I have two posts up at C&L from yesterday. The first post concerns the fact that George Bush's unpopularity spans virtually the entire country; his approval ratings are now above 50% in only 6 states (not including Texas), and in 40 out of 50 states -- 80% of the country -- more people disapprove of his performance as President than approve. One of the most inexcusable, and revealing, media distortions is that Bill Clinton, who had approval ratings in the 60s and left office with sky-high popularity, is depicted as some sort of disliked politician, whereas Bush is still routinely depicted as a beloved and admired figure even though he is, and for quite some time has been, an extremely unpopular President, not just in blue states but in red states as well.
The second post highlights the utter incoherence and inconsistencies in the terrorism and Iraq stump speech which Bush gives over and over and over. He constantly insists, for instance, that we are "at war" and mocks those who disagree, even though his own Attorney General testified last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee that we are not at war. Bush's central claim is that we will achieve "victory" in Iraq because democracy will produce a pro-U.S. government which will help us fight the "war on terror," even though two consecutive democratic elections have handed control of that country over to Shiite theocrats who are close allies with Iran, the country we are told is now our greatest enemy in the war on terror.
And Bush constantly justifies our occupation of Iraq with the assertion that democracies breed U.S. allies and dictatorships breed enemies, even though many of the countries with whom we have the greatest tensions and hostilities -- Iran, Venezuela, and now the Palestinian Authority -- have governments which were democratically elected to one degree or another, while some of our closest and strategically most important allies -- Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan -- couldn't be less democratic, and democratic elections in those countries would lead to governments which are infinitely more hostile to U.S. interests than the dictatorships which we prop up.
And the President continuously tells us that this war is unlike all others because we have to win not just militarily, but by winning the "hearts and minds" of Muslims. Meanwhile, the President's followers defend and justify the publication of cartoons which could not be more offensive or inflammatory towards Muslims (I agree that the cartoons should be published far and wide, but I don't espouse the contradictory principle that winning the "hearts and minds" of Muslims is our overarching goal); our abusive interrogation and detention practices (which repulse the moral standards of even by our closest Western allies) continue unabated; and we engage in what are perceived to be reckless, civilian-slaughtering military strikes which do nothing but inflame Muslim sentiment against us.
In sum, while the President continuously says that the most important goal in the "war on terror" is to undermine popular support for terrorists by showing Muslims that we have good intentions, virtually everything we do achieves the opposite result. These policies and their justifications are such a muddled, confused, internally inconsistent mess because they are just made up as they go along. They are political justifications, not thought-out strategic plans, and they shift like the wind whenever political expediency demands it.
If, as Bush claims, the metrics for determining "victory" are (a) the proliferation of democratically elected, pro-U.S. governments in the Middle East and (b) a positive view of the U.S. on the part of Muslims in the Middle East, can anyone contest that, using these metrics, we are doing everything except "winning"?
Great post Glenn! Why aren't the Democrats making these arguements?
ReplyDeleteBut I want to ask you how much you know about these Danish cartoons. I've read that they were published in the first place as part of a cynical publicity stunt for a Danish author with a new book on Muslim zealotry who has ties to to the newspaper. They were hoping these cartoons would be incendiary. While I'm all for free speech, I don't have much truck for publishers being deliberately offensive for personal gain and then using "free speech" to defend themselves.
I've read that they were published in the first place as part of a cynical publicity stunt for a Danish author with a new book on Muslim zealotry who has ties to to the newspaper. They were hoping these cartoons would be incendiary.
ReplyDeleteJust because something is meant to be incdeniary doesn't mean it has no value. And the cartoons may be childish or purposely provoactive - I don't know - but the threats to pluralism and to free expression posed by the violent reaction (and this has been going on for awhile - this is but the latest incident) is a true threat to pluarlism and free expression.
Just as I think that the press should be protesting much more vociferiously the Bush Administration's attacks on journalists (as exemplified by threats of criminal prosecution against the Times and the Franklin/AIPAC case where they want to criminalize disclosure of classified information even by non-government employees), the press ought to be standing up to thuggish behavior everywhere which is designed to intimidate people into suppressing certain views. Muslim extremism has numerous incidents in its recent past (beginning with things like the fatwa against Rushdie and the attacks on European journalists, film-makers, etc.) which, in my view, need to be taken more seriously and fought against.
Steve C: You are quite mistaken regarding why the cartoons were originally published. The Editor of the Danish newspaper in question sets it all forth for you in today's WaPo
ReplyDeleteFree speech cannot thrive in the environment Mr. Rose describes. I totally endorse what he and his paper did.
Just because something is meant to be incdeniary doesn't mean it has no value.
ReplyDeleteTrue enough, but I think there should be more to a good cartoon than just being incendiary. With that in mind let me throw out an observation from political cartoonist Pat Oilphant who has been very controversial for a long time. (Behind subscription firewall of today’s Chicago Tribune – but it may have been published elsewhere):
“As a political cartoonist for 50 years, I have always believed that anything political is fair game, and when the leaders and adherents of religions play political games, as they always do, they too become fair game. In those 50 years, it has become apparent to me that an offensive cartoon reference to a reader's political beliefs will often go unchallenged, but any infringement on that reader's ethnicity or religious beliefs will raise ungodly squawking and verbal fisticuffs.
I have also believed that for a cartoon to be truly effective in these circumstances, it must make a point, must express some anger, some outrage, some disgust that may be directed at the practitioners of these religions--not, however, at the religion itself.
I don't subscribe to any formal religion, preferring to keep my personal beliefs to myself, and I have had a happy time castigating the powers behind all shades of Christian and other faiths in the past, but always within the context of making a critical or particular point. There are many ways of chewing up these fundamentalist bullies--be they Taliban, Al Qaeda or Pat Robertson--without resorting to gratuitous ridicule of their religion or the icons attached to it.
With that in mind, I have to say that the point of these Danish cartoons eludes me, except as a needless and useless provocation. "Them Dam' Pictures" poured gasoline on a fire that was already burning merrily. Had some editor asked me to draw Muhammad, I would have refused the assignment. This particular Danish editor, given the circumstances, would have been better employed directing his energies to condemnation of the Islamic fundamentalists or the rulers of those Arab states who seek to divert attention from their own carelessness, sloth and incompetence in governing.”
Hypatia: That's not what I've read. Here's one piece I've read which probably explains it best: Blood in the Streets I'm going to give this and your link another close read.
ReplyDeleteWOW! Spot on and may I add the personal to this observation. My son is currenly serving in Iraq with his National Guard unit. Anyone who believes that this President's policies and statements and those of his supporters do not put our military in an untenable situation is crazy. Three points: 1) War happens between two nations or within a nation. This so-called war on "terra" is like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime. It is not war in the WWII model by any construction. Are we at "war" with Iraq? It makes no sense. 2) Al Gore goes to Saudi Arabia and states truth. The US treatment of detainees and others of Arabs decent since 9/11 has been abominable. He apologies. He is right to do so. The rightwingers are all over this story calling Gore a traitor. 3) Donald Rumsfeld and his menions put in practice the torture and abuse of those whom they capture and detain. At Gitmo, persons have been detained without benefit of due process. They have been abused, they have been tortured, they have been held indifinately and the world knows it. They have seen the pictures of these practices. That anyone could continue to support Rumfeld, Gonzales, etc. to include the media is abhorent. Nothing places our troops in more danger than the total abdication of accountability we now see at the highest levels of our government. We are truly in a constitutional crisis and a majority of Americans know it.
ReplyDeleteSteve: I really disagree with much that is in your link, like this:
ReplyDeleteThen we get into the really tricky ones. Some [cartoons] identify Islam with terrorism and misogyny. One shows Muhammad positioned so that the crescent moon behind him forms devil horns - with no other apparent message. Worst of all is a sketch of Muhammad's head with his turban (bearing the Islamic creed) forming a bomb with a lit fuse. Again, there's no other context or explicit message. It's difficult to avoid concluding that some of these cartoons are downright racist. Yes, there are plenty of Islamic terrorist groups out there, but Ireland has plenty of Christian terrorist groups, and you don't see people satirising the IRA by drawing an exploding Pope. The identification of mainstream Islam with suicide bombers is just plain wrong. It is hardly surprising that reasonable Muslims might find some of this stuff offensive. Criticizing Islamic societies for their attitude to women is fairer game, although blaming it directly on Muhammad is clueless given the actual content of his recorded teachings on the subject.
First, Islam is a religion, not a race. It is increasingly tiresome to see objections to that religion's excesses dismissed as racism. Second, Somali-born, black, ex-Muslim, feminist, Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali has, at is now fashionable to say, "absolute moral authority" in such matters, and as Mr. Rose notes, she feels " the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons."
She, of course, is in hiding, after co-producing a film with Theo van Gogh -- Submission. In that movie verses from the Koran are shown written on women's bodies. Inflammatory stuff for misogynistic imams -- so van Gogh was brutally murdered, Hirisi Ali threatened in a note appended to his corpse with a knife, and she now lives with guards at undisclosed location(s). Her personal freedom is greatly curtailed, her life radically altered, yet she continues to speak out in condemnation of virulent Islam; I revere her as a martyr to one of the noblest causes I can imagine: Individual Liberty speaking out and acting against Tyranny.
Really, Hirisi Ali should be the poster-woman for Americans who will not become weak, craven cowards ready to abandon our rule of law and civil liberties every time someone in the Bush Administration mentions Al Qaeda. Her film, and those cartoons, should be broadcast on every cable news station -- right along with demanding that Bush submit to the rule of law.
True enough, but I think there should be more to a good cartoon than just being incendiary.
ReplyDeleteA lot of American social conservatives said the same thing about some of the art projects which have created lots of controversy over the years - some Mapplethorpe photographs, the Piss Christ and others come to mind. They continue to say the same things to justify the censorship of things they think are pornographic.
I don't think artists or journalists need to prove that their work or ideas have value in order to win the right to express them. Clearly, those cartoons say something, or else they wouldn't provoke the reaction they do.
To be honest, I find it extremely distasteful to hear people saying in the face of censorship-demanding violent mobs that the cartoons aren't of much worth. It starts to sound like a defense of the mob and support for the idea that there is merit (or at least a sympathetic basis) to their violence.
