Shameless Crap
Shout-show clown Jonah Goldberg has weighed in [sic] with his first of what will be a weekly op-ed column for the L.A. Times. I'm all for the Times having some conservative columnists -- but they might have found one that can actually write and think. Or at least one of the two.
What a shame the Times now stoops to featuring such illiterate and ahistorical drivel. Shall we open up a betting pool to see how long it will take the paper to recognize its mistake and bag its just-announced op-ed line-up? I give it six months, max.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:37 am
“I give it six months, max”
Per Mavis, there seems to be an unconscious obsession with Max Boot running through your LATs commentary.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Tee-hee.
November 17th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Well it wins the “how many times can you shoehorn the term moonbat into an op-ed” in a mainstream major paper award. Boy that’s progress. As to his false analogy rewriting the WWII history, any president facing a threat like Adolph Hitler’s Germany that didn’t have a contingency plan would indeed be incompetent. Any comparison this this debacle is fallacious on its face. Newsflash to Goldberg: just because someone says it doesn’t make it true. There has to be evidence backing it up with no “inserted meaning.” This outfit used Hitler all the way through the runnup to invasion so it’s no surprise it continues.
November 17th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Quality of Writing
Marc: “…they might have found (a conservative) that can actually write and think.”
The article looks fine to me. In fact, it looks like something I could have written. Hey, wait a minute….
Tell me what’s wrong with it
Listen. You guys complain on what appears to be the general basis that he’s conservative and that you don’t agree with his views. Be more specific about your complaints. Forget his style. Just because I can’t express myself like rosedog doesn’t mean that the narrative of my observations wouldn’t be factually correct. I do suspect that there are a lot of people in L.A. who appreciate this fresh viewpoint being expressed by the socialist paper.
Roosevelt’s Ghost
Coincidentally, I took the family to Warm Springs, GA and Roosevelt’s Little White House last Sunday. Then we hiked and spent time at the knoll where Roosevelt use to do some of his quiet thinking during the war. I had not thought about his situation at that time and have let history books filter information for me. But, some of that changed after the park ranger brought up with me what it must have been like to be Roosevelt back then with the tremendous burdens of the office and the war on him while, at the same time, having other Americans fighting him and hating him to the point of wanting him dead. Even though Roosevelt was a Democrat and a sorry SOB, according to my grandfather, he had pressures that none of us will ever face–but, similar to those that Bush faces.
Honestly, as I sat there I did think about Roosevelt sitting in the very same place and looking over the same valleys, and I thought about what it must have been like for him and how the solitude of that place must have been special for him–not only a place to think but a place to escape if only for a few moments. I imagine it’s quite like that for Bush, and maybe we need to back off and consider the weight that he carries for us. It’s possible, and I think likely, that history will be much kinder to Bush than any of you.
Paper Won’t Back Up
Regarding the paper’s decisions, don’t count on a six month course correction. These decisions didn’t just happen. They were made and refined long ago and the paper will stick with them as part of its long-term plan. Journalists and liberals may be knee-jerk, but businessmen are not.
November 17th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Marc, I would like to pick a bone with you, but I don’t want to add my comment to those of the Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers on your story about Cheney. I am here to learn; not much to be gained from those comments. Anyway, you stated that “as we know†the Bush administration has no exit strategy. Well, I don’t know that. And here are some other folks who also do not know it:
“The “conditions based exit strategy” has been articulated for a year now.
As we move down that path, the number of U.S. troops will gradually diminish. There are no hard deadlines. An administration official calls it “a conditions-based strategy.†“The longer we carry the burden,†he says, “the more dependent the Iraqis will be. There is a judgment that the time to take the hand off the bicycle seat is now, after the elections.†Slowly, there will be “a one-to-one replacement of American units with Iraqi units.â€
It is already happening. Iraqis are increasingly in the lead in the nine peaceful provinces in the south. The Kurds are providing security in the three provinces of Iraqi Kurdistan. “In 12 of 18 provinces of Iraq, by and large, Iraqi security forces are shouldering the work,†says an officer in Iraq. The transfer has begun even in the more troublesome parts of Iraq. The 40th Brigade of the Iraqi Army now patrols the dangerous Haifa Street neighborhood in Baghdad. This is not the precipitous “exit strategy†demanded by the war’s critics, but a way of achieving the war’s ultimate goal — a legitimate, representative Iraqi government that can defend itself.
“Ddeputy undersecretary of defense William Luti says: “We have a strategy for victory. We’re going to win.â€
Anyone questioning any similar DNC talking points here is immediately branded a wingnut and any facts offered in support of their contention are dismissed out of hand. Isn’t that intellectually dishonest? I mean in the exact same sense that you used that term in the Cheney post?
November 17th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
I think Goldberg’s parallel is inappropriate, but on the surface at least, it’s not grossly inappropriate. That makes the piece a fairly effective bit of demagoguery. Whether that attests to Goldberg’s cleverness or his inability to sustain a complex argument, I don’t know. I suspect the latter, but that may be wishful thinking.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
It is indeed a fallacious comparison. Unequal in scope in every way from a factual basis.
“Just because I can’t express myself like rosedog doesn’t mean that the narrative of my observations wouldn’t be factually correct.”
No not in theory, but do the facts of the claim back this theory up? If they do it’s as good as fact, if not it’s rejected by the community. This one fails on factual merit. It’s a false comarison fallacy.
“I do suspect that there are a lot of people in L.A. who appreciate this fresh viewpoint being expressed by the socialist paper.”
This bias speaks for itself. It’s a “socialist” paper even as it fires progressive op-ed columnists in favor of fallacious winger shills. I get it now.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Well I spoke about this on a previous thread. Frankly there is not enough energy in me to rebut the column. I’ll leave that to others. But, boy, with Joel Stein and this clown the LAT is sure going to be a paper of influence - not!
November 17th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
I’m curious how the change on the Op-Ed page affected LAT subscription numbers. I cancelled mine in protest; how many others did the same?
November 17th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Woody>> Your Warm Springs anecdote is interesting, but there’s one big difference (out of roughly 9,473) between FDR and GWB — Roosevelt’s kids were actually in uniform during the war. Which might have further explained FDR’s need for solitude and relaxation during WWII; he wasn’t simply sending somebody else’s sons to fight and risk their lives.
November 17th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
I agree that three uses of “moonbat” in one Op-Ed is excessive (even one is too many, IMO) and suggests a lack of creativity. In the end though, such failings are secondary. A far more critical determinant of a good article is that the reader at the end understands the writer’s line of argument. When I’m left at the end asking “Huh?” then the article is not well-written.
At the end of Mr. Goldberg’s article, I am left confused by the twists and turns. I surmise that the author’s basic argument is that it doesn’t matter how truthful or up-front Bush was with his arguments for war: if the cause is right and Bush succeeds, history will judge him kindly. This at least is a coherent argument; however I don’t find this a useful argument while we’re still in the midst of the event. We have to make our judgments from where we stand in history, and future historians will make their judgments later.
Unfortunately, the Mr. Goldberg doesn’t really get to his key point until the last two (brief) paragraphs: that the war was not about WMDs but rather about implementing a geopolitical vision onto the Middle East — a vision that he believes history will judge kindly if it succeeds (which I guess is a variant of “the winner writes the rules” school of history). The whole rest of the article is a rather disjointed attempt to defend the position that political statesmanship often requires indirection and duplicity (and even lying at times) to get others to acquiesce. This is a position that can be argued, but Mr. Goldberg doesn’t make his case very effectively.
Nonetheless, there is one things that Mr. Bush is clear on; his customers are the members of Congress; the public is secondary and are relevant only to the extent that they can bend Congress towards or away from his positions. The only poll numbers he ultimately cares about is whether he can keep enough votes on his side in Congress.
November 17th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
“Journalists and liberals may be knee-jerk, but businessmen are not.”
Think I’ll go buy myself a can of New Coke, sit and think about that…
November 17th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
“Journalists and liberals may be knee-jerk, but businessmen are not”
Wrong, wrong. The profit motive itself argues against this. If it’s not profitable, then you change course, trumping all other factors that would otherwise support said venture’s continuation. If anything is knee-jerk, it’s anyone or anything that responds blindly (or near-blindly) to financial motives. At best, there are certainly as many examples of knee-jerkitude in business as there are counter-examples.
November 17th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
FDR contrasted with W
Andrew, your comment is simply a dig at Bush and is speculation on your part. Presidents cannot and do not avoid conflicts simply because their kids might be in the military, and there is no basis to claim that President Bush has less pressure on him simply because his twin girls haven’t enlisted–for which the left clamors righteously.
reg, you can pick out isolated company decisons and claim that they are knee-jerk, but that’s not the case. Coca Cola introduced and kept New Coke after years of consumer research and only re-introduced Classic Coke because of unexpected consumer demand and after significant analysis. Believe me, Coca Cola, based in Atlanta, is conservative and far from knee-jerk.
Rich, changing course to enhance profits is a decision based on information rather than a reaction based on emotion with no thought to costs and consequences, which is knee-jerk.
Corporations can make stupid decisions, but those that react on impulse (knee-jerk), rather than act rationally, cannot survive in the market place.
Times Management
I suspect that most of the people who want to tell the Times management how to run a business haven’t run one themselves and don’t have all the facts.
If anyone has great ideas on how to keep the paper in business without cutting payroll and without re-making itself, please let us know your secret and please contact its Board today.
I hear complaints but no solutions. Maybe it’s time to accept that “Times” have changed.
November 17th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
“that the war was not about WMDs but rather about implementing a geopolitical vision onto the Middle East — a vision that he believes history will judge kindly if it succeeds”
This wasn’t the case as described in the run up to war as an abolutely necessary immediate security need, just an ad hoc response to the whole lame operation, a move the goal posts as you go method of CYA. I agree with CT, he can make that argument that lying and anything else goes to get the desired result is just fine, but it’s not supported by this Rooseveltian thesis, and it’s a poor strategy of leadership.
November 17th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
“Maybe it’s time to accept that “Times†have changed.”
Yes they have: to wingnuttery based on this.
November 17th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
Here’s some excellent anaysis. Maybe the Times should be alerted to this
strategy?
November 17th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
“Coca Cola, based in Atlanta, is conservative and far from knee-jerk.” Funny, I thought “knee-jerk” and “conservative” had become synonymous.
Woody, my first reaction to the announcemnt of “New Coke” - literally what I said to a couple of friends as we read the news item about a new “sweeter” cola replacing the traditional one - was that someone with major capital should try to buy the “old” Coke recipe from the company and market it as Classic Cola. Incidentally, I’ve worked with a bunch of market researchers and they tend to be idiots who feed clients what they think they want to hear. Rarely do they go out into the field without a whiff of someone’s agenda on the client end. This was at a company that has one of the few brands that is as “all-American” as Coke…and they went through a period of doing very poorly because they tried to constantly reshape their image and product lines based on “market analysis” rather than focus their brand on its traditional strengths. They also screwed themselves royally with an extensive internal restructuring driven by a gang of outside management consultants, but that’s another story. Don’t try to convince me that corporate America isn’t as full of fools, knaves and trendy knee-jerkers as any other institutions because I’m too familiar with it to believe otherwise.
November 17th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
Woody, wrong again. No one here has made the argument that journalistic decisions should be made based on emotion. Before you hire a journalist, you obviously need to assess if they are talented enough to practice their craft–i.e., assess them via journalistic standards. And acting “rationally” is often, well, not. Hiring a writer (or any employee, for that matter) who is cheaper but not meeting job performance standards is, ultimately, irrational. You can argue that people here are correct or not in their conclusion that Goldberg does not meet journalistic standards (i.e., is unfit for the job), but frankly your attributing everyone’s motives here to “knee-jerk emotion” is insulting–but more importantly, wrong.
One assumption you seem to be making (correct me if I’m wrong), is that cutting payroll is always “rational”, and/or always fruitful. I put “rational” in quotation marks because maybe a business is making a risk analysis based on market data and research, and their conclusion can, in this sense, be called “rational”. But it obviously is also rational to pay more for better quality. My argument is that the Times is making a short-sighted “rational” decision that, in other respects (namely, the long-term sustainability of a business) would be “irrational”: i.e., the Times saves money in the short run, but by downgrading its talents fails to compete and eventually fails in the long run. The funny/sad part is that for certain individuals this might be a very rational decision indeed–even in the long run. Make huge cuts in expenditures, increase profit maximally in the short-term, cash out, jump ship. The individual(s) who had the power to do this collect some handsome profits (very rational); for the other employees, and the shareholders (if they don’t cash out early enough), on the other hand, no profits. And the business? Kaput. “Rational”? You tell me.
Summary: 1) I think Goldberg is a huge step down in journalist writing talent, which is bad for the Times’ customers who value this. 2) If the loss of customers (including web ad clickers) who value quality writing offsets the money saved in hiring a cheaper writer (something we haven’t verified yet, but for the sake of argument), then the decision is also bad for the Times as a business. You can argue point 1, and speculate regarding point 2, but to claim that this approach is “knee-jerk” and motivated by “emotion” is completely off-base and uncalled-for.
November 17th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Mark York: Yes! Now, that is an example of superior journalism. Could that be the look of the “new” Times, and is it possible that they would pick me?
—–
reg, a point that I was making is that if corporations are managed in a knee-jerk fashion, then the business will suffer or fail and the managment will be tossed out. That doesn’t mean that some don’t do it, but they don’t last long. Maybe this will be the fate of the L.A. Times.
Right now we’re watching another Atlanta company, Delta Airlines, struggling with bankruptcy and needing union concessions because of many factors–especially bad management from a few years ago. Maybe Delta will follow in the footsteps of Eastern Airlines.
——
Bobby I. cancelled his Times subscription. Is anyone else going to do it? Where do you go?
Well, I know where I’m going–home. Good night.
November 17th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
So Woody History will compare Shrub favorably to FDR. Let me tell you a little story passed on to me by a friend. In the sixties my friend attended Stanford and, one day in 1967, sat next to a distinguished Professor of Diplomatic History at a convocation where Vice President Humphrey was speaking and defending the Vietnam war. To increasing cat-calls from the audience Humphrey announced that, while the audience may jeer, History would vindicate LBJ. In a stage whisper, audible to all, the Historian said: “Not while I’m writing it!”
November 17th, 2005 at 6:37 pm
Rich, I just posted and then saw your comment. I’d respond in depth, but I worked until 1:45 in the morning last night and I’m on Eastern time–so, I’m out of here; plus, I don’t want to bore any more people with my ramblings.
With a real quick scan, I tend to agree with most of what you say. Cutting payroll can be very stupid in the long-run and is often done only to boost the stock price–but, it is typically rational even if misguided. On some other points, more factors need to be considered and more analyis completed. But, I’ll give you credit for thinking it through and actually offering advice on what the Times should do by combining the jounalistic and business aspects.
November 17th, 2005 at 7:21 pm
Mr. York, you consistently, according to my reading of the last several threads, use such terms as “fallacious winger shills.” “wingnuttery,” “Here’s what the right really is: totalitarian,” “cluelessness of the conservative wealthy classes,” “spewing propagandists,” etc., etc.
I don’t know if you are merely repeating yourself because you lack the intellectual and English skills to deftly skewer your perceived opponents, or (and based on your spelling) merely indifferent to quality communication.
At any rate, I have noticed you come onto Cooper’s blog and dump on anyone to the right of you in a manner not designed to encourage reflection, only bitterness and bile. Perhaps you never understood that you could attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Try the honey for a change, it might make you seem more, well, more human.
November 17th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Leftists historians have been VERY KIND to the anti-war folk who wanted the US out of Vietnam — the US left, and the SE Asians suffered genocide. (How many would have to be murdered before you’d say it was too many, it was mistake for the US to leave and let them die?)
It’s really too bad that so many racist S. Democrats who hated LBJ for Rep inspired civil rights voted Wallace instead of Humphrey, letting Nixon win. And get most of the blame for Vietnam in the H books. (Sort of like Perot sucking Bush votes to let Clinton win; or Nader sucking Gore votes to let Bush win)
The root cause of terrorism is the complex of Islamofascist beliefs. The Islamic countries need democratic governments, with leaders who change periodically.
“Don’t try to convince me that corporate America isn’t as full of fools, knaves and trendy knee-jerkers as any other institutions because I’m too familiar with it to believe otherwise.” Yeah, all people are imperfect.
I’m pretty sure more Fortune 100 companies had different leaders 6 years ago than the 100 largest countries, or even the 100 largest NGOs.
The power of the market is NOT that it never makes mistakes — it’s that selfish greed provides incentives to the folk with money to give poor buyers what they want, and therefore a big incentive to correct “mistakes” (like New Coke?).
MSM Leftist bias is a mistake that’s taken a long time to start being corrected.
November 17th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Well General Puller I plastered your face on an envelope just this afternoon. You know with a vitriolic pack of jackals like the so-called right as opposed you to, the left this, and the left that, socialist, and all sorts of false hyperbolic labels, those about sum it up, and hell, if its good enough for the new improved LA Times what’s your complaint? I see very little honey around these days.
But how about a bit of fact?
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp?viewAll=1&Speaker=Vice+President+Richard+Cheney&startDate_month=1&startDate_day=1&startDate_year=2000&endDate_month=3&endDate_day=15&endDate_year=2003&submit=Find+Statements
November 17th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
“MSM Leftist bias”
I don’t know how to react to the tiresome echoing of this pathetic and patently false mantra other than to say that the people who perpetually repeat it are some of the most tedious minds - typically steeped in unhinged ideology or a ready bag of bromides - I’ve ever encountered. Period.
Meanwhile, the real world demands our undivided attention.
Murthra may be the guy who seals the deal on these pathetic pieces of crap who’ve been masquerading as leaders the past five years.
http://tinyurl.com/bu4jp
November 17th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
OK Liberty Daddy lets discuss some myths:
1. Perot did NOT make Clinton President. Had he not run the exit polls showed his 19% would have split 10 - 9 for Clinton.
2. You still can’t tell me how we could have “Won” in Vietnam. Maybe that is because we couldn’t as the Army War College, Robert McNamara, and the LBJ tapes make clear. Nixon wanted, and got, a “Decent Interval” so he could get “peace with honor” remember?
2. Racist Dems opposing a GOP Civil Rights Bill? Ever hear of Barry Goldwater? The “Southern Strategy?”
3 MSM Leftist Bias. Oh that is so rich! Guess you missed the discussion going on here about the LAT. And Judy Miller at the NYT. And the WaPo and Woodward. Look its simple. Any source that doesn’t parrot Right Wing Bullshit and looks at the real world has to be leftist, right?
Sorry daddy, George the lesser has earned his place in the history books as the worst President presiding over the most corrupt regime in over a century. Only James Buchanan comes close.
November 17th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
Ya wanna know what the op-ed lineup will be in six months? Go ask Phil Anshutz.
November 17th, 2005 at 8:20 pm
This, from Ivo Daalder (at TPMCafe - Daalder disagrees with Murthra, but his comment shows the significance of this defection - coupled with Pres. Clinton’s statement to a student group that the war was a mistake and the overwhelming rejection of Bush and his strategies by the majority of America, we’re about to witness an avalanche. The Cheney gambit is, as Marc noted, an act of desperation, as are the conservatives who are now reduced to rationalizing the Iraq war by invoking FDR, their “Bete Noir Maximus” Bill Clinton, the UN, France, Germany and the congressional delegation of the Democratic Party !!!!)
Daalder:
“Calling the administration’s Iraq policy “a flawed policy wrapped in illusion,” Congressman John Murtha of Pennsyslvania today called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. This is significant. Murtha is no dove. He voted for the Iraq War in 2002 and the Gulf War in 199i. He served in the Marines in the ’50s, and reinlisted in 1966 at age 34 to go to Vietnam, where he earned a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. He wast the first Vietnam vet to enter Congress. And he’s been a staunch supporter of the US military. Which is why he wants the troops to come home now.
In making his case, Murtha doesn’t dwell on the intelligence fiasco that has come to dominate the discourse on Iraq in recent days. Instead, he makes these two pertinent points: First, the problems in Iraq cannot be solved militarily by us; they ultimately require the Iraqis to do so themselves, and our presence makes it less, not more, likely that we will succeed. Second, the Iraq War has seriously weakened our military, and it has asked far too much of our troops and their families and far too little of the rest of us.”{
November 17th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
The last sentence of that Daalder precis of Cong. Murthra’s statement should evoke shame and tears from any self-respecting citizen of this land.
November 17th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Murtha on Cheney: “I like guys who’ve never been there that criticize us who’ve been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.”
(rip from Josh Marshall)
November 17th, 2005 at 9:42 pm
On Jonah Goldberg’s column trying to beg a comparison between Bush and FDR, I think Goldberg is on thin ice. Sure, one can make the case (from the pro-war side) that Bush might be fighting the right war — but with the wrong reason. I don’t think this is the case, but I’ve heard others make it. I think the basic problem is that Bush (and Blair) spent all their energy on frightening us into war, and missed the chance to enlighten the nation as to why this war had to be fought. Had they done the second part — why democracy should be exported — the nation would have a much deeper well of resolve in trying to win it. Instead, the sub-medicore investment in vision reaps a poor crop of commitment — “we were conned” and all that bit. Now many say costs are too great to bear. (Cong. Murthra, etal.)
Back to Goldberg: If he’s really going to beg a comparison to FDR, he should be ready to take a pounding. I’ll bet most LA Times readers will snicker at this nearly impossible comparison. A lot of readers will surely make this comparison on their own: that when war came, FDR really fought, and fought totally. The sacrifice was shared — um, two words for Mr. Goldberg “Greatest Generation.” That generation could believe that their President would tell the nation the truth, even the worst news from the worst battles. FDR said the government would withhold information only when that information could have been used by the enemy against us. That generation could believe its President when he said it. Mr. Goldberg would be unable to convince anyone that the same could be said of this President. How about one more comparison? Would the greatest generation have had any tolerance for tax cuts to the wealthy in a time of war? Mr. Goldberg might want to try another subject.
November 18th, 2005 at 6:14 am
Mark York — please don’t post those infinite-length URLS — in my browser, the pagewidth goes out to infinity as a result. And please stop with the insults, they do nobody’s case any good.
Woody — except for the “moonbat” gibes, I have to say I agree with you (and disagree with Marc) about the quality of the writing. The historical case chosen was cherry-picking, of course — you could argue it the other way using the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. I don’t have a big problem with FDR having ignored Pearl Harbor warning signs because getting attacked was the only hope for a more timely involvement in WW II. (My own pet theory was that Adm. Yamashita, who knew and liked America, who thought attacking America was folly, and who was tasked against his will with planning Pearl Harbor anyway, might have leaked the sneak-attack plans to the U.S. in hopes of preventing a direct confrontation — but to little avail, since it played right into FDR’s agenda. We’ll probably never know.)
Where Goldberg goes wrong is at the end:
“… the media and anti-Bush partisans have been bizarrely unmoved by the revelations of Hussein’s killing fields, his torture chambers for tots and democracy’s tangible progress in the Middle East. ”
This is one I keep hearing over and over from the pro-invasion crowd: that hardly anybody knew how vicious Saddam’s regime was. I’ve never met anyone who didn’t have some kind of handle on it. As for “democracy’s tangible progress in the Middle East,” I could use some help with that one, maybe because I can’t tangibly sense my ass with both hands, but more likely because it’s basically a crock.
“If Bush succeeds — still a big if — the painful irony for Bush’s critics is that he will go down in history as a great president, even if he lied, while they will take their paranoia to their graves.”
If the “paranoia” is that Bush lied, then Goldberg himself is entertaining this “paranoid” hypothesis — just look at the title of his op-ed.
At least he admits victory is still “a big if”. And that the Germany/Japan comparison is one that some reasonable person might disagree with. But that latter is a pretty small concession — Iraq was carved into no-fly zones north and south, an economic basket case with 60% of its population dependent on U.N. food handouts. It was, if anything, the exact opposite of an expansionist empire capable of posing some serious threat to the U.S. at some point.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Woody,
You are falling into the same trap that I often do - responding to distracting attacks on peripheral parts of your logic and to ad hominem attacks.
This leads to the thread wandering off into the weeds, as this one has - such as the bizarre idea that only those who have fought (or have sons in uniform) have opinions worth listening too (tell that to the Dems in 1992, when draft dodger Clinton ran against combat veteran GHW Bush - the only combat pilot I know of who was also depth charged 3 times).
This blog pretty uniformly takes anything a right winger says and turns the discussion into peripheral arguments (to score points against the right winger) or ad hominem attacks. That is one reason I rarely show up - I am too easily tempted to respond to each point, whether it is relevant to the subject or not.
Jonah Goldberg is not my favorite conservative writer - the Times could have chosen one more mature and a better writer - the fact that they didn’t may mean that JG is a token conservative - sort of like the old Koppel trick of having one complete looney conservative as the conservative voice on his panel, up against better spoken and less extreme liberals.
Just for fun, a little nit of the sort that gets blown up:.
MT - it was Admiral Yamamoto, not Yamashita. The US knew the day before Pearl Harbor that an attack was imminent (due to our Naval Intelligence’s having broken the “purple” cipher) and Secretary of State Cordell Hull actually had the text of the Japanese declaration before it was presented (late, hence the “act of infamy”). My best speculation is that Roosevelt expected an attack on American forces in the Phillipines (which would have given him the pretext needed to declare war), because nobody Yamamoto’s daring and very dangerous attack on Pearl Harbor. Indeed, the Phillipines were also attacked.
There is no doubt that FDR wanted to turn around the isolationist population and go to war against Hitler. Hitler did him the favor of declaring war against the US just after Pearl Harbor, making the job even easier.
There is no doubt that GW Bush wanted to replace the Iraq regime with a milder one - one that was democratic. Saddam did him the favor of obstructing weapons inspectors and in general acting in every way as if he was concealing WMD’s (which, indeed, there is evidence that he was until the large convoys going to Syria removed them - an observation made by the just retired head of NPIC who is “certain” that those convoys carried WMDs and in any case whose input was given to Bush, along with the input of most major intelligence agencies around the planet who were “sure” that WMDs were present).
Those who believe that Bush lied about WMDs (as opposed to just a bit of exaggeration) have to deal with the question of why, if he knew they were not there, he wouild go into a war on that reason knowing that this “lie” would be quickly exposed when the weapons were not found. If Bush was devious enough to lie at the magnitude alleged, then why wasn’t he devious enough to plant the weapons so they would be found?
Anyway, see how easy it is to get off the subject?
Have fun.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:40 am
Help the Jonah aka the doughy pantload learn to dance :
http://www.pillsbury.com/aall/?subpage=dancin
November 18th, 2005 at 11:31 am
John Moore, I didn’t know Goldberg was the resident loony conservative. I thought it was Gelernter. Or Boot. Or Praeger on Sundays.
Seriously though, who would you love to see advoacting for conservatives in the LA Times? Keep in mind that a large portion of the audience is liberal so the editors would like, I imagine, to have a writer who can speak to that audience effectively.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
“please don’t post those infinite-length URLS” Hmm. So that’s what did it. As to the the orders, perhaps essay responses longer than the original post should be cutback as well?
As for the ad hominems, they seem to be Okay depending on the direction fired from. Now in the LAT as well. So be it. Since I’m cutting back on posting in favor of real writing it won’t be a problem, so those complaining about MY techniques can cut the crap.
I wonder how many complained about Woody? And Grey and the like? Affirmative action for conservatives is the order of the day in blogland, a sort of false equivalency journos are prone to in an effort to be fair. Fair but truthful should be the goal.
In that vein “lie” becomes a red herring for “mislead” which was the focus of the link with Cheney’s blather, but the result is the same: a falsehood is passed off as truth. Call it whatever you want except truth. Besides I can always defer to reg who covers the BS here nicely in my view.
November 18th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
To M. Beacon, I am not a (particuarly “new”) conservative (though it’s too bad T.R. isn’t where we need him to be at the moment–that’s a conservative we could support), but I was fairly pleasantly surprised, at least in the foreign policy arena, by this recent speech by Chuck Hagel.
http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Print&PressRelease_id=219401&suppresslayouts=true
November 18th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Mark…check out “TinyUrl” for a neat way to post long web links without pushing the outer limits of the formattiing.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Mavis, Goldberg isn’t particularly loony (unlike the Koppel choices) - he just isn’t that good a spokesman compared to others they could have chosen.
As to whom I would prefer… how about Victor David Hansen (at least on foreign policy) or Bob Bennett or Michael Medved? There are plenty of others, but names don’t come to mind right now. As for looney conservatives, try Michael Savage (whom I try to avoid hearing).
I heard that there will be an up down vote on “pull the troops out now” in Congress tonite. That should be quite amusing. It looks like someone republican in there finally got some cojones.
November 18th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
errr… Bill Bennett, of course. Bob is his brother that is a lawyer for the left.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
Thanks reg. Got it on the menu. Hansen sure is better than Goldberg that’s for sure, but he’s too convinced of a Pelopanisian response to the world’s problems. It doesn’t seem to be working.
November 18th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Nope, John. You said it. Bob Bennett it is. So let it be written so let it be done!
November 18th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
I imagine it’s quite like that for Bush, and maybe we need to back off and consider the weight that he carries for us.
Poor comparison IMHO. Roosevelt fought against a country that attacked us and several that declared war against us.
This war was a war of choice. Iraq did not attack us.
Roosevelt called on the public to make sacrifices, and in so doing, united the public. The only ones making sacrifices here are those in uniform and their family members and our descendants who will have to pay down the huge deficit the war has only served to increase.
Here’s a quote to leave you with:
“A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility. I don’t believe there is such a thing, and frankly I wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.â€
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to who said that?
November 18th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
W during the campaign in 2000? He didn’t believe in nation building either.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
MAY gives W too much credit, but it was a good guess. My Friend Google told me it was Ike. Sensible man. The last Republican my parents supported. I don’t think the GOP would tolerate him today.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Reg is right of course. Don’t sell W short. He did say this in one of the debates in 2000:
“It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us”
Events have certainly borne out his comments.
November 18th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
I think that, in balance, the Bush who ran for President in 2000 has proven to be a fairly sensible fellow. Unfortunately, after he took office he was - by a bizarre confluence of pre-existing policies of the Clinton administration, intel reports, since disproven, that had been left lying on the Oval Office desk as Clinton’s staff went about the businesss of smashing computers, puking on the carpet and putting Krazy Glue on the phones in their bitter exit, coupled with the public’s infantile desire to have a lying tyrant like their “beloved” FDR at the helm relentelessly making shit up that would satiate the hypnotic Will To Power embodied in the apparatus of the modern state - forced to invade Iraq. If the Bush administration’s policies confuse you, suffice to say that Clinton Lied! People Died!
November 18th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
The US Senate voted to attack Iraq for 22 enumerated reasons, including “genocide, violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American aerial patrols. ”
Those who are now saying it was a war of choice must be in favor of genocide. They think a great power should ignore a nation’s attempt to kill a former president. They think we should have continued forever to allow our aircraft to be fired upon (each instance of which was an act of war). They apparently don’t mind genocide or the continuous predatory behavior of Saddam’s government against its own citizens. They don’t mind continuing the poor medical care that children received, because the medicines were not purchased due to diversion of the “Oil for Food” programs.
Frankly, they forget how incredibly evil that regime was, and how destabilizing it was to the region.
It is fair to say that the timing of an attack on Iraq was a matter of choice. But the war was only a matter of choice only for those willing to leave a vicious anti-American dictator in power - one who sponsored terrorism and who had a history of not only stockpiling but using WMD’s against his own citizens and those of Iran. One who had already launched two wars, killing about 1,000,000 people. They must be in favor of an Iraq which was about to be freed of the shackles of sanctions, after which it would rapidly redevelop its military power and its WMD programs. And they must believe that most Democrats were fools, since they voted for the war, and eloquently expressed why - from Bill Clinton and his wife to many of those now somehow trying to ignore their own past statements (or giving us the pathetic excuse that they somehow were fooled, even those with full access to top level classified material).
The behavior of Democrats now is one of the most pathetic and craven activities I have seen in 30 years. The “Bush Lied, People Died” crowd have sero historical memory. It is this crowd that the enemy in Iraq is counting on (according to their own statements). They know what happened in Vietnam (read Giap’s biography to understand the strategy of winning the war in Washington), and they hope to duplicate it. They expect (and they may well be right) that a democracy like the US, with blind or craven Democrat politicians and their allies in the press, cannot maintain the will to win long enough. And they may be right.
Even if it was wrong to go to war, that doesn’t make it right to end it with a defeat - with an immediate pullout as that jackass Democrat member of the house urged (but hey, he must know what he is doing - he is a Vietnam Vet - right?).
November 18th, 2005 at 11:09 pm
“Those who are now saying it was a war of choice must be in favor of genocide.”
You’re a fucking idiot…
November 19th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Yeah Moore just like Ronald Reagan was for it when it happened on his “watch.”
November 19th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
[...] Shameless Crap [...]
November 19th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
“I don’t think the GOP would tolerate him today.”
Better than the Democrats would tolerate Truman or Scoop Jackson, or maybe even JFK!
November 20th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
I agree. We should not have to plow through bad prose to decipher the meaning of his drivel.
November 20th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Better than the Democrats would tolerate Truman or Scoop Jackson, or maybe even JFK!
If you can show an example by the Democrats equivalent to the auto-da-fe that the Republican leadership pressured Arlen Specter into doing in order to maintain his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, please enlighten us.
The current Senate Minority Leader opposes abortion. David Bonior, the House Minority Whip in the 1990’s opposes abortion. No one to my knowledge in a leadership role in either house in the Republican Party is pro-choice, despite the presence of several senators and congressmen who are pro-choice.. We’re hardly the intolerant ones here.
John Moore,
Your ridiculous ad hominem aside, we know who Saddam liked:
The jailed former Iraqi leader described how Reagan,
who was president during the time of Iraq’s 1980-88 war with Iran, sold
him planes and helicopters. "Reagan and me, good,’" Saddam said,
according to the article by Lisa DePaulo in the July issue that goes on
sale June 28.Say what you will about Saddam, he remembers his benefactors.
November 30th, 2005 at 9:01 am
Mark York said:
“’that the war was not about WMDs but rather about implementing a geopolitical vision onto the Middle East — a vision that he believes history will judge kindly if it succeeds’
This wasn’t the case as described in the run up to war as an abolutely necessary immediate security need, just an ad hoc response to the whole lame operation, a move the goal posts as you go method of CYA… ”
Actually Mark, this was the underlying concept that the Bush Administration spoke of frequently, but not loudly. You’re making the mistake of confusing the effort to sway the UN and the appeals to public opinion with the underlying strategy that made Iraq a logical place to continue the efforts to shake up the Middle Eastern autocratic hegemony (that began in Afghanistan of course.)
I argued as much at a college forum on the issue shortly after the start of the war. It’s obvious that this strategic aim was not going to be forwarded as the primary reason for going into Iraq, given that the public generally doesn’t buy into strategic thinking that involves substantial risk, and that the vast majority of people had confidence in the intelligence that Saddam had WMDs (so much so that many opponents of the war were sayign we shouldn’t invade because Saddam would use the WMDs.)
Nonetheless, the Bush Administration has been thinking along these lines since 9/11. The next logical step would be to support internal change in Iran, via democracy advocates, but as Michael Ledeen has pointed out, the Administration hasn’t committed itself fully to that, in part because of the constant undermining of sections of State and the CIA, who are still quite committed to the “pragmatic” view of the Middle East - that it’s a poltical cesspool that isn’t likely to change no matter what - and that we can deal with the autocrats anyway, so who cares.
That attitude is a relic of the Cold War, when the Russian Bear was always the main target and threat, justifying numerous foreign policy moves, including support for Iraq in the Iraq - Iran war (in part because Iraq also had ties to the USSR, whereas Iran was for the most part nonaligned under the Mullahs.)
Make no mistake, this was not only on the table in the run up to war, it was the underlying strategy, and not a tacked on lower the goalposts effort (which is a good way to describe the current Democratic mania to convince people that the Administration willfully mislead everyone.)
As for Jonah, he’s a talented writer (English major speaking, for what it’s worth) who’s not afraid to leaven his arguments with a generous dose of irreverent humor. This sometimes leaves the impression that he’s not being totally serious, but being a frequent reader of his columns, he’s not only capable of sustained and consistent argument, he’e quite good at it and seems to have a thorough grounding in political science and logic to boot, which is more than many journalists and editorialist can boast.
November 30th, 2005 at 9:32 am
Look, Little Jonah is strictly a lightweight in thought and a super-heavyweight in body type. (Think Limbaugh with hair.)
The only reason Little Jonah got the LA gig is because Little Jonah’s Mommy, Luci, the madame of the D.C. rough-type crowd, is continuing her more than four decade run with a member(s) of the Times hierarchy.
But Luci ain’t no kid anymore, and the batteries always run out on her playthings. When they do, the Times power bosses will dump Luci and Little Jonah right along with her.
Expect Little Jonah to be out of LA within four months.
November 30th, 2005 at 9:35 am
Had the Times’ bosses thought with their heads North of Neckland, they would have done The Times’ readership a favor and hired either John Derbyshire or Andrew Stuttaford to pen a column. Derbyshire and Stuttaford both combine well-researched ideas and thorough analysis.
Little Jonah is a Trekkie with a wife who couldn’t cut it as John Ashcroft’s speechwriter and now cannot find even a cheap Neo think tank in D.C. to hire her sorry self.
‘Nuff said.
November 30th, 2005 at 9:50 am
Before you call someone an idiot, it helps not to look like one. Have you looked at this page in Firefox? Or in Safari? Or IE on Windows, even? The individual item pages on this blog are a marvel of bad formatting in a completely cross-browser fashion.
First impressions count for a lot, and having your page look horrid is a sure-fire way to give your argument less weight.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:05 am
Robertson,
You put style over substance.
That’s a sure sign of a blind follower of Little Jonah.
Thank you for proving my point. Little Jonah offers no serious intelligent commentary, favoring fluff over well-reasoned and well-researched position.
Robertson, I think it’s time for Little Jonah to beam you up.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:09 am
Robertson,
Re-read Coop’s lengthy post that started this thread. Two paragraphs. It ought to just about kill you.
Find the word “idiot.”
Coop never used it to comment on Little Jonah.
The “idiot” tag belongs to your post.
I soon expect that you will attack my:
A.) Patriotism;
B.) Capitalist position;
C.) Choice of literature;
D.) Mother.
Oh, and you’ll use either “moron” or “Islamo-facist” to attempt to slay me.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Hey everybody!
Robertson’s a hacker!
That explains his well-reasoned, well-read defense of Little Jonah.
November 30th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
“Robertson,
You put style over substance.
That’s a sure sign of a blind follower of Little Jonah.”
Mark, that’s fucking BRILLIANT logic. It’s also complete bullshit but I won’t let that get in your way of a good snarky comment or two.
November 30th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Robertson,
I forgot to include that you, as a follower of Little Jonah, would no doubt cuss at those with opposing points of view.
Cussing is, of course, an action, written or verbal, that crosses the Bible about which Rev. James, Rev. Pat, and Rev. Jerry so often speak.
Thankfully, you did not cuss at me, Robertson.
Instead, Tigger opted to cuss and live, by his actions, counter to the teachings of the Bible.
Cussing and hypocrisy, two more signs of the blind follower of Little Jonah.
November 30th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
[...] Readers of this blog know that I’ve been pretty tough on National Review’s little Jonah Goldberg, the intellectual fly-weight the L.A. Times has acquired as an affirmative action hire to fill-its "right-wing pundit" quota. It seems I have hurt his feelings and he was pouting about it today over on NRO’s Corner (scroll down to see his item). Jonah was offeded, in part, by my reference to his as a "shout-show clown." [...]
November 30th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
I don’t recall making a defense of Jonah Goldberg in my comment. You could try reading it a few times - you might even understand it then.
My sole point had to do with the absolutely ridiculous layout this blog has when you look at individual posts. No word wrap except at paragraph breaks.
Makes it very hard to read.
Now, if that’s a political argument of any sort, then I’m the Queen of Romania.
November 30th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
Robertson,
You most certainly called Mr. Cooper, the owner of this blog, by a title straight out of the Little Jonah-Bill O’Reilly handbook of well-reasoned debate tactics.
To refresh your memory:
“James Robertson Says:
November 30th, 2005 at 9:50 am
Before you call someone an idiot,”
Is that your name? Are those your words?
Lemme guess. You were misquoted.
No. I’ve got it now. The mainstream media must be out to get you.
Certainly you’d never call someone with whom you disagree an “idiot.” Nope. Not you!
Certainly in defense of your hero, Little Jonah, you’d never reach into a deep bag of childish slurs and post one on this site. Couldn’t be. Never. Not your style!
Robertson, what ever did come over me?
November 30th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
“Shout Show Clown” seems a fair analog for “idiot”, but I guess it’s too many words for you. In any case, I have yet to make a political argument - I merely pointed out how crappy the formatting was. Should be easy enough to fix, since it doesn’t affect the main page.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
Marc,
You call him a “shout show clown.” When was the last time he was on one of these “shout shows?”.
How about you step up to the plate and offer some acceptable conservative alternatives (Andrew Sullivan doesn’t count).
July 1st, 2006 at 6:24 am
beautiful online information center. greatest work… thanks
July 21st, 2006 at 6:52 pm
foot massage beach…
I never thought about this ….
July 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Descriptions of poker pubs their atmospheresjqs
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 am
The Pool Table: Past and Present…
The history of billiards goes back all the way to the 15th Century. Throughout the centuries, billiards has been seen as a sport for bad boys, from the highest aristocracy to the lowest street thugs. For hundreds of years, churches and governments deno…