends you so much.
Then you get to the heart of it: “of course they are responsible for the killing they engage in, and this is, I would think, so elephant-like in its obviousness as not to need utterance. The two thoughts opportunity for you is: Who made the conditions where this kind of deadly anarchy can happen?”
Responsibility is a zero-sum issue. If the Iraqi murderers are responsible (51-100%), there is less responsibility for Bush.
The responsibility of the Iraqis for what Iraqis do needs far more utterance, and repetition, and is far more important than what Bush does, or doesn’t do, in Iraq. I’ve long been writing on this (to little effect, not enough jokes! I know).
Freedom always allows murderers a lot of ability to murder; and the lack of law enforcement always increases the disrespect for the law. However, while the US army can give “freedom” from gov’t oppression, it cannot provide local Iraqi law enforcement.
Thanks for being fairly civil, and especially substantive.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:45 am
They feel their reasoning is obvious, citing Arab-Muslim’s poverty even, but in fact it’s fallacious as more learned observers can tell easily. The wingers don’t account for the excess poverty we have measured, not foe one degree increase in 100 years.
August 11th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
“Please, they want no such thing …..But apparently they aren’t citizens there either even as they came from there in the first place. ”
Here’s Publius shrill and mendatious claim that Palestinians as a people do not exsit. This is probably the last time I’ll respond to him here as I’ve decided to heed Marc’s advice and will \not be corresponding with this particualr troll. But his rather crude proclamtion paradoxically gives me a slendid opportunitty to cite a beautiful passgage i recently came across from the late Edward Said. Its part of a much larger meditation on landlesssness, exile and identity
“Do we exist? What proof do we have? The further we get from the Palestine of our past, the more precarious our status, the more disrupted our being, the more intermittent our presence. When did we become a people? When did we stop being one? Or are we in the process of becoming one? What do those big questions have to do with our intimate relationships with each others? We frequently end our letters with the motto “Palestinian love” or “palestinian kisses”. Are there really such things as Palestinian intimacy and embraces, ot are they simply intimacy and embraces–experiences common to everyone, neither politically significant nor particularly to a nation or a people?”
August 11th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Again as with the other thread I didn’t write that last post. What we have here is one of Roper’s boys doing his boss’s bidding. As anyone can see he’s taken York’s global warming post and copied it under my handle and modified it here. Real writers don’t have to do that. While I don’t agree with ahmed, I’m fully capable of saying where and why.
We haven’t seen any “Palestinian love” in memory. Poverty, failure and overpopulation when one can ill-afford it are responsible for the current state of affairs. Violence is the result.
August 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Mr Ahmed:
Describing me as on the opposite side of the “Huntington Divide,” is a fair way of limning numerous differences in shorthand.
Tariq Ali says:
“And so a new form of politics has to be built and how you fight, politically, becomes extremely important. And that is why, as I was saying earlier, what is happening in Latin America I think offers great hope for the 21st century.”
Well, you can always identify progressives (with no scare quotes) —”scare quotes” because true progressives call for future refinement and improvement, which assumes a degree of imperfection in the present. I hope that Tariq Ali is banking on Brazil and Peru and Chile more than Bolivia and Venezuela, but whatever the case, I have to agree that the future is unwritten.
Fair-minded observers might be willing to admit that I say nothing to support the wack-o eschatology of Pat Robertson and his Christer (I am a Christian) epigones. The future is marvelous; let’s have as much of it as we can get.
Meanwhile, I remain an unapologetic anti-jihadi and anti-anti-semite.
August 12th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
“Mr Ahmed:”
It’s “she.”
November 4th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Buon luogo, congratulazioni, il mio amico!
April 11th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Ich erklare meinen Freunden uber diese Seite. Interessieren!