A basic American (and, to a much lesser extent, Western) political value is that everyone is free to express any view they want without violent attack or government-based punishment. I think it's extremely important that it stay that way, and that any forces which fight against or threaten that value - Muslim or otherwise - should be unquivocally condemned and opposed.
Ever since I read your posts as a guest at Digby, I have been hooked. Excellent writing, backed up by research.
ReplyDeleteAs for "Foreign policy incoherence", quite true that disconnect from policy to implementation is incoherent. In large part this is due (in my opinion) to co-opting the neo-con stated foreign policy goals of "Democracy building through power projection". I use the term co-opting because it is a neo-con vision implemented by and for corporate power structure. All the justification aside, would we be in Iraq if the world's second largest oil reserves were not in play? The end game is not Iran but what the Administration perceived as a low hanging fruit; Iraq. But due to their greed and implementation incompetence, only even larger audacious moves keep the anger in check.
One of the most inexcusable, and revealing, media distortions is that Bill Clinton, who had approval ratings in the 60s and left office with sky-high popularity, is depicted as some sort of disliked politician, whereas Bush is still routinely depicted as a beloved and admired figure even though he is, and for quite some time has been, an extremely unpopular President, not just in blue states but in red states as well.
ReplyDeleteActually, this pretty much reveals the utter fallacy of the claim that any president starts a real live shooting war on the ground to boost his or her popularity polls.
Nearly every President in the middle of a ground war had low popularity numbers.
Mr. Clinton knew this and avoided committing US troops to combat like the plague.
We can debate whether that was wise on another occasion...
The second post highlights the utter incoherence and inconsistencies in the terrorism and Iraq stump speech which Bush gives over and over and over. He constantly insists, for instance, that we are "at war" and mocks those who disagree, even though his own Attorney General testified last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee that we are not at war.
The enemy is killing our people and our soldiers are fighting and dying killing that enemy. Our country is at war by any definition that this veteran understands.
Gonzales is making a legal argument concerning whether Congress actually declared war for the proposed of gaming the FISA statute.
Bush's central claim is that we will achieve "victory" in Iraq because democracy will produce a pro-U.S. government which will help us fight the "war on terror," even though two consecutive democratic elections have handed control of that country over to Shiite theocrats who are close allies with Iran, the country we are told is now our greatest enemy in the war on terror.
There are a couple misconceptions here...
1) The concept that Bush is attempting in his inarticulate way to convey is that democracies tend not to create international terrorist groups or attack other democracies. The Baathist dictatorship in Iraq actively trained, supported and sheltered international terrorists. The new elected government of Iraq is not.
2) Iran's theocracy has supported international terror since 79. Now one of the Iranian terrorists who kidnapped our diplomats and soldiers at our embassy is actually president and openly talks of wiping Israel off the map while developing nukes. The fact that the Iraqi Shia who have been elected in Iraq have a favorable disposition to Iran for providing shelter during Saddam's mass murder campaigns doesn't mean that we have to choose between supporting the elected government of Iraq and opposing the theocracy in Iran.
And Bush constantly justifies our occupation of Iraq with the assertion that democracies breed U.S. allies and dictatorships breed enemies, even though many of the countries with whom we have the greatest tensions and hostilities -- Iran, Venezuela, and now the Palestinian Authority -- have governments which were democratically elected to one degree or another, while some of our closest and strategically most important allies -- Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan -- couldn't be less democratic, and democratic elections in those countries would lead to governments which are infinitely more hostile to U.S. interests than the dictatorships which we prop up.
Crazy world, huh?
To deal with this crazy world, both the Reagan and Bush doctrines recognized that you need to spread democracy, if necessary by military force, in order to work toward world peace because democracies do not attack one another.
Sometimes you have to temporarily work with dictatorships which choose to help you fight your enemies, but you never stop pushing democratization in those countries.
For example, Reagan was ripped for working with dictatorships around Central and South America to defeat the communist insurgencies. The leftists scoffed at his claim that he was working for democracy in those countries. My poli sci professor at BC told us that Latin America could not support democracy. (Sound familiar?) Yet, nearly the entire hemisphere for the first time in history was governed by democracies after Reagan.
Despite the inevitable setbacks we will experience, we absolutely have to do the same thing in the Middle East. We cannot militarily defeat an ideology, we can merely keep it in check by denying them sanctuary and by attritioning their leadership. However, unless we defeat the ideology by replacing dictatorships with democracy, sooner or later one of these groups will get some WMD and get to your city.
If, as Bush claims, the metrics for determining "victory" are (a) the proliferation of democratically elected, pro-U.S. governments in the Middle East and (b) a positive view of the U.S. on the part of Muslims in the Middle East, can anyone contest that, using these metrics, we are doing everything except "winning"?
Bush has never measured victory by whether Muslims like us, but rather by whether democracy is spreading and whether the support for the Islamic fascist terror movement is going down.
We are making progress in both areas...
Iraq is now a constitutional republic. The Iraqi elections inspired the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, which threw out the Syrians and reestablished a true multiparty democracy. The Gulf States and Egypt are moving toward democracy. Palestine had its first true elections after Iraq was liberated. Unfortunately, because Fatah ran two slates of candidates in many precincts because of a party split, the fascist group Hamas won power. Let's see if they stay a democracy or turn to fascism like Nazi Germany. Polls across the Middle East for the first time show majority support for democratic government.
Concurrently, support for Islamic terror has plunged in most ME polls. al Qaeda's plan with 9/11 was to draw the US into a ground war on their turf in the ME so we could be defeated like the Soviets. They got their ground war, but lost Afghanistan and made their final stand in Iraq. However, al Qaeda made an enormous strategic blunder by starting to butcher thousands of fellow Muslims in an attempt to terrorize Iraq into rejecting the new democracy. Since then, six Sunni Iraqi militias have declared war on al Qaeada and support for Islamic terror has plunged across the ME. al Qaeda is now using boys about 15 and 16 years old to conduct the terror attacks now.
How much of the rioting is strictly motivated by offense at the cartoons, and how much is motivated by offense at Abu Graib, the Iraq invasion, or the more historical conflicts between the Islamic world and the historically Christian West?
ReplyDeleteI've seen far more outrageous cartoons critiquing Islam than the ones in question.
Not to say there aren't prominent fundamentalists who do think of these cartoons as the most blatant offense to their faith.
But, it should be noted that there are certainly elements in our media that would love to frame all Islamic anger as fanatic kneejerk religiosity, when that is surely not entirely the case.
Glenn writes: A lot of American social conservatives said the same thing about some of the art projects which have created lots of controversy over the years - some Mapplethorpe photographs, the Piss Christ and others come to mind. They continue to say the same things to justify the censorship of things they think are pornographic.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely.
The virtually always astute Cathy Young in the Boston Globe:
In 1998, when a Broadway theater announced the production of Terrence McNally's play ''Corpus Christi," depicting a gay Jesus-like character, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights launched a letter-writing campaign against it. There were also threats of violence and arson, which at one point swayed the theater to cancel the play. The Catholic League reacted with jubilation, and while formally deploring the threats it also warned that if another theater picked up ''Corpus Christi," it would ''wage a war that no one will forget." (The theater eventually revived the production.)
Interestingly, the head of the Catholic League, William Donohue, recently applauded the decision of most American newspapers not to publish the Mohammed cartoons and lamented only that his group's protests against offensive material have been less successful. Many of the same newspapers that decided -- quite wrongly, in my view -- not to reproduce the cartoons even as part of a news story about the reaction to them have run photos of controversial works of art considered sacrilegious by Christians, and defended the display of those works in tax-funded museums.
It is no accident, or even surprise, that an authoritarian reactionary like Donohue endorses that those cartoons not be published. What is surprising -- and to me, disturbing -- are Westerners who do not unequivocally stand with Hirisi Ali four square in support of the right to criticize, or ridicule, any religion in any classically liberal democracy. She has a lot more to say to me about such matters then freakin' Pat Oliphant, sitting safely in his Manhattan (or wherever) apartment, spewing Donohue-esque, clichéd objections that undermine Hirisi Ali's brave, life-threatening stance.
We are a petroholic society-no other country ccomes anywhere close to the per capita consumption of oil that we use here in the USA.
ReplyDeleteYet Bush is working overtime to piss off the very nations who hold the bulk of the world's remaining oil reserves. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela...
Kinda dumb, don't you think?
Bush is still routinely depicted as a beloved and admired figure even though he is, and for quite some time has been, an extremely unpopular President.
ReplyDeleteModern advertising techinques can create amazingly durable brands, durable beyond any basis in the intrinsic merits of the product.
In a country where Velveeta™ can successfully be sold as cheese, it is not surprising that you can sell George Bush, Popular Wartime President!™ as a popular wartime president.
(Note: George Bush, Popular Wartime President!™ is a registered trademark of the Republican National Committee. All rights reserved.)
prunes asks: How much of the rioting is strictly motivated by offense at the cartoons, and how much is motivated by offense at Abu Graib, the Iraq invasion, or the more historical conflicts between the Islamic world and the historically Christian West?
ReplyDeleteThe fatwa that put a bounty on Salman Rushdie's head long preceded Abu Ghraib or our invasion of Iraq. He warned at the time -- 1989 -- that his plight was a symptom of a pathology in Islam that was pervasive, had attacked others, and would continue to grow and attack writers and artists if not meaningfully addressed. Few listened to him at the time. Many writers and/or those on the left felt he had more sinned than been sinned against by "blaspheming" Allah.
I simply do not respect any right- or left-winger who does anything but insist that every human being has an inalienable right to publish anything at all about any religion, and that they should be absolutely unmolested (physicially) if and when they do so. The significant wrongdoing in such a scenario is always and only on the part of those who threaten, menace, kill, riot, and maim.
I very seldom -- very -- make absolute statements or use the word "always." But I do regarding such issues as present in this discussion. I really should sign my post as Hugo Black.
I don't think artists or journalists need to prove that their work or ideas have value in order to win the right to express them. Clearly, those cartoons say something, or else they wouldn't provoke the reaction they do.
ReplyDeleteI’m not saying that they don’t have a right to express them, they do. Yes, those cartoons say something, they say: all Muslims are terrorists, and Islam is a religion of terrorism that we cannot co-exist with.
(That, at least, is the message you increasingly hear on many right-wing blogs after these riots.)
I agree they have a right to express those views; but, at the same time, I find those views repugnant.
I'm certainly not opposed to publishing them, especially in the context of a news story examining this controversy. Also, I don’t think Oilphant is necessarily saying that they should not have been published, only, as an artist, he would have ridiculed the terrorists using their religion to justify their actions in a different manner – a manner I think that would be much more effective as a political cartoon as well.
Bush-Nero has been al Qaeda's greatest recruiter. In Iraq it is Iran that is the biggest winner: their enemy Saddam is destroyed and replaced with a VERY Iran friendly government.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that was worth over 2200 American lives, 1000s of American wounded, and over $400,000,000,000 (and counting).
I've only seen a few articles about this here and there,but what about the "selling"of some of our major ports to the UAE?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand this.It's my understanding that this country had ties to the 9/11 hijackers,in as much as there's been an effort to figure out where funding and support came from.
If I've misunderstood the connections and implications of this,I'd like to know.But on the surface this doesn't seem to be very security minded.And if this is a really BAD idea,can anything be done to stop it?Who really OK'd this idea?
Forgive my ignorance,I'm new to politics,policy discussions and so on,but this story caught my attention and has me very worried.
They tolerated no dissent, no different point of view, and they were tearing down the -- destroying the culture from the past. They had no sense of history other than their dim view of history. That's what they think.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Bush's voice projects in so many ways. Oy.
Bush still believes in the magical power of oceans:
When I was growing up in West Texas, oceans protected us. You might remember some of those days. Old Mayor Martinez, I know he remembers those days when we felt pretty comfortable here in America. We could see a threat overseas, but oceans made it pretty clear that -- to a lot of folks -- that nothing would happen, you know. September 11th came along and made it clear that we are vulnerable, that the enemy can hit us if they -- if they want to.
We should all live in so simple a world. Or something.
The English version of the German magazine Spiegel carries an excellent interview with Hirisi Ali, Everyone is Afraid to Criticize Islam. She is in the process of making a sequel to Submission, and all of the cast and crew are doing so in total secrecy and anonymity at undisclosed locations. The film will depict, among other things, a gay Muslim having to come to terms with the hatred of, and dangers to, homosexuals vis-a-vis Islam. Where this film will play, however, who knows -- Submission is shown virtually nowhere, because Westerners are too afraid to air it.
ReplyDeleteAs one learns in the interview, Hirisi Ali calls Mohammed a "tyrant and a pervert" -- she is no racist and she damn well has the right to make such a declaration -- just as I, a (long-ago) lapsed Catholic, can be quite scathing in my criticisms of the Catholic Church. But when I carry on like that I don't fear for my life, and I honestly doubt I could exhibit the in-your-face courage Hirisi Ali does when she forthrightly denounces the faith that subjugated her.
Here's an idea that conservatives should prepare for. It may be necessary for George Bush to insist that all party members in government wear uniforms and request that all party members in public wear arm-bands. The simple fact is that there are many Bush-haters at home and abroad and it is a time of war; a war unlike any other with a malicious, shadowy threat which is determined to destroy us and our way of life. It is clear that those who would question leadership at this time are al-Qaida sympathisers. Who knows what these radicals are capable of as time goes on? It seems clearly necessary that, as this conflict increases, those loyal to the executive be immediately identifiable and, moreover, there is no greater display of affection for one's nation (and loyalty to its leader) than to wear its uniform.
ReplyDeleteSuch a request should be expected within the context of the next domestic terrorist attack. Suspending elections will also be necessary.
For our safety.
These cartoons can arguably be considered to be the proverbial fighting words, published for no other reason except to inflame passions.
ReplyDeleteExactly what constructive goal can be accomplished by slandering a religious leader who lived hundreds of years ago as a bomber, when he was no such thing.
With freedom of speech comes the duty to speak responsibly.
This isn't something the government should be involved in censoring, but the publishers should know better...
And along comes Bart, to advocate a heckler's/arsonist's/assassin's/terrorist's veto.
ReplyDeleteI've been researching for a piece at my place with the working title Neocon Perp Walk; but there was a worthwhile piece relevant to this discussion in the NYT today, After Neeoconservatism, wherein Fukuyama explains where that belief system went wrong and says flatly:
ReplyDeleteNeoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.
James Wolcott picks up on my point that increasingly we hear on right-wing blogs that “all Muslims are terrorists, and Islam is a religion of terrorism that we cannot co-exist with.” It also speaks to the points Glenn made in his post today about policy incoherence and winning the "hearts and minds."
ReplyDeleteHe writes:
The incredible shrinking Dennis the Peasant lets loose with a thumping j'accuse against fellow conservatives who use their blogs as bonfire sites to promote hate speech, demonize Muslims, and cheerlead for the "Clash of Civilizations." His words are worth heeding because such sentiments are seldom heard on (neo)conservative blogs, where the winds of change blow through the gates of Vienna and whistle through the Belmont Club until every anti-idiotarian howls on cue and the little gangrene footballs begin to march in lockstep, ignorant armies of the night. ……
Dennis the Peasant's posts about counseling Somali Muslims after 9/11 are moving, educating, and a necessary corrective to the , though I wish he wouldn't argue the false equivalency of the-left-is-as-bad-as-the-right, especially when he chooses an example as poor as the two Glenns. No way Glenn Greenwald should be equated with Instapudding, and unlike the warbloggers, we antiwar types are not triumphalist alarmists half in love with Armageddon.
This post was awesome.
ReplyDeleteWe happen to believe in categoric speechfreedom, but also in responsible segregation of materials based on their offensiveness. Thus children shouldn't have to look at hardcore costume-dependent lifestyle S&M with box turtles and Holocaust survivors shouldn't have to look at WCotC pinheads on parade. These cartoons literally were a Nazi provocation, a dirty trick executed by violent racists who rely on immigrant-bashing to get elected.
The Zionists keep bringing up the huge gap between the original publication and the protests, without explaining the vital missing fact: in that period Muslims did try peaceful protest and it got them nowhere but more insulted. Do your 1st Amendment convictions have any provisos about a warning slip or barrier, or should everything be out in the open?
(Incidentally, Steve C is not mistaken at all in describing why the Danish fascists -- that's what the locals call that paper, the Daily Plague of Fascism -- pursued their provocation. There are a lot of lies going around, perhaps the biggest being that the protests are only about the cartoons at a time when America is essentially directly threatening several countries with invasion and has already conquered one.)
Hypatia said...
ReplyDeleteAnd along comes Bart, to advocate a heckler's/arsonist's/assassin's/terrorist's veto.
Grow up.
Part of being an adult is simply being polite, considerate and honest in your public speech.
That cartoon with the Prophet Mohammed as a bomber is no different than showing Martin Luther KIng as gang banger robbing somebody, Mother Theresa as part of the Catholic Inquisition or Billy Graham as a witch burner.
All of these examples are slanders of innocent people for no good reason except to take a cheap shot by reducing another group of people to a caricature.
I am not advocating that any group of yahoos get a veto over someone else's speech. However, if you are going to stick someone with a verbal knife, you might want to have a good reason for doing so apart from the sick delight in doing so...
hypatia: I simply do not respect any right- or left-winger who does anything but insist that every human being has an inalienable right to publish anything at all about any religion
ReplyDeleteWell, me neither. I'm a free-speech absolutist in that I feel the right to free speech is in a certain sense prior to all other rights, even property rights, which many feel are the fundamental ones.
I just have my doubts that ALL the rioting we're seeing on the news is strictly due to this particular batch of cartoons.
bart says: All of these examples are slanders of innocent people for no good reason except to take a cheap shot by reducing another group of people to a caricature.
For once I agree with bart on something! After The Satanic Verses, was there anyone still not aware that certain Islamic fundamentalists would like to restrict certain religious speech? Of course not.
Just drawing a bomb with a beard and writing "Muhammed" under it is not exactly some strong indictment of fundamentalism that has been repressed by the PC media or anything. We all know there are such things as Islamic suicide bombers. These cartoons have no meat to them.
I mean, if not for these riots (probably instigated by a few fanatics), no one would have ever heard of these frankly boring cartoons.
Pre-emptive qualification: none of which, of course, excuses violence on the part of protesters.
ReplyDeleteThat cartoon with the Prophet Mohammed as a bomber is no different than showing Martin Luther KIng as gang banger robbing somebody, Mother Theresa as part of the Catholic Inquisition or Billy Graham as a witch burner.
Aayan Hirisi Ali adovcates that some of those cartoons hold great political merit, and that all of them should be published everyehwere. She has written that Mohammed is a "tyrant and pervert."
Does she need to grow up, too?
It is truly fascinating how this human compulsion to control others, and to not let them speak, is manifested by both left and right, whose excuse-making for censorship- demanding mobs and criticisms of those who offend the mobs, can be so eerily similar.
Glenn says: [Bush says] the most important goal in the "war on terror" is to undermine popular support for terrorists by showing Muslims that we have good intentions, virtually everything we do achieves the opposite result. These policies and their justifications are such a muddled, confused, internally inconsistent mess because they are just made up as they go along.
ReplyDeleteWhile Bush may not be as intellectually stellar as most American presidents in the post WWII era, he has some extraordinarily intelligent people in his administration (Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz).
Therefore, I find it hard to summarily dismiss the idea that the Bush strategy of 'putting out the fire of Islamic terrorism with the gasoline of outrageous American provocation' may not be a globally tragic error of monumental stupidity. In fact, it may be the deliberately sought-after result.
Isn't it entirely likely that a truly peaceful civil democracy in an oil-rich country would nationalize or otherwise re-negotiate the 'terms of the deal' with the major oil corporations which constitute one of Bush's and Cheney's main power base? This was, of course, exactly what happened in Iran in the 1950s, and the US & Britain were quick to put a stop to that.
By fanning the flames of Islamic extremism, the Bush administration can justify an unending military presence in those oil-producing nations and the suspension of essential civil liberties here at home.
I would infinitely prefer to believe in the 'misguided stupidity' hypothesis than what I'm spelling out here. Unfortunately, I see precious little evidence contradicting a darker interpretation of events.
Prunes writes: Just drawing a bomb with a beard and writing "Muhammed" under it is not exactly some strong indictment of fundamentalism that has been repressed by the PC media or anything. We all know there are such things as Islamic suicide bombers. These cartoons have no meat to them.
ReplyDeleteTo compare effete fretting over PC issues in the United States with genuine, literal, mortal-fear driven self-censorship in parts of Europe is simply bizarre. Hirisi Ali is not writing letters to the NYT claiming her position on Islam isn't getting a fair shake from the "liberal media"; she is f*cking in hiding after her co-producer was viciously murdered and the assassin plunged her death threat into the man's corpse. At least one other Dutch politician is also in hiding under guard by reason of death threats from the same quarters.
Now, a bunch of CARTOONISTS are sent into petrified hiding, in Denmark!
The Netherlands and Denmark are jewels in the crown of liberal democracy, where individual freedom has been a hallmark. But now, politicians and artists self-censor and live in terror of what will happen to them if they do not. Or, the brave few who won't cave in to theocratic demands, continue to produce films, but under tight secrecy and with heavy security.
Just a bit different situation than caterwauling about whether PC prevails at the news networks, doncha think?
The Bush is stupid and the attempts to bury neoconservatism
ReplyDeletewhen it is just in its infancy
in the middle east are just flailing attempts by those who never supported it to try win a public perception war. So they paint every effort as muddled, confused, a failure when in fact there have been few presidents with as clear a foreign policy agenda as George Bush. He has been anything but waivering and frankly, I don't really trust Glenn to tell me what he thinks our goals in the Middle East are.
Say, Hirisi Ali says Mohammed is a "tyrant and a pervert." Should she be prosecuted for commiting a hate speech crime?
ReplyDeleteI think we need to differentiate between the “right” to say things, and recognizing the “consequences” of saying certain things. No, I don’t think Ali should be prosecuted for a hate crime at all, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t understand why Muslims would be offended by that comment.
Words have consequences, and while I’ll always support their right to say hateful things, that doesn’t mean I have to ignore the consequences of such speech.
Take it out of the cartoon controversy for a moment.
David Neiwert pointed to Glenn’s defense of racist hate-monger Matthew Hale. Now, neither Neiwart nor I condemn Glenn for defending him, that doesn’t mean that Hale’s words didn’t have consequences.
As it just so happened, I was nearby both murders that resulted from Hale’s “freedom of speech” against both blacks and Jews, and one of each were killed that day.
Glenn argues very persuasively that Ann Coulter’s speech has consequences, so let’s not pretend that publishing these cartoons, or Hale’s words, are without consequences either.
The fatwa that put a bounty on Salman Rushdie's head long preceded Abu Ghraib or our invasion of Iraq. He warned at the time -- 1989 -- that his plight was a symptom of a pathology in Islam that was pervasive, had attacked others, and would continue to grow and attack writers and artists if not meaningfully addressed. Few listened to him at the time. Many writers and/or those on the left felt he had more sinned than been sinned against by "blaspheming" Allah.
ReplyDelete--Hypatia
I'm predominantly in agreement with your point about the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, largely because I had the Rushdie example in mind too.
But I have to disagree at least anecdotally with your characterization of the "the Left" on that matter. I was in no less a bastion of liberalism than a graduate literature program at Harvard during that period and Rushdie's case was much discussed. I don't recall anyone being anything but disgusted and outraged on an almost personal level--it felt like an attack on all of us involved with literary endeavors and I can assure you we identified with Rushdie not the religious fanatics who sought to silence him.
Similarly, I don't know anyone on "the Left" who leapt to congratulate the Taliban for demolishing those monumental sculptures of the Buddha. Both acts are utterly inimical to what I consider core liberal beliefs in free expression. I would want to say "American" beliefs and leave it at that, but I don't quite think it's true anymore. If anything, from where I sit it's the rightwing fundamentalists who have the most in common with the mindset that produces such acts, which are vile crimes against humanity.
I don't think it's wrong to say the rioting is inspired in a significant way by post-colonial anger at the west--a deep ingrained sense of grievance and cultural/national humiliation that is there to be exploited by power elites. But this larger pattern of totalitarian incursions against free speech in ways that impinge on the outside world needs to be opposed.
I'm not sure I wouldn't include the way American Internet and media firms have been pressured to kowtow to Chinese "sensibilities" as a related phenomenon.
Glenn argues very persuasively that Ann Coulter’s speech has consequences, so let’s not pretend that publishing these cartoons, or Hale’s words, are without consequences either.
ReplyDeleteMost political speech is intended to have consequences. It's intended to persuade people and spur them into action.
But ultimately, the only people responsible for illegal or violent acts are the ones who committed the illegality or violence (or those who conspired in its commission).
A left-wing environmental fanatic killed Pim Fortuyn in Holland. Are European environmentalists whom he heard speak responsible for that crime?
Colin Ferguson, the LIRR shooter from a decade ago or so, went on a racist shooting spree, killing as many whites as he could find, and he was a big fan of Lewis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton´s speeches. Are they responsible for that shooting spree?
If some left-wing artists show pictures that are blasphemous to Catholics and a few Catholics become enraged and go and blow up the gallery showing the exhibit, are you going to blame the artists and talk about how their ideas have consequences - or will you condemn the Catholics who blew up the gallery because they didn't like the artistic ideas being expressed?
There isn't a First Amendment exception for super-offensive ideas or racist or religiously blasphemous ideas or for ideas that have "consequences." There's a reason for that - a good reason.
David Neiwert pointed to Glenn’s defense of racist hate-monger Matthew Hale. Now, neither Neiwart nor I condemn Glenn for defending him, that doesn’t mean that Hale’s words didn’t have consequences.
ReplyDeleteAs it just so happened, I was nearby both murders that resulted from Hale’s “freedom of speech” against both blacks and Jews, and one of each were killed that day.
Well first, not only do I not condemn Glenn for defending Hale, I applaud Glenn and cannot commend his having done so strongly enough. I would have done the same exact thing.
Further, I do not understand it to be the case that that these murders "resulted from" Hale's speech -- I am aware of no evidence that Hale ordered, implicitly or explicitly, any murders.
That all said, I completely concur that ideas have consequences. In a free nation, they foment discussion and lead to the displacement of majority opinion, in an ongoing dialectic that leads to the minority becoming the new majority opnion, which will yet again be displaced -- this dynamic has tended to engender social as well as material progress that I approve of. (As well as some set-backs of which I do not.) It is the pragmatic reason (as opposed to the equally compelling principled one) that freedom of speech must be defended.
Violence as a response to free speech is a cancer in the Public Conversation. It cannot and ought not be tolerated, but rather, should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Once it occurs, it is inappropriate to focus on the substance of the comment that is the excuse for the violence.
No "yes, buts."
Hrisis Ali suffered terribly as a female under the yoke of Islamic subjugation. That any in the free West would do anything but vehemently stand up for her right to forcefully condemn a religion that manifestly did oppress her, is absurd, and for many on the left, utterly hypocritical.
Bart: "Nearly every President in the middle of a ground war had low popularity numbers."
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter what excuse this President has given. This President has violated the laws of war, there was no imminent threat. It doesn't matter what other President's may or may not have done -- this President is a war criminal. And this Congress does nothing about it; simply asserting," Oh, we're so great -- we don't belong in the ICC."
Put aside whether or not you said is true or not, America can't point to a "precedent of war crimes" to justify committing war crimes and violating the law.
Well! A country that violates the laws of war, has laws against that conduct, does nothing, and then wants the world to say, "Isn’t America just great?!?!?" Get real!
"Hay, isn't it great -- we can blog about it, and have an open debate." Sure, we debated the FISA in 1978, and debated whether or not to pass a law telling the President has is ministerial duties were. What happened to that "big debate about FISA"? America threw that in the septic tank! Debate is worthless when you're talking with people whose default approach is, "Now that we've debated, agreed, and assented to something let's ignore it!"
There's no reason to debate with Americans. They're going to violate the laws of war anyway.
America is a cess pool! How many more cries are needed? Apparently, they can invade other countries, violate the laws, and nothing is done: "Hay, Congress said it was OK to violate the laws, so it must be OK."
Is America willing to tame itself? Hitler said nothing would stop Germany. How many years did it take?
What's it going to take to bring the US under the umbrella of the law? Apparently America can march forward, fully expecting nobody to do anything about the efforts to unset democratically elected nations; unlawfully invade others; commit human rights violations.
America is a rogue nation. “Nothing can stop us now. . .” Zeig Heil, Nazis in American Congress! [ Click ] America is a threat to the civilized world.
Point to something that is going to self-tame this American fascism. Point to one thing. There's nothing. The poodles in Congress apologize for war crimes; the courts do nothing; the American Bar Association lawyers are lazy and simply whine on TV about it; and America keeps doing it.
I see nothing stopping America from engaging in more war crimes: America -- it's leaders, people, government, institutions -- are supporting this unlawful activity. And what's the "big solution" -- let's find a "new way" to "debate" the issue.
Hey -- stupid Americans! We already debated this: Back in 1776 and 1789. The "big debate" was already settled: We have laws, and you idiots are supposed to follow them.
But the idiots in America "want to have a debate" like their toads in the American Bar Association who do jack for how many years -- and what do we have? No breaks on this. "Let's have a debate."
Sure -- every debate you have is another excuse to whittle down your rights. When is this going to stop? No answer from the cess pool in the American Bar Association. "Let's have a debate."
Jesus H. Christ. Go have a debate, and watch yourself!
Move on!
There isn't a First Amendment exception for super-offensive ideas or racist or religiously blasphemous ideas or for ideas that have "consequences." There's a reason for that - a good reason.
ReplyDeleteI’m not arguing that Ann Coulter (or anybody else) has no right to say what she does. Only, that what she says, as you have pointed out, is hardly harmless.
Glenn:"It's intended to persuade people and spur them into action."
ReplyDeleteIn the case of America it does one thing -- spurs the people into inaction: Congress does nothing; people vote for fascism; nothing done about the lies in the AUMF or the illegal wars in Iraq.
Nothing!
Inaction! Political "debate" in America is about inaction -- and getting people to assent to fascism.
The disconnect on who is and who is not responding is curious. Look very closely at who is behind these big riots: Why is the "big riot" occurring in Syria, but not in a place like Egypt that is more religious? Look at who is provoking these riots and now. The CIA did the same thing in Iran in 1979 just before the revolution. This entire thing is orchestrated to distract attention and then the world will -- boo hoo -- demand the US intervene to "stabilize" the situation.
This is a CIA black propaganda operation.
Contrast: Big inaction over war crimes, but the "big crisis" over a cartoon. Entire manufactured.
America is a cess pool!
ReplyDeleteAmerica is a rogue nation.
America is a threat to the civilized world.
If you really feel this way why haven't you taken up arms against the United States?
If you really feel this way how can you not support al Qaeda's attempt to destroy this nation?
I must say, Glenn, you've attracted quite a little coterie here in Unclaimed Territory.
We will never understand the motives/foreign policy objectives of Bush until we in America are permitted to enjoy the benefits of a global media. As it stands today, television and radio are restricted. Some pay cable packages allow us to view stations such as the BBC or CNNI and some Canadian news broadcast. Al Jazeera International is establishing a Washington bureau but no word on whether it will be offered in the US. We operate in this nation with one hand tied behind our backs. What the US does abroad, including the Iraq War, is censored. Nothing from the streets, even of America. It's all commercials all the time. Free speech in theory is all well and good but if it is media censored, is it free?
ReplyDeleteZack: There isn't a First Amendment exception for super-offensive ideas or racist or religiously blasphemous ideas or for ideas that have "consequences."
ReplyDeleteBaloney! I can make a racist comment about Americans: "They're fascists!" There! If you're not offended, go read your Constitution and think about Congress trashing it, you're lazy! There is a first Amendment protect to speak, period. If someone does or does not take action based on that speech, that's a separate matter. But its for the prosecution -- in this case the DoJ toads -- to prove that the "offensive speech" was directly linked to the incitement to riot.
If you can prove that, fine. Other than that, don't give me this BS about "provoking" speech when someone is making a "fair comment" which is fully protected as an exception to the copyright laws -- you know, that "big right" of yours to copy a selected portion of the NYT article about the NSA illegal activity and make a [wait for it] fair comment.
. . .
But let's take a larger view on the Constitution and 1st Amendment. -- What is this? Why is anyone seriously "concerned" about whether or not the action is or is not constitutional? The US government violates the Constitution, but do we hear a "big debate" about that in Congress? No, silence -- all those lazy pieces of cess pool idiots in Congress can do is change the subject from their assent to fascism to what Google is or isn't doing -- never mind the AT&T assent to the non-FISA-warrants -- which are required under the law.
Congress: "Oh, we can't talk bout that . . ." Why not? Why getting all worked up about a Cartoon, but not the same level of concern with the flagrant abuses in the White House, Congress? Huh? Get real!
Why is there this "big debate" over a cartoon -- but not a similar "big debate" on a more pressing constitutional matter: War crimes, unlawful American government conduct, and violations of the FISA? Get real!
America "Hay, whatever the White House tells me is in the case law, I'll just gobble it up, like all the other excuses they give me to violate the laws of war. Hay, want more of my privacy -- the White House says that if I'm a slave to their non-sense, I'll be safe and free." You are lazy, America! This White House is perverting your minds with absolute drivel, and all you do is lap it up like slaves, happy to be beaten so that you are "reminded" of "how you need to behave." You deserve to rot in the cess pool you're drinking from. The White House has more of that gruel for you.
These White House, DoJ, and DoD lawyers have one goal: To assert their lawlessness over the rule of law. Hitler’s lawyes did the same: They had a debate about the Jews. First they wanted to “move them” [rendition] to a place where they could not bother others – Egypt [Eastern European detention centers, Guantanamo] – but then that go to be “too difficult.” The same is going on here.
Now there are 300,000 names in their computer – and they’re trying to figure out “what do we do with these suspects in America.” See what’s going on? This DoJ, White House, and DoD are thinking along the same lines as Hitler’s lawyers: “We’ve got all these names, and not enough resources . . . I guess we can’t transport them all to Eastern Europe, so let’s move them into detention centers in America until we can get around to having them appear in Court.” Wake up! Debating cartoons isn't stopping Congress from assenting to more non-sense.
Anonymous: "We will never understand the motives/foreign policy objectives of Bush until we in America are permitted to enjoy the benefits of a global media. As it stands today, television and radio are restricted.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have to wait -- we know their motives: To violate the laws.
It never ceases to amaze how Glenn can strip things down to their essence and make such a persuasive case for his arguments that it's impossible to understand how anyone with an open mind would not be convinced.
ReplyDeleteI am the poster who wrote about that devastating CNN investigatory piece yesterday called DEAD WRONG.
I had taped it, and viewed it again today. It's extremely powerful stuff.
Two points brought out that I had not known before were these:
l) A low level engineer named (as I recall) Peter T., with no nuclear experience, was the person who came up with the theory that the three feet by three inch tubes
being accumulated by Iraq were to be used to make nuclear weapons. (We all know now that was wrong, and those tubes cannot be used for that purpose, as they are the wrong size, but are rather used to make rockets.)
2) Based on this one man's inexpert opinion, the Administration seized upon that and used it to conduct its whole
"mushroom cloud" propaganda pieces that it has Rumsfeld, Cheney and Condaleeza Rice, a person I am coming to believe is perhaps the most evil of the three, for reasons I won't go into here, appear on all the Sunday morning talk shows to argue that "we now have evidence" that Iraq is engaged in producing weapons of mass destruction.
The incredible thing is that they did this DESPITE the fact that when the nuclear experts in the Intelligence community examined this claim, they advised the administration that they disputed it, and discredited the conclusion of this Peter T.
If one reads the subsequent testimony of Powell's top aide, Lawrence Wilkerson, and also listens to the testimony of a man whose name I think is Shuerer, it is really virtually impossible to escape the conclusion that in fact the Administration did exactly what they are being accused of doing: handpicked stray, unreliable pieces of information to construct an argument they knew was false to hoodwink the American people into believing Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction and, unless we liked mushroom clouds, we should invade Iraq.
The Administration, according to people who spoke on this CNN piece, also had definitive knowledge that there was no link between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein. They chose, however, not to listen to the exhortions of those who were demonstrating to them with facts that such a connection didn't exist, and went forth with their deliberately fabricated version of the facts.
As bad as the NSA spying is, with the possible loss down the road, of more and more of our civil liberties, a decision to go to war against a nation which had not attacked us, for reasons having nothing to do with the security of this country, knowing that thousands of LIVES would be lost, and people would have to go through life in wheelchairs, or blind, or missing their limbs, is something so grotesque that I personally have trouble believing that any sane person in a position of power could do something like that.
And yet, the evidence is overwhelming that they did precisely that.
If one initiates physical force against those who are not threatening one's life or property, knowing that thousands, or possibly tens of thousands of people will die because of that unprovoked act of aggression, many of them our own citizens, isn't that murder?
To me, it is murder. What do others think?
I am stunned, frankly. I had no idea that educated, sane people with level upon level of staff against whom to check out their positions, could be so evil.
DrBB: You and your colleagues are to be commended. It is certainly true that many writers and many on the left came to Rushdie's defense. But many did not.
ReplyDeleteThis what Rushdie himself has to say, and some of those who thought he was so horrible were on the left and/or writers. To understate, he was not universally treated sympathetically by secular liberals:
People who were on my side wished to say that this was an exceptionally horrible attack on a writer and therefore required exceptional resources to defend it. People who were not on my side said that I had done something so exceptionally horrible that the rules of free speech didn’t apply. But on both sides of the argument, there was a desire not to make it typical of anything. It didn’t prove that Islam was against free speech. It was just against this horrible abuse of it. It didn’t prove that there was a large problem of this sort. It just proved that a particularly insane dying religious leader had made a particularly insane fanatical threat.
And when I tried to say that this is not just me, that it is happening in a lot of places to a lot of writers and you need to look at that larger phenomenon, it was often seen as special pleading. This was seen as me trying to attach my case to others to justify myself. It was very difficult to get anyone to see that there was a growing phenomenon that needed to be taken seriously: the attempt to control thought.
gedaliya: "If you really feel this way why haven't you taken up arms against the United States?"
ReplyDeleteYou inciting others to take up arms? Wow, looks like the FBI wants to talk to you, gedaliya.
gedaliya: "If you really feel this way how can you not support al Qaeda's attempt to destroy this nation?"
George Bush is destroying this nation. AlQueda doesn't have to do anything. gedaliya. You know it.
America is a cess pool! Congress refuses to assert the rule of law, gedaliya.
America is a rogue nation. It defies the laws of wars, gedaliya.
America is a threat to the civilized world. Duh, gedaliya – it invades other nations, makes up information, lies to the court, violates the will of the people – clearly promulgated statues – and then wants to have a debate, another compromise. You like living in a cess pool like that? Fine, you’re there. Enjoy it. It’s getting stinkier, and your Congress is pouring more stinky mess into the basement where you Constitution is kept. You liking that, gedaliya?
Notice If you dare speak about the violations of the laws of war, the arrogant Americans say, "Oh, you must be with AlQueda."
Brilliant, gedaliya. Are you on the Bush legal defense team, or are you just closed minded? Congress is doing this: Ignoring the violations of the laws; doing nothing about the war crimes; doing nothing about the faked information over WMD.
But what do the stupid Americans do, "Oh, if you talk about reality you must be with AlQueda." gedaliya, are you a fascist, or do you just sound like one that apologizes for the fascists in the White House?
Notice: The only “way that these fascists in the White House” can argue anything is to accuse anyone that notices reality as being with AlQueda. Wow! Isn’t that curious. So who’s run out of legal defenses, excuses, and non-sense? Answer: The fascists in the White House and Congress admit that they have nothing else to say other than, “We do not want to face reality, and if you make us –we’ll accuse you of being with AlQueda.”
See! When backed into a corner, the only thing this White House, NSA, DoJ, DoD and others can say, “You must be with AlQueda.” Brilliant. Now we know who we’re dealing with: People who have no legal defense for their war crimes in Iraq; people who violate the law; and people who have induced Congress to assent to the violations of the American Constitution.
You are in rebellion against the Constitution! You’re already taken up a war against the fundamental principles of the Untied States. Nobody made you, but your stupidity, laziness, and assent to this lawlessness shows the world: Your only defense is to shift attention to “something else.”
You did this: Sat back and let this happen and did nothing. Nothing! Want more fascism? You’ve got it: America!
Constant wrote:
ReplyDeleteZack: There isn't a First Amendment exception for super-offensive ideas or racist or religiously blasphemous ideas or for ideas that have "consequences."
Baloney!
---------
Um, Constant, that quote was from Glenn Greenwald, not me, and I don’t disagree with it all.
Hypatia wrote:
ReplyDeleteFurther, I do not understand it to be the case that that these murders "resulted from" Hale's speech -- I am aware of no evidence that Hale ordered, implicitly or explicitly, any murders.
Matthew Hale is now serving a prison sentence (40 years, I believe) for soliciting the murder of a judge.
Zack: "Constant, that quote was from Glenn Greenwald, not me, and I don’t disagree with it all."
ReplyDeleteOK. So you agree with it. Does it matter whether you said it or not? Answer: No, it is substantially what is aligned and associated with your views; moreover, it's from a line in your comment box. So it's irrelevant whether you did or didn't say it: You repeated it, and agree with it. But you're changing the subject from the issue, to whether you did or didn't say it. Brilliant, got you on that one!
Notice, you didn't show why the "exception to the 1st Amendment" in re offensive speech should or shouldn't be endorsed. The law allows for offensive speech when it is within the community standards. Just because you're offended, doesn't mean that it's not protected.
In short, you may agree with Glenn – and Glenn may not mean this -- but, if you’re saying that there are certain types of personally offensive conduct that should be illegal, you’re wrong. The “offensive” standard is a community standard, not a personal standard with respect to whether speech is or isn’t protected. Whether you are or are not personally offended is irrelevant: It is a different standard when it comes to the community, and what is or is not lawful.
Short version: Offensive conduct is not up to you or Glenn to say is or is not acceptable; it’s up to the court that may find that very offensive things to Zach and Glenn, are protected.
. . . .
All: Let's consider something. If you -- not you Zack, but people in general -- are offended, that is your problem. But people have the right to speak, express, and communicate.
How you react to that is your choice; or course, there are exceptions to that called “fighting words.” Whether that speech translates into your reaction is totally unrelated to the communication unless someone incites you into lawless action.
You may agree with Glenn, but that doesn't mean it's a fair representation of what is or is not lawful, protected, or sanctioned. If you are reacting, then you are choosing to let another affect you – that is a choice – your choice. Own it, don’t blame others for your reaction, or failure to maintain discipline. Whether this Congress can be induced into a coma and unlawfully assent to war crimes, continue funding an illegal war, is another matter.
Example: Anti-Slapp. If the "offensive" standard is one that the court recognize as lawful -- then it doesn't matter what your personal "offense" is -- example: Depiction of violence in war far. If it's a "fair report" and a "news" item, that is protected speech.
Bottom line: You’re either for the Constitution – and all the protections that has for free expression of protected-offensive content – or you’re with the President’s rebellion against the Constitution. Choose.
hypatia: Just a bit different situation than caterwauling about whether PC prevails at the news networks, doncha think?
ReplyDeleteYou may be right. I should not have attempted to speak to the political climate in Denmark; I really don't know what it's like over there.
Notice, you didn't show why the "exception to the 1st Amendment" in re offensive speech should or shouldn't be endorsed.
ReplyDeleteConstant, please read Glenn’s quote again. He said there isn’t an exception to the First Amendment for offensive speech that has consequences. I’m in agreement with you (and him) on this.
"By fanning the flames of Islamic extremism, the Bush administration can justify an unending military presence in those oil-producing nations and the suspension of essential civil liberties here at home."
ReplyDeleteWow. I had never considered this angle before. And yet, it makes perfect sense. It is the height of folly to underestimate one's adversaries, and in this case, it appears the adversaries are those in government who have brought us to this present shocking turn of events.
It seems less logical to conclude they "bumbled", that they thought Iraqi citizens would throw flowers in our path, etc., that they are stupid, than to conclude that their intent all along was a permanent presence in the Mid East.
Certainly if one looks at the situation carefully, one can see that we can't ever leave Iraq, now that "democracy" has put into positions of power people who are our enemies. Therefore, if this is going to be a permanent Vietnam, which it will be unless there is some sort of uprising against these policies by the citizens of America, it makes perfect sense that the government would be taking steps to limit our civil liberties, invade our privacy, keep track of who says what, and succeed in stifling the type of protests that led to our withdrawal from Vietnam.
Consider the evidence. The Secret Service has always been an agency that protected the President. This recent law establishes a Secret Police Force that does not merely protect the President, but whose presence will be at every public event, public gathering, etc.
That doesn't bother Orin Kerr, btw, who says that we have always had a Secret Service, and the recent expansion of that agency is uneventful.
This would illuminate why they are monitoring Peta, The Catholic Workers, Vegan Day gatherings, Quakers, etc.
Soon, any group of people getting together will be closely monitored, for one reason: to stifle dissent of any kind, which would be necessary, when you think about it, in a time of a permanent overseas war that would become increasingly unpopular at home.
The cartoon controversy has "hoax" written all over it. It was engineered by people with an agenda and a callous disregard for human life, not people concerned with freedom of speech.
Who is "the Muslim Brotherhood" that took the stale cartoons and disseminated them to places which they knew would stir controversy and violence? Are they really "Muslims" or an undercover branch of our own CIA?
The fact that the cartoon controversy has taken on such a life of its own in the public arena in this country at the expense of productive debate about the issue which really matters, the paralyzed inability of the press, our citizens and all branches of government to cry out against what constant calls "the ascent to fascism."
I believe constant is right in what he says. It doesn't apply to every American, but certainly to the significant majority. Bush may be an unpopular President, but when the elections come around, people will vote on local issues and send the same incumbents back to Washington, oblivious to the fact that our country is in the process of disintegration.
Constant, have you thrown in the towel, or do you have any suggestions for what someone who largely agrees with what you say should do?
Thersites advises making the calls. It would appear that may work. Jane Harmon was on TV this morning, and singing a different tune than last week. Now, she says she is concerned that this illegal spying is unconstitutional.
Pat Roberts apparently changed his position, and is quoted in the NYTimes as being "perplexed" that he has come in for so much criticism for his perceived caving in.
What can a person do, anyway, except contact the press, the elected officials, and write on blogs?
Glenn: "If, as Bush claims, the metrics for determining "victory" are (a) the proliferation of democratically elected, pro-U.S. governments in the Middle East and (b) a positive view of the U.S. on the part of Muslims in the Middle East, can anyone contest that, using these metrics, we are doing everything except "winning"? "
ReplyDeleteAgree, the US is not only losing in the Middle East, but at home. Two points:
I fail to see how -- short of using more propaganda -- how the US can have both [a] democratic governments in the middle east; and [b] support for the US. This is -- if we are to believe that "support" is conditioned upon assent -- absurd; it defies logic how we can have both (1) assent to the US and (2) a democracy that supports the war crimes in the Middle East.
Second, whether the US has victory on the combat zone on the ground is a different matter than whether we do or do not have support for the unlawful war, war crimes, and violations of the US Constitution. At this point, even if we had total combat victory, the unlawful war merely inspires more lawful opposition. The game is over for the US; it should withdraw. But the US is using the lawful, reasonable reaction of those who have been unlawfully invaded as the excuse to continue making a mess of things.
I agree, the "success criteria" are at odds with winning; and the "lack of winning" appears to be more justification for more war crimes, abuse, and unlawful invasions.
It remains to be seen whether the US uses this absurd criteria to decide whether it is or is not going to end the unlawful NSA activity at home. Again, using the "support" metric, anyone who speaks out about the NSA or TSA or White House appears to be put on the White House-TSA "no fly" list; and that "support of the US" is mixed/molded/melded with the perverse notion that "if we support the US, then we must support their war crimes." I reject both notions.
As long as the US government, Congress, and citizenry "support the war crimes" they are in rebellion against the US Constitution and deserve to be labeled what they are living in: A cess pool.
Matthew Hale is now serving a prison sentence (40 years, I believe) for soliciting the murder of a judge.
ReplyDeleteI am well aware of that. But: (a) that was not the murder you had referenced in claiming that his mere *political* ideas had consequences, and (b) my reading of the evidence on which he was convicted for the solicitation charge leaves me very uneasy.
He may have been convicted for holding very bad opinions. I do not believe the same evidence against someone not known to be a virulent racist would necessarily have resulted in a conviction.
From one Anonymous to another:
ReplyDeleteThe CNN special was first shown last summer. Frontline (PBS) has done a whole series on the neocons and the lead up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The information has been out there, outlined in books, fully covered in the international press. The problem: We have to dig for it in this country.
And by the way, to all, the "civil liberties" protestations are all well and good but that's not the truly scary thing about this program. Before the election of 2004, Atlantic Monthly did an extraordinary piece on Karl Rove. Dig it up, read it. One tale from this article that I will paraphrase. There was a Supreme Court Justice in Alabama, Kennedy who was running for reelection as a Democrat. His opponent was Harold See (Republican). Kennedy's signature issue, was working with children who had been abused. He had set up a foundation to help these kids, worked with volunteer organizations to bring this issue to the public. Harold See's political consultant was Karl Rove. Rove started a "whisper" campaign through the University of Alabama Law School where See taught alleging that Kennedy was a pervert, a child molester himself. The "whisper" campaign became the electioneering campaign that See used to defeat Kennedy. He remains on the bench to this day.
The people in this administration who are engaging in illegal wiretapping are not doing so for national security reasons. They are gutter rats trolling for dirt on both their political enemies and their supposed friends. Dirt, even manufactured "whisper" campaign dirt, gives them leverage.
that was not the murder you had referenced in claiming that his mere *political* ideas had consequences
ReplyDeleteHypatia, does that mean that you disagree with Glenn’s post about the consequences and impact of Ann Coulter’s remarks? I think political ideas (whether it be Ann Coulter or Matthew Hale) have consequences.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that Matthew Hale’s political views don’t have any consequences, while at the same time insisting that Coulter’s hateful rhetoric does.
anonymous [8:39 PM ]: Constant, have you thrown in the towel, or do you have any suggestions for what someone who largely agrees with what you say should do?
ReplyDeleteWhat can a person do, anyway, except contact the press, the elected officials, and write on blogs?
Here's what can be done: There's a way to force the House to vote on impeachment-investigation, without going through the Judiciary Committee.
[ Overview: Click; Archive: Click ]
What you can do:
1. Pay attention to what is successful. Get your state officials to look at the state proclamation issue; and keep track of what is going on in VermontClick ]
2. Raise the standards on Congress. Get your friends to elect to those in Congress those who support a Code of Congressional Conduct: Click ]
3. Stay focused on what is happening. Keep the pressure on to let your friends know this Congress and President are in rebellion against the Constitution; their only defense is to accuse others of being with AlQueda.
4. There are plenty of things you can do. Here are other ideas of what you can do besides blogging: [ Click ]
5. Realize the power in the 10th Amendment rests with the States and People. Prepare for the online Constitutional Convention. [ Click ]
6. Spread the word about the needed calibration: Getting the Federal Government to assent to the Constitution, and how to do it: [ Click ]
7. Use this voter guide to mobilize your neighbors, issues to discuss, and keep focused on what is going on with the Constitution, FISA, and NSA -- hot to get your local officials to hear your voice and concerns on oaths of office, rule of law, and Constitution: [ Click ]
8. Know there are people inside the NSA, DoJ, and CIA who need your support to stand up to this non-sense. Learn the lessons from Iraq WMD, and apply them to what is going on with Iran and these cartoons: This is a diversion from the White House.
9. Keep a sense of humor. What you can buy next time you go to the grocery store: [ Click ]
10. Use correct terminology. Start giving correct names to the NSA scandal: GBCPPTIS -- George Bush's cess pool project that is stinky. [ More: Click ]
11. Review the rules of logic. Know this White House, DoD, and DoJ are using alot of non-sense. [ Click; Practice: Click ]
12. Keep asking questions about the NSA program -- there are many other statutes that are getting swept under the rug. [ Click ]
13. Be honest with what you want. Maybe there's something that I can point you to that will assist. Be specific, or vague. There's alot more material. Don't be afraid to ask for what you want.
Gedaliya becomes more transparent, and yes, more pitiable, the greater the exposure to her.
ReplyDeleteShe's abandoned the "if you're against Bush, you're with Al Queda" argument, by popular demand, and now tries to egg people on to support insurrection. And add a dash of a very ugly type of arrogance: "Ha Ha Ha, you can't do anything about anything. WE WIN!!!"
Give it up, Madame LeFarge. You're out of your league on a blog like this.
Zack asks:
ReplyDeleteHypatia, does that mean that you disagree with Glenn’s post about the consequences and impact of Ann Coulter’s remarks? I think political ideas (whether it be Ann Coulter or Matthew Hale) have consequences.
No, I do not disagree with Glenn's posts about the vileness of Ann Coulter's remarks; I've posted myself as to what is very wrong with her commentary.
But Matt Hale's political views did not "result in" the murders you first invoked. Glenn has already explained why -- unless you do hold that radical environmentalists who were heard by the murderer of Pim Fortuyn are also responsible for Fortuyn's death.
I can't agree that the cartoons couldn't be more offensive. Several of them are bland. A couple, in traditional newspaper editorial style, are pretty good: the one at the 'pearly gates' about heaven running out of virgins and the self-portrait of a cartoonist at his drawing board nervously sketching Mohammed.
ReplyDeleteSeveral are very clearly aimed (only) at the domestic Danish market: drawings of an immigrant or 2nd generation 7th grader in a Copenhagen classroom, a right wing politician, an author of a childrens book and references to the newspaper's editors as provocateurs doing a PR-stunt.
How in the world has a book for children about Islam turned into a "book on Muslim zealotry" (Steve C, above)?? Even the so-called worst of the drawings was at first glance by many seen simply as a (muslim) guy with a "short fuse", a scandinavian expression for a guy with a temper. Yes, they were expressly intended to test the clearly stated hypothesis that freedom of expression in Denmark applies to every subject except the touchy Muslims. Yes, Jyllands-Posten is a right wing paper. See more about the cartoons, including a timeline, on Wikipedia.
The 12 drawings + 3 nasty ones were shown around in the ME by a handful Muslims from Denmark, who purportedly said that they, all 15, had been published in a government publication. But this part of the story is, of course, hard to verify.
I'm really disturbed by Hypatia's continued insistence that "the left" is somehow culpable for failing to insist on the publication of the mohammed cartoons, for failing somehow to support Hirsi Ali, or for having failed to come to the assistance of Salman Rushdie or something. I say "or something" because, by gum, its always something with those leftists. Its not enough that we generally are *entirely opposed* to theocracies. Its not enough that it was *the left* that brought us the very term "anti clericalism" and all that went with the dis-establishment of churches and the separation of church and state in Europe. Its not enough that it is the left that has tried in the west to change blasphemy laws so that free speech is possible. Its not enough that femnists have always supported women like Hirsi Ali, and continue to do so, and largely because we are--of course--on the left. Mrs. Bush is the one who only speaks out on islamic women and their rights *just before we invade their countries*--the rest of the left has had a long term interest in women's rights regardless of the political interests of the US in suppressing those rights. Its not the leftists/feminists who consistently side with IRAN and SUDAN in suppressing women's rights it is the US government.
ReplyDeleteI don't get what Hypatia thinks we should do. Should we all, univocally, insist that insulting islam *as a religion* is an effective strategy vis a vis its adherents? I don't actually believe that--and that's not a product of my "leftiness" or my "rightiness" its a product of the fact that I don't think shaking my finger at people and saying "you disgust me, your religion is perverse and your interpretation of it is even worse" is an effective communcative strategy.
I deplore the violence. I deplore the culture of sexism that is built into some versions of Islam and particularly that spread by Wahabi Islam. But Islam is a big, big religion with many different kinds of peoples adhering to it. Its possible to intervene in Islamic thought and interpretation other than through a series of kicks and blows. The cartoons serve as nothing but a vehicle for hate--they can't be constructive in and of themselves because they aren't even intellectually honest or challenging enough for that. And their publication, at this point their republication, can't even serve to educate islamic peoples on the values of pluralism and free speech--because they don't see the benefit (and why should they) of "free speech" when it means "free reign for insults."
If we want to foster free speech in islamic countries we are going to have to work very slowly, and very carefully, and very thoughtfully, on the ground in those countries for a very, very, long time. And we are going to have to lead by example. What that means is continually stand up for free speech *for our enemies* in our own countries--continually stand up for free anti-american speech, or anti bush speech, or anti christian speech. That is the only way any individual muslim will come to see either that pluralism works or that it matters as other than yet another stick to beat islamic countries with.
But you know what? Even if every Islamic country became a democracy tomorrow and they had free public education for women as well as men and, as some of our friends would put it "a pony too" I don't expect that they would still be willing to tolerate the pointless disrespect of the cartoons. Its not something I share--I've had to get used to being pilloried as a feminist, a jew, a liberal, a what-have-you in print as well as in cartoons for my entire adult life--but I can well imagine that in societies where images are sacred that some things will not easily be absorbed under the rubric of free speech. That's just a cultural fact.
(this is getting long but I want to point out that the tussel over the image of mohammed is analagous to the ways in which all written documents were treated by mideval jewish communities. Because of the possibility that the word g-d had been used on *any* document all documents were preserved rather than being thrown out or carelessly destroyed. This was done *simply* to protect the written form of the word g-d. In a similar way if we accept that for some cultures the sacred can inhere in an image the existence of an image, which can then be defiled, just has a different valence from the meaning ascribed to an image where the image is considered utterly separate from the thing pictured.
I dont' want to be accused by hypatia of being objectively pro terrorist, or objectively pro censorship, or any of the other hot button accusations she's been flinging around along with the accusation that I'm objectively anti hirsi ali. I happen to be objectively pro peaceful settlements and negotiations for all forms of human conflict from whether we choose rum raisin over chocolate chip ice cream to whether we see our sacred symbols parodied by foreigners. But I don't see exhorting other people to join in insulting an entire religion as an worthwhile enterprise and I certainly don't see it as educational for the other religion.
aimai
David Shaughnessy gets it exactly wrong:
ReplyDelete...perhaps the single greatest blunder in the history of American foreign policy, was initiating a pre-emptive war.
The single greatest blunder in the history of American foreign policy was not pre-emptively
stopping Adolph Hitler when he re-occupied the Rhineland, annexed Austria, and occupied the Sudentenland in 1935-1939. That blunder cost the world the lives of 50,000,000 innocent human beings.
The greatest foreign policy triumph of the twenty-first century will prove to be the pre-emptive removal of Sadaam Hussein from power in Iraq before he initiated a conflagration that would have been at least as destructive as that which was unleashed by the Nazis in September, 1939.
aimai writes: I'm really disturbed by Hypatia's continued insistence that "the left" is somehow culpable for failing to insist on the publication of the mohammed cartoons, for failing somehow to support Hirsi Ali, or for having failed to come to the assistance of Salman Rushdie or something.
ReplyDeleteThe left has not risen in defense of free speech in the matter; it is replete with "yes, buts."
As for Rushdie, he experienced the abandonment by many on the left when the fatwa was put on his head. See my quote from and link to his interview, and then take it up with him.
Most of the rest of your comment is absurd, since I have never accused you, the left, or anyone else of being "objectively pro-terrorist," or anything remotely similar.
Iraq is going to hell, just like anyone with any sense knew it would. We have had more than 2,000 soldiers killed and thousands more seriously injured. We will undoubtedly declare victory any day now and pull out of there (though we will certainly not "cut-and-run"). There will be a civil war soon in Iraq and it has probably already begun. And America was led into the Iraq war under false pretenses.
ReplyDeleteGod knows, I wish I could believe that and thus I come full circle from this morning. I'm the anonymous whose son is in Iraq. From what I read, there are 14 permenent military bases being built in Iraq. See Truthout and read Tom Engleheart and others.
The truth is so incredibly hard to accept but nevertheless, we must. This administration wants a permanent presence in Iraq and will never leave. We progressives, liberals, whatever you want to label us prefer to believe that the Bush administration will eventually recognize the error of its ways and bring "the boys home." So hard to face facts, so hard to look reality in the eye, so hard to realize that we of the great nation once known for our just advocacy of human rights, etc. no longer exists. We are a rogue nation and eventually we will have to answer the intenable question: Why were we attacked on 9/11? What did the rest of the world know that we did not about our activities in other countries?
And Glenn, I can't figure out your system for identifying myself so I do the Anonymous thing. I've just now figured out how to put things in quotes. What's the protocol/technology/simple direction to do so?
Aayan Hirisi Ali adovcates that some of those cartoons hold great political merit, and that all of them should be published everyehwere. She has written that Mohammed is a "tyrant and pervert."
ReplyDeleteDoes she need to grow up, too?
Given that the cartoon portrayed Mohammed as an al Qaeda-esque bomber, I am not sure what what is the relevance of Ali's claim that the Prophet was a "tyrant and pervert."
Exactly what "political merit" is there to portraying Islam as the religion of bombing???
Constant said...
ReplyDeleteBart: "Nearly every President in the middle of a ground war had low popularity numbers."
It doesn't matter what excuse this President has given. This President has violated the laws of war, there was no imminent threat. It doesn't matter what other President's may or may not have done -- this President is a war criminal.
:::sigh::: And what law did Mr. Bush violate?
Was it a US law? Not likely. Congress passed a AUMF for the Iraq War.
Was it a UN resolution? No.
Iraq entered into a ceasefire agreement with the Coalition in order to keep the Coalition from removing Saddam from power during the Persian Gulf War.
The UN adopted that ceasefire agreement and then passed another dozen resolutions finding that Saddam violated that agreement.
When Saddam violated the ceasefire agreement, he brought Iraq back into a state of war with the Coalition.
And this Congress does nothing about it...
Should Congress resign en masse for passing the AUMF?
This administration wants a permanent presence in Iraq and will never leave.
ReplyDeleteThe United States has "occupied" Japan and Germany for 60 years, and "occupied" the South Korean peninsula for 50 years. I suspect we'll have a military presence in Iraq for at least as long as we have had a military presence in Europe and Asia.
Do you have a problem with our "occupation" of Germany, Japan and South Korea?
Bart asks:
ReplyDeleteExactly what "political merit" is there to portraying Islam as the religion of bombing???
Whether or not there is political merit to doing so, the current crop of suicide bombers have two salient characteristics that distinguish them from their historical predecessors (the Japanese kamikazis, for example).
First, they target (for the most part), innocents. Secondly, they do it in the name of religion, namely Islam, believing that their murderous acts will result in various eternal rewards for their martyrdom and sacrifice.
Islam is the only religion that we know of that has adherents in vast numbers (in the millions) who believe that suicide-murder is a holy act. In this sense it is the religion of suicide-murder (bombing), and one must have the courage to speak the truth about this.
The United States has "occupied" Japan and Germany for 60 years, and "occupied" the South Korean peninsula for 50 years. I suspect we'll have a military presence in Iraq for at least as long as we have had a military presence in Europe and Asia.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a problem with our "occupation" of Germany, Japan and South Korea?
Yes. I do. You presume our presence has been benign/good for them/or instructive. Go watch another John Wayne movie or better still the Military Channel. Or face facts: oil, oil, oil and perpetuation of the oligarcy.
Or face facts: oil, oil, oil and perpetuation of the oligarcy.
ReplyDeleteThe oil is going to come to market no matter what happens in Iraq. Oil is fungible. Besides, we receive a negligable amount of our oil from Iraq. In fact, only about 10% of the US oil supply comes from the entire Middle East.
Do you actually believe the "oligarchy" would collapse if we suddenly left Iraq in defeat?
Hypatia,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I still don't get what Salman Rushdie's experience with some leftists has to do with anything at all. I may be missing something here but what, specifically, do you want actual leftists to do? To whom should they complain? To whom should they make their feelings known? With what effect?
I've said that I don't think complaining in general about a religion in general, to a billion or more people who subscribe to that religion, is an effective tool of political change. What is it you think people like me, self identified leftists, should be doing that we are not already doing by being politically active in opposing theocracies and attempting in myriad ways to spread liberal ideologies?
What is at stake, for you, in continuing to demonize a generic "left" for failing to do what you think they ought to do?
aimai
Iraq sits on 25% of the world's oil. Now which oilmen would like to see that oil "privatized"? Give me a break. This previous "G" post sounds like we could solve our oil problems by drilling in Anwar.
ReplyDeleteThis is what is really happening, here in the United States. As one Boston Globe columnist has the honesty to admit, our press is succumbing to terror:
ReplyDeleteBut the [Boston alternative paper] Phoenix isn't publishing the Mohammed drawings, and in a brutally candid editorial it explained why.
''Our primary reason," the editors confessed, is ''fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do . . . Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and . . . could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year-publishing history."
The vast majority of US media outlets have shied away from reproducing the drawings, but to my knowledge only the Phoenix has been honest enough to admit that it is capitulating to fear. Many of the others have published high-minded editorials and columns about the importance of ''restraint" and ''sensitivity" and not giving ''offense" to Muslims.
Bush's prosecuting those who leak the secrets of wrongdoers is appalling. But the severe, well-founded fear of offending a certain religious group is another, very serious, restraint on a free press. Here and in Europe.
Brilliant post, David Shaughnessy. You and Glenn just keep getting better and better.
ReplyDeleteWhile David lays out the real reasons why so many around the world are coming to hate the United States, Donald Rumsfeld sees it differently.
He thinks "they" are better at propaganda, and if only we indulge in ever more sophisticated methods of propaganda, we will prevail.
Mr. Rumsfeld, your words will not be heard. Your actions speak so loudly that they drown out your words.
Excerpt below from Newsmax:
"Rumsfeld: Extremists Winning Media War
Al-Qaida and other Islamic extremist groups have poisoned the Muslim public's view of the United States through deft use of the Internet and other modern communications methods that the American government has failed to master, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Friday.
In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Rumsfeld sounded a theme he frequently raises as a key to eventually winning the global war on terrorism: countering anti-Western messages from Islamic extremists.
"Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we - our country, our government - has not adapted," he said.
He quoted Ayman al-Zawahri, the chief lieutenant of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, as saying that their terrorist network is in a media battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims. Rumsfeld agreed, saying that the battle for public opinion is at least as important as the battles on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Iraq sits on 25% of the world's oil.
ReplyDeleteIt most certainly does not. See this chart to get the facts.
We don't have long-term oil problems. There is enough oil in the tar sands of Alberta and the shale of Wyoming to last us 1000 years at present consumption levels. On top of those already known reserves, there is most likely a vast pool lying underneath the Canadian arctic.
We aren't in Iraq for the oil. That is a leftist canard that serious (and responsible) critics of the president's war policy will readily admit.
But in any case, we're never going to run out of oil.
aimai: I have already said what I feel both right and left should do: stand totally in favor of free speech wrt the Danish paper in question, the cartoonists, Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, and against all Islamicist intimidation and threat tactics.
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote early on, I am not surprised to see men like William Donohue endorsing that the Evil Cartoons should not be published. One would hope to see better from the left on civil libertarian issues, but one is sometimes disappointed.
But in any case, we're never going to run out of oil.
ReplyDeleteProof positive that Gedaliya's a shill.
Alert: President and Gonzalez caught lying about "DoJ being too busy" to get FISA warrants
ReplyDelete. . .
Time Management: Does the "we're too busy to request FISA warrants" argument stand up?
DoJ: They complain there isn't enough time to get FISA warrants . . . "Oh, we're so busy. . ."
Question for world:
Why are people at DoJ using official government computers to make comments unrelated to DoJ in the Wiki?
[ Click: This resolves to -- IP: wdcsun16.usdoj.gov ]
Looking bad for the DoJ
What's the matter DoJ -- do you not have enough to do despite the "big backlog" of FISA warrants?
You have no credibility!
If there is "no time" to get FISA warrants -- and follow the law -- then your brain dead employees shouldn’t have "time" to go surfing the internet making changes to the Wikis.
Your argument that you're "too busy to get FISA warrants" is a crock!
Wow "G" man, how do propose we expropriate Canadian oil? Um...amazing.
ReplyDeletegedaliya said... Do you have a problem with our "occupation" of Germany, Japan and South Korea?
ReplyDeleteDon't put Iraq in the same sentece as Japan.
Unlike the prudent planning of leavingn the leader in place -- as was done in Japan, by keeping the Emperor there -- this leadership went in with one goal: To remove Saddam. So quit your non-sense arguments.
Wow "G" man, how do propose we expropriate Canadian oil?
ReplyDeleteWell, the first idea that comes to mind is to buy it on the open market.
Did you have something else in mind?
Oh, in case you're not aware of this, we import more oil from Canada right now than from any other nation.
Oil Imports
gedaliya "That is a leftist canard that serious (and responsible) critics of the president's war policy will readily admit."
ReplyDeleteWhat a crock! If there was "no big deal with oil" why the "big secret" about who was or was not at the "big Cheney Energy Commission meetings" about "big oil" that you say are "no bid deal"?
"we're not talking about oil, we're talking about something else . . . but all the oil companies are here." Wow! That defies logic, but why expect anything else from stupid Americans?
Apparently this is an RNC-issue: Who was at the meeting; what did they discuss; and why the big interest in going into Afghanistan.
Suddenly, when "big oil" found out there was "no big oil" as they expected, all the "big concern about the Afghan democracy" fizzled, and we marched into Iraq -- at the very time that this President said -- if he is to be believed -- that there were "big scary terrