That Other War
If one were really, really cynical one might suspect that the Bush administration has encouraged Israel to continue its military offensive if for no other reason than to continue distracting attention from the full-on debacle in Iraq.
I'm not that cynical. The truth, nevertheless, is that the wheels seem to be breaking off in Iraq this very same week and no question that the war in Lebanon has diverted due attention.
Every key promise the Bush administration has made recently about Iraq has been contradicted by the bloody facts on the ground:
** The war is not simmering down now that the new Iraqi government has been sworn in for some months. The U.S. military itself concedes that bombings and shootings spiked by 40% in the last week. U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell gets the "duh" quote award of the week with this doosie: "We have not witnessed the reduction in violence one would have hoped for in a perfect world." No kidding, General. How about in an imperfect world? Or even a severely marred one? The general also predicts more bad news -- an "all-out assault" on Baghad by the insurgents.
** Civil war is not being avoided. Sectarian violence is now killing about 100 people a day. By my count that's about 35,000 people a year; a slaughter by anyone's reckoning. Fear and chaos are now so pervasive on the streets of Baghdad that tens of thousands of Iraqis have fled their homes in just the past three weeks.
** We are not significantly "standing up" a credible Iraqi security force. If anything, the Iraqi police are being overwhelmed. Not just the police are failing, but also the new Iraqi army.
I'm sure there's some good news I overlooked. You can email it in when you find it.
Meanwhile, Bill Bradley takes on the same topic I touched on yesterday... the Democratic position on Israel (supine).
P.S. I'm not the first person to continue being struck by the silence of Alpha-Lib bloggers like KOS and Atrios on the war in Lebanon. Max, however, has put it neatly into one short graf:
"The unified Democratic response of support for Israel points up the limitations of the uncritical anti-war "netroots." You can't be serious about politics if you're not serious about policy, particularly in the realm of potential problems percolating in the ME."Amen, brother Max. Some critics of the prog netroots say they seem to have no political memory beyond Florida 2000. I've sometimes thought that too harsh. But the inability of some of these front-line bloggers to wrestle with complicated policy beyond chiding Bush (and Joe Lieberman) has been harshly spotlighted by the events of the last few weeks.
July 21st, 2006 at 12:05 am
I have agree with this. In fact, the situation in Lebanon not only makes it easier for the Bush administration to deflect attention from Iraq, but also for the Democrats, whose inability (read unwillingness) to take a clear stand on that disaster also escapes closer scrutiny.
I see the Lebanon war as a defining moment. It is defining who Israelis and Americans are as nations, and it defines us as individuals depending on where we stand on it. I mean that seriously: Anyone who thinks that Israel’s actions are justifiable is someone who thinks that it is okay to kill civilians during a war, and lowers him or herself to the level of the terrorists we are supposedly fighting.
This is also a defining moment for the Jews, of which I am one. For the last hundred years there have been two tendencies amongst the Jews internationally: Those who have an internationalist perspective and fight for social justice, and those who have reacted to the persecution of the Jews by retreating into a base, closeted tribalism. Of course there are shades of gray in this, and many Jews are conflicted, but these are the two main roads. Before the Holocaust and the state of Israel, most Jews fell into the social justice category, and Zionism was the dream of a small minority. Since the Holocaust, tribalism has perhaps become the dominant paradigm.
Someone asked in a previous thread, in response to Marc’s accusation that the Democrats were pandering, what was so different about that from normal politics. The difference is that in Lebanon, as in Iraq, people are dying, and pandering is complicity with those who are killing them. Yes, the Democrats now have just as much blood on their hands as the Republicans.
July 21st, 2006 at 1:44 am
I also think Lebanon is a defining moment. But not for America or Israel — their stances are perfectly consistent with long-standing foreign policy self-definition.
No, the outcome in Lebanon will be a defining moment for … Lebanon. But also for Iraq, which is still, by far, the more important arena even now.
A very weak, nascent democracy like Lebanon that proves to be ungovernable from the center will be broken up, by the regional and global actors who feel they have the greatest stake in the outcome. The end-game in Iraq looms out of the smoke as it clears in Lebanon: partition or civil war (possibly both, but ending in partition either way.)
If you read the conspiracy theorists over at Al Jazeera, Iraq partition has been the U.S. game plan all along. I never thought it was that simple, but I always thought partition was an exit-strategy option.
A certain amount of hell has to break loose first though: a move by the Kurds to take Kirkuk and its oil fields. The Kurds are getting pressure on one side from Turkey about PKK enclaves left unmolested, and on the other for harboring Iranian Kurd insurgents (some shelling from Iran in recent days). Perhaps the Kurdish leadership, in the fog of some crisis boiling in Baghdad — that major initiative by isurgents we keep hearing about recently? — can divert the territorial pressure into a full Kirkuk takeover.
International Crisis Group has recently warned that Kirkuk mabe be about to become the Next Big Thing. The ostensible U.S. stance on any such move will be decidedly negative, but once Kirkuk-for-the-Kurds is a fait accompli, and when helping to protect Kirkuk and its oil fields becomes a priority in the face of a Shi’a/Sunni boilover …. perhaps the time is not yet ripe, but it seems like it’s finally coming around to that.
July 21st, 2006 at 5:16 am
So is it time to, as Mr. Murtha recommends, exit Iraq or are we already on that near-distance hill (figuratively if not literally)? Is it time for the UN to send in peacekeepers to stem the tide of sectarian violence (aka civil war)?
Whatever shall we do?
July 21st, 2006 at 9:35 am
MB – Must liberals constantly define issues so that those disagreeing with them in the slightest have revealed themselves to be ultimate evil? I call foul.
Re Lebanon: Sorry. It’s not that simple. Where do I report for hell?
July 21st, 2006 at 10:34 am
“MB – Must liberals constantly define issues so that those disagreeing with them in the slightest have revealed themselves to be ultimate evil? I call foul.”
Actually liberals don’t do that, which is why I’m not one. This is not a debating parlor, we are talking about human lives. The laws of war forbid what both Israel and Hezbollah are doing.
July 21st, 2006 at 10:50 am
Rami Khouri, editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star newspaper and an internationally syndicated political columnist and author. He is Palestinian-Jordanian and a U.S. citizen.
- Website: RamiKhouri.com
——————————————————————————–
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate – $25, $50, $100, more…
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined on the phone now by Rami Khouri, editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star newspaper, an internationally syndicated political columnist and author. He is Palestinian Jordanian and a U.S. citizen. He joins us on the phone from Amman, Jordan. Rami Khouri, welcome to Democracy Now! I understand you’re one of the few people trying to get into Lebanon.
RAMI KHOURI: Well, yes. I mean, figuratively there’s some other people trying to get back in. Everybody there is trying to flee. I mean, certainly all the foreigners — most of the foreigners, not all of them. But I want to get back because our home is there, and my wife and I were in Europe on a personal visit. We couldn’t get back to Beirut Airport, because the Israelis had bombed it, so we came to Amman. And we’re going back to Beirut tonight by car via a circuitous route, which we hope will be safe.
But it’s very important for us to go back to stand, first of all, in solidarity with the Lebanese; second of all, in defiance of the Israeli military machine — I mean, we’re going to be safe in our home, we’re not on the frontline — and third of all, to send a message, I think, to George Bush that this kind of insanity that he is officially sanctioning is one that ordinary people reject and that there is a defiance now of the U.S. and Israel that permeates this entire region. And I think our job as individuals and my job as a journalist is to be there and to cover the story and just to stand our ground.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And the images that we’ve been seeing for the last week of the enormous damage and the killing of innocent civilians, the incredible damage to the infrastructure of Lebanon; your thoughts?
RAMI KHOURI: Well, my thoughts are this is doubly tragic, because it’s the third or fourth time that Israel does this. I mean, it’s just extraordinary that a people as enlightened and with such a difficult history as the Jewish and Israeli people would actually now be the perpetrators of this kind of savagery over and over again, and each time they do it they reap a much worse counter-reaction.
You know, they started this in the late ’60s, when there was a couple Fatah guerrillas in South Lebanon. They bombed Beirut Airport in 1968 for the first time. Then what they got back was a much bigger Lebanese resistance, a leftist nationalist resistance, with the PLO. Then they went into Lebanon in the ’70s, and then in ’80 they occupied South Lebanon, and they reaped in return for that Hezbollah. And they went into Hezbollah in 1996. They tried to wipe them out from the south, and what they have now is a much stronger Hezbollah, supported by Syria and Iran, with missiles that are hitting Haifa and Safed and other Israeli towns.
So I think there’s a kind of an irrationality to Zionism that we’re seeing today, or at least to the Israeli political leadership, that just don’t seem to get it, that when you repress somebody and you brutalize them, what you get is not acquiescence and subservience. What you get is defiance and resistance. And I think this is a lesson that most military powers have learned. Certainly the Americans learned it in Vietnam. They’re learning in Iraq. The Russians learned it in Afghanistan. And the Israelis seem unable or unwilling to learn these lessons in Lebanon.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, what Israel says is what they get is they break Hezbollah, and they stop the rockets from flying in. They punish them for taking the soldiers, and they are trying to get them back. Can you talk about the beginning of Hezbollah, and can you talk about Israel’s rationale?
RAMI KHOURI: Yeah. I mean, Israel’s rationale certainly sounds logical from an Israeli point of view. Anybody — one of the few things I agree with George Bush on on the world is that, yes, everybody has a right and a duty to defend themselves — there’s no question about that — which is precisely what Hezbollah is trying to do. They’re trying to get back their prisoners in Israel and the bits of land that are still occupied by Israel.
But the way that the Israelis are trying to defend themselves is actually making themselves more vulnerable. It’s enhancing the political resistance to Israel. It is enhancing the political movements all around the Middle East that are the Islamist movements mostly, like Muslim Brothers, Hezbollah, Hamas. These guys are winning elections all over the place. They’re critical of the U.S. They’re critical of Israel. They’re critical of moderate Arab regimes. They’re close to Iran. What Israel is doing is counterproductive to such an extreme degree that it’s really perplexing how such an enlightened people as the Israelis, who have achieved so much in so many other fields, can be so blind to this issue.
This is a political problem that needs a political solution. There is no military solution to a political problem. And this is a war. Hezbollah and Israel have been doing this for many years. Israel has tried this before, has done it. They’ve occupied. They’ve had free-fire zones, blue lines, red lines, green lines, surrogate armies, no-fly zones, occupation zones. They have tried every trick in the book two or three times. They bombed Beirut Airport now three times in the last 25 years. What more do they have in their arsenal that they haven’t used?
And what is fascinating, what they should learn as quickly as possible, is that every time they try to generate security through either punitive military attacks or controlling other peoples’ lands in South Lebanon, this only inspires Hezbollah and Hamas now to get missiles and rockets that can have longer range. So all Hezbollah does now is fire these over the Israelis. And you’ve had three groups now in the Arab world in the last 15-20 years who have developed rockets to fire over any kind of zones to hit Israel: Iraq, Hezbollah and Hamas. At some point, you’d think the Israeli leaders or people would wake up and see what is the reality and find an alternative political, diplomatic, peaceful, negotiated and legitimate resolution to this conflict, which I think is the only way out now.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your sense as a journalist of the impact of the fighting, which is now really on three fronts — the West Bank, Lebanon and Gaza — on the other Arab governments in the region, particularly those who have come out critical of Hezbollah and these latest armed actions?
RAMI KHOURI: One of the important dimensions of the phenomenon that we’re witnessing, which is the rise of these Islamist political, social and military groups and resistance groups, like Hamas and Hezbollah, is that they are increasing in their credibility and popularity all over the region, mainly because of what they do, but also because they are a strong antidote to the lack of effectiveness and the declining legitimacy of many of the existing Arab regimes and governments and political elites. So what you’re seeing very clearly all over the region is Arab governments who are criticizing Hezbollah, but Arab societies and political culture, mainstream political culture, and certainly the man and woman on the street, who are increasingly supporting Hezbollah and Hamas.
A lot of people are critical of Hezbollah, to be fair, because they’re saying, well, look, you know, Hezbollah brought about this massive Israeli overreaction and has destroyed Lebanon and is really causing incredible pain to people. So there are criticisms of Hezbollah that are strong and sincere, but the support of Hezbollah, I think, is much, much more significant, and it’s not only about this particular incident in the south.
I think Hezbollah, Hamas and these groups represent an organic natural reaction that has brewed and percolated and now is materializing after 15-20 years, a reaction of societies in the Arab world that has been extremely disappointed by the autocracy and corruption and ineffectiveness of their own Arab regimes, by the brutality and occupation of Israel, and by the rather racist and then now neocolonial and imperial in the military policies — whatever you want to call them — of the United States. They’re the reliance on using military force, giving Israel the green light to do whatever it wants; that those three issues — the Israeli policies, the American policies and Arab governments — all three have really weighed heavily on Arab societies and normal average decent people, and this is the reaction that we’re seeing.
People are not going to live in a vacuum, and they’re not going to be humiliated and degraded. And they’re going to look for alternatives. And the alternative now that seems to be sweeping this region is the Islamist movements, including the ones doing serious military resistance to Israel. And if you look at Hezbollah, Hezbollah is doing something now which no Arab government in the last 50 years has been able to do, which is to fight a war against Israel, be heavily attacked and keep fighting back, hit Israeli cities with rockets, send one-third of the Israeli populations into shelters for two or three days in a row, and traumatize an entire Israeli population, just as Israel has traumatized Palestinian and Lebanese populations for many, many years. So there is something very significant here politically in terms of what’s going on.
And again, I say this with great sort of sorrow, because it’s not something that we should be proud of or happy about. But it does represent a political shift in the balance of power and the balance of terror, and hopefully it will cause both sides, including when they wake up in the White House, to recognize that only a diplomatic negotiated solution is going to resolve these issues.
AMY GOODMAN: Rami Khouri, we want to thank you very much for being with us, editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star newspaper, a Palestinian Jordanian, a U.S. citizen now in Amman trying to make his way into Beirut.
July 21st, 2006 at 11:32 am
I am as disgusted as anyone by the pandering of the national Democratic Party and its slavish support of Israel no matter what that state does. But can we get real. Any criticism of them will quickly lead to accusations of anti-semitism and if the person is Jewish then the claim that he must be a “Self-hating” Jew. Look at the recent ruckus over an article in FOREIGN POLICY where two distinuished scholars examed AIPAC. You’d have thought they wrote that Hitler was right. I saw them on CSPAN defend their position. Then I saw Abe Foxman of the American Jewish Congress accuse them of every blood libel against the Jews in the book. And never treat their central argument that AIPAC made the NRA look like a bunch of wimps. And look what has happened to politicians who don’t show fealty. It is well known that Sen Fulbright was defeated for reelection by Dale Bumpers with a lot of help from the lobby. Champaign corks were reportedly popping in “Scoop” Jackson’s office by aides like Elliot Abrams and Richard Perle (what happened to them?). Oh and I don’t recall handwringing in the media about “fratricidal” Dem primaries.
So Dems learn that you cross these guys at your own peril. With significant Jewish votes in key states like CA, NY, IL, MA and FL a Dem learns to trim sails. It is a little better – Jimmy Carter fired Andrew Young as UN Amb for just talking to the PLO.
Yes it would be nice to see more courage and less profiles but the climate will have to change significantly. Our news media still tells the basic tale of “Gutty little Isreal” surrounded by dangerous neighbors that want to destroy it. No talk of Israel being the 5th largest miliary on the planet. No talk of recent moves by Arab states to make deal combining recognition with a viable Palestinian state. I don’t know the answer. Get rid of the Electoral College and you might diminish the Israeli (and Cuban) lobby. But who knows.
So why doesn’t KOS rail about this? Well actually he did Marc. And pointed out that, as a young man in El Salvador, he had some idea what was going on in Lebanon. But he admitted not being an expert and decided to let others in the know comment. What a concept! Talk about things you know something about! Yes he and others spend a lot of time on Lieberman. They write political blogs! They are partisan Dems with a point of view!
If you want “Informed Comment”, Marc do what others like KOS and Atrios do – go to Juan Cole. And speaking of courage Cole’s commentary which seems pretty even-handed to me has already cost him dearly. The faculty of Yale wanted to make him a Prof of Middle East Studies but various Jewish groups (including Marty Peretz and Foxman) made such a stink that the offer was withdrawn. Why? Well Cole was not sufficiently pro-Israeli for them!
This will only change when the whole region blows up and gas goes thru the roof. An angry public will ask why and then we’ll see what’s good for the Jews. And it won’t be pretty!
July 21st, 2006 at 12:31 pm
In college, we learned to stretch hundred words of material into a twenty page term paper. In business, you learn to condense a twenty page report into a hundred word summary. I sure wish that people here would be more business-like to not push my attention span.
That is not a civil war in Iraq. Civil war is a Democratic talking point.
http://boortz.com/nuze/200607/07212006.html#iraq
July 21st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Just read the article posted on The Nation website by Adam Shatz, “Nasrallah’s Game.” http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060731/nasrallah_game
Now, if I had written comments in this blog stating something like this article, evidentally I would be called a racist, a bigot, banned and/or threated with banning, would be called a zionist, would be called a supporter of US imperialism, would be called, the various other bullshit labels and attacks not worth repeating.
Point is: when many of you sink into such ugliness you are often, often off the mark and betray your own cause. before the leftist choir here pounces on anyone with crazed diatribes at anyone who says anything that may sound remotely sympathetic or favorable to Israel, re-read the comment again and weigh it on its merits and don’t just respond with brainless remarks and ill-founded accusations. its possible to be for israel, for a palestinean state, for peace, against the killing of innocent lives on both sides of the israelis borders, while also criticizing the suicide bombs, the palestinean leadership, hezbollah. those of you who try to categorize people and thinking into neat black and white boxes demonstrate superficial or biased (for what ever reason) and often knee-jerk opinions on the present israel-arab conflict.
July 21st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Neil Boortz is the “expert” you quote to show that what Iraq is going thru is not civil war?
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Memo guys -just because they are not wearing blue or grey doesn’t mean it ain’t a civil war!
July 21st, 2006 at 12:46 pm
RLC: You really ned to calm down old boy. Ueah, I read KOS’ stuff about the war in El Salvador. It left me totally unimpressed. I know all kinds of folks who have been through that war and others and at a much deeper level than kos and can somehow still think through other conflicts. Amazing!
Anyway, you make my point very clearly. Ive no desire to read Atrios or Kos writing about something they profess to know nothing about. My point is that they dont know.
Partisan, shmartisan. As Max Sawicky says, you are hardly going to be taken seriously in American politics if you dont have an opinion on…ISRAEL and a possible pending generalized Middle Eastern War! It’s not exactly like asking someone to be an expert on Somalia, though that shouldnt be out of bounds either.
I dislike Joe Lieberman as much as the next guy. But when an entire civilian population, say, in Southern Lebanon is being giving an ultimatum to flee or become targets in a free-fire zone, it makes obsessing over Ned Lamont look just a tad parochial, if not plain asinine.
You seem to be way too defensive about the Democrats, but that’s ur problem not mine. All I am doing is pointing out that in some patches the so-caled “netroots” are rather historically rootless (and clueless).
July 21st, 2006 at 1:05 pm
rlc, who Boortz is doesn’t change facts that he presented and doesn’t make his perception wrong. Wouldn’t it be better to argue the point than to try to laugh away your competition–which is an admission of your own weakness in the argument?
July 21st, 2006 at 1:12 pm
In one way, I agree with you wholeheartedly, Marc—in terms of how things ought to be. But I think RLC has just laid out the political reality with dead on precision.
I loath Hillary’s pandering. For that there’s no excuse. (Joe Biden was equally dreadful on CNN the other night.)
But as for many of the silent Dems, after watching what happened to Howard Dean in 2004 election when he made the mistake of telling the WaPo that he thought that America should be “evenhanded” if it hoped to be an honest and effective ME peace broker….I can understand their reticence.
Dean—hardly worried about being outspoken on other issues— was quickly and viciously pilloried once he suggested that there were two POVs to be considered when trying to mediate on Israel/Palestine. He never made that mistake again.
The climate in this country is such that it is extremely difficult to be critical of Israel and hope to hold public office—in part because of the AIPAC network (obviously, AIPAC alone is no monolith), but also because Israel is an ultra emotional issue about which many normally decent and rational people seem to have little or no balanced perspective.
I really hate to let the repeatedly spineless Dems off the hook on this, but the hard truth is, if the they want to prevail in the midterms, they are forced into unholy “Sophie’s†choice of sorts.
I don’t condone the choice they’ve made. But, sadly enough, I understand it.
PS: WJ, great Rami Khouri interview. And, Marc, thanks for spotlighting Max. It’s good stuff!
July 21st, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Rosedog:
A couple of points. Howard Dean was a big beneficiary of AIPAC before his 2004 run so my sympathies in that regard are limited.
Political atmospheres are influenced and shaped by political leadership. In a country in which both major parties race with each other to offer “unwavering” support for Israel and its policies why one would assume a different atmosphere?
That’s anothe reason I have no sympathy for these realistic Democrats. I dont for one moment believe they are knuckling under or hedging their principles. I think, rather, what you see is what you get — these folks are part and parcel of the political culture they operate in; to the extent they believe in anything, they “believe” in their own cartoonish policy positions.
So I think the point is that instead of feeling sad that these Dems have to buckle under in a hostile atmosphere it’s a healther and ulitmately more realistic response to actively scorn them for being complicit in creating that culture. I know what you mean by the “Sophie’s Choice” line– but I think about more reflection you will agree that was hastily written. The Democrats are hardly in the position of prisoners held in death camps. Please. They are much more like the clerks with gree-eye shades who ran the railroads and kept the ledgers.
July 21st, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Woody, you are so right. Accurate descriptions of reality are soooooo Dem talking points LOL!!!1!!
This is why I prefer never to talk about reality, because reality suxors compared to how awesome Pres Bush and Reps are in my mind!
July 21st, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Okay, I take back the “‘Sophie’s’ choice line as, given its actual context, it was an alarmingly poor choice of metaphors.
And, yeah, I know Dean was very AIPAC supported (and JDL supported, now that we’re at it), but that didn’t prevent him from being trashed to a hideous degree when he had his one candid and entirely sane moment on the subject—a fact that further prooves how toxic the landscape.
On the other hand……”Political atmospheres are influenced and shaped by political leadership. In a country in which both major parties race with each other to offer “unwavering†support for Israel and its policies why one would assume a different atmosphere?”
There, I concede your point; just because the ground is full of land mines, it’s no reason not to demand leadership and courage.
July 21st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
“who Boortz is doesn’t change facts that he presented”
Woody, since you chose to make an issue of it (and I love pounding my head against dense, immoveable objects)…would you please cite for me one fact that Boortz presented in that column to refute that there is a civil war in Iraq. All he did was state his own opinion (rectally-sourced, I might add) that Reid is wrong and belched out the same-old, same-old RNC talking points about how Dems want us to lose, blah, blah. Pretty lame stuff in reaction to the problems confronting Iraqis and the Americans there (unless, of course, for some concern over this war just boils down to partisan politics and mindlessly defending BushCo.)
If you aren’t clear on my point, go consult a dictionary – check “fact” and “opinion”. While you’re at it you also might look up “bloviate”, where you’ll find Neal Boortz’ picture.
I find it depressing that the best even you can come up with on this is snippet of snark from a gasbag. Isn’t there some True Believer or MachoMan like Ruel Marc Guerecht or Victor Davis Hanson who can stitch together something resembling an argument about the good news from Iraq, the imminent demise of insurgency, the absence of civil war and the strong, stable government ? Our naked little emperor is badly in need of a skilled tailor – certainly better than Boortz. And I’d like to think there’s at least an outside chance that things haven’t spiraled totally beyond any control…even if it meant over the long term I don’t get to drink as much champagne.
(I’m cutting back and only downing one bottle for every dozen dead GIs. What about the rest of you ? I’m also tired of cleaning my computer screen every time I start laughing and spitting the bubbly while I’m watching the numbers go up at Iraq Body Count.)
July 21st, 2006 at 4:30 pm
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/
While we are abusing Dean, we might take a look at how the
CHAMPIONS of the Iraqi invasion are measuring up…..
July 21st, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Q: How can you tell when a right-wing f*ckhead isn’t getting any traffic on his blog?
A: He shows up here.
July 21st, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Woody writes: “rlc, who Boortz is doesn’t change facts that he presented and doesn’t make his perception wrong. Wouldn’t it be better to argue the point than to try to laugh away your competition–which is an admission of your own weakness in the argument?”
Does it make any difference that Colin Powell has also called it a civil war? Arianna Huffington asked him whether we’re leaving Iraq, and he said yes, but we won’t be leaving behind anything we like, because the country is in a civil war.
I suppose it’s a matter of definition. If American firepower and Iraq’s weak central government’s reliance on it is the only thing preventing full-blown civil war at this point, then the distinction is academic: we’re keeping their civil war under control for them, so it’s not a civil war? It’s a little like your oncologist telling you that you don’t really have cancer because the radiation therapy and chemotherapy seem to be working … for now …
I’d like to address the “facts that Boortz presented”. But can you show me a fact that he presented, Woody? All I saw was opinions. By the way, the last time you came forward with a “fact” that he presented, I tore it down in about 10 minutes, an egregious misquote IIRC.
July 21st, 2006 at 9:25 pm
No, it doesn’t to those so inclined.
July 21st, 2006 at 9:29 pm
I’d be interested in who marc has voted for since 1972.
July 21st, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Marc Cooper what are your peferencees?
July 21st, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Isn’t it strange that Woody never expresses any feelings about the loss of life in Iraq? It’s almost as if he didn’t care.
July 22nd, 2006 at 4:11 am
I would humbly suggest…….
There is an element, however small, that takes the Amercan potentail and reduces it down to dull witted nationalism. These are the people who said “the politican’s lost Vietnam,, nobel
effort, etc.” They are not capable of looking at the world
in a way more complex than a high school football game;
and you are not going to get anything serious out of them
about Iraq.
The question is, how does one of these people get
to be President of the United States? Yammer all you want
about the Dems, but your links to Roger L Simon and
Christopher Hitchens give you away. Who took the
gutsier, more emphatic stance against the invasion of
Iraq, Howard Dean or Marc Cooper?
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:22 am
Iraq’s losing a hundred people a day in tat for tat combat and it’s not a civil war. On the other hand, it’s the epicenter of World War III (or IV or V depending on your specific degree of wingnuttitude). The spin is giving me nausea.
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:43 am
Marc I’m glad you think that everyone should be talking about nothing but Lebanon. A few weeks ago it was all Immigrants all the time. You sound like one of those 24 hour cable news outlets with the plus that we never hear about missing blonds or murdered pregnant wives so that is progress I guess.
Since KOS writes a political blog with a pro-Democrat point of view I’ll forgive him for concentrating on politics, of which the Lamont-Lieberman frackus is the biggest thing right now. You want Lebanon/Middle East news you can go to any number of places as someone pointed out here a few days ago – Juan Cole, John Aravosis, Kevin Drum, Billmon, Digby Etc. And as that person wrote he was glad that there were people discussing other issues. Hey why not dis HOTLINE for not ranting on Hezbollah? Guess they’re not running in any primaries.
I said the behavior of Dems on this disgusted me but Marc. Even if they did they would be shouted down by a media that is so relentlessly pro-Isreal that even a remark like “Even-Handed” gets the anti-semite treatment. And it doesn’t help when you just pooh-pooh it because he got AIPAC support before. Tell me Marc, where is the line between being a leader and being a kamikaze? J William Fulbright used to say that his votes against Civil Rights Bills was the price he had to pay for his foreign policy views. Cowardly? Yes. But what would you have done in Arkansas in the fifties? Yeah be pure and teach at Fayetteville! Sorry but politicians pay a price in the real world and until the climate of opinion changes in this country that is the way it is and people like me have to make decisions based on realities. On the Middle East George H. W. Bush was FAR better than Clinton. But I went with bubba and would again. But when you don’t give a damn about winning – hence governing – it doesn’t matter and you can be pure of heart. Hell FDR opposed anti-lynching laws because he needed southern votes for the New Deal. What would you have done Marc? Said “To hell with the Wagner Act and Social Security”?
We live in a flawed world and we have to make it better little by little. And when that means swallowing hard, well sometimes that all you can do.
July 22nd, 2006 at 11:09 am
Woody, I know it is not Neal Boortz but HARPER’S is reporting that John Negroponte has refused to change the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) because senior CIA Analysts want to call the situation in Iraq a “Civil War.” But what do they know?
Marc, speaking of immigrants, the WASHINGTON TIMES is reporting the overruning of America by Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal. Their evidence? The rise is sales of Mexican food and foodstuffs!
Drop the Chalupa!
July 22nd, 2006 at 11:19 am
RLC: Thank you for your sermon on epexpedient Democratic politics… Like I didnt know any of this! You know, you’re quite deep into this stuff Richard. One can be a moderate AND a zealot at the same time, as you demonstrate. Of course I understand the need to compromise and sometimes pick the least of two evils. Sometimes that not worth doing. But I dont elevate moral compromise into an art form. I also reserve the right to trash any poltician I please… I’ll leave the apologizing to others who are better skilled at it.
Bob West: All you have to do is ask:
1968: Too young to vote at age 17. But put a McCarthy sticker on my car. I hated Bobby Kennedy who I (correctly) saw as an opportunist trying to cash in on McCarthy’s efforts. Having attended the founding convention of the California Peace and Freedom Party, I was nominated to run for California Secretary of Education — as a direct challenge to the age restriction requirement. I declined the nomination because I thought such a challenge was stupid.
On the day of the 1968 general election — November 4th– I participated in an SDS-sponsored Vote With Your Feet– Vote in the Street antiwar demonstration at my university. The Black Student Union chose that day to occupy the administration building to protest racist admissions policy. The SDS contingent joined the takeover– a couple of the SDSers wound up doing a few months in jail. Three of the black leaders were indicted on felony charges and sentenced to 1-10. I didnt know that Nixon had been elected until the next day or so later. It had made no difference to us, Nixon or Humphrey were indistinguishable on the only issue that counted — the war in Vietnam.
1972: Didn’t vote. I was living in Chile (but I worked in the 1973 congressional election campaign for the Chilean Socialist Party).
1976: Didn’t vote. I was living in Italy.
1980: Barry Commoner, Citizens Party
1984: Voted for Jackson in Democratic Primary. In the general I know I didnt vote for Reagan but can’t remember voting for Mondale. The memory would be too horrible. I most likely didnt vote or was possibly out of the country.
1988: Jackson in Primary. Probably Gene McCarthy in Citizen’s Party in the General. Im sure I didnt vote for Dukakis though he gave my daughter an A in his UCLA public policy class last quarter.
1992: Voted for Jerry Brown in the primary. In the general, a black, black day. I voted unenthusiastically for Bill Clinton, but I voted for him I have to admit. Never’ll do that again.
1996: Ralph Nader, enthusiastically.
2000: Ralph Nader, with no regrets.
2004: I was lucky. I got sent out of state the night before the election and therefore didnt have to vote for Kerry.
July 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Marc you have every right to be a contrarian as your voting record indicates and, for the record my first vote for President in 1968 was cast at Ft. Ord as a write-in for “Clean Gene” and no regrets but after that I’ve been a straight Dem voter – I’m a zealot what can I say but I sure think McGovern, Carter, Mondale Etc. were better than the GOP alternatives and I grew up in a GOP household. My mother worked for Ike and Nixon but never voted Republican after 1960 except for Nixon in ’68 which I was tempted to do – couldn’t stand Humphrey (the “Drug Store” Liberal as Robert Sherill called him and surely the inspiration for a great Phil Ochs song) but decided Tricky Dick was worse.
I won’t criticize your choices but you had to know, going in, that your votes were protests and not designed to bring in a governing party. Nor even to build a governing coalition. Where is the Peace and Freedom Party today? Or the Citizen’s Party? And I haven’t heard much from the Greens lately either.
But Marc Please remember the story of the Italian Catholic lady who, when informed of the Pope’s opposition to birth control announced: “You no play the game, you no make the rules!”
July 22nd, 2006 at 3:28 pm
And by the way Marc I’ll match my Leftist credentials any day of the week with you! Calling me a “Moderate” is fighting word pardner and you better smile when you say that! Its just that this is not a game for me. Real consequences affecting real people are at stake. Ask your daughter. Do you think John Kerry might appoint more sympathetic members to the NLRB and the Fed Bench? Do you think those people’s lives just might be improved a little? Just asking the next time you act like a person whose life is not affected by who sits in the WH in any but an esthetic way! I don’t have that luxury and neither do a lot people who need an activist government to help them NOW – not in some future utopia where Dennis Kuchinich and Ralph Nader are running things!
July 22nd, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Richard LoCicero,
Don’t know if you read Robert Caro’s book about LBJ’s senate years, But Humphrey comes off as a real class act, especially on the subject of civil rights. He was firmly ahead of his time and he got played by LBJ and played badly.
I often wonder what would have happened if HHH had said thanks but no thanks to LBJ when he asked im to be VP.
July 23rd, 2006 at 9:53 am
I forgot the question but thanks for the history. Did you graduate from college. because J-work is tough to get without that.
July 23rd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
No I’m not interested in a book that blames LBJ for everything but the dustbowl and considers a reactionary racist like Coke Stephenson to be morally superior to a man who, knowing the consequences for his party, still pushed thru the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and passed the Medicare Bill and the War on Poverty. His tragedy was the pursuit of the Vietnam War – which we now know he had grave misgivings about but could not say “no” to. A lack of moral courage.
HHH said “yes” and slavishly defended the war just as so-called “liberal” hawks defend Iraq. And the great lib was a sponser of legislation that would have set up internment camps. PATRIOT Act anyone? His “Politics of Joy” (“Love me, I’m a Liberal!”) after the Chicago debacle was too much for me then and its too much now.
July 23rd, 2006 at 3:49 pm
HHH said “yes†and slavishly defended the war just as so-called “liberal†hawks defend Iraq. And the great lib was a sponser of legislation that would have set up internment camps.
RLC,
That was precisely my point. One wonders what would have happened to him if he had stayed away from LBJ. I’m certainly not trying to excuse him, but many of the same positives you attribute to LBJ were also attributable to HHH as were his slavish defense of the war.
What is all too tragic in this country (and it’s something you see frequently in the UK) is the concept of resignation in protest. The last one I can recall was Cyrus Vance.
Sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Arab Real Estate…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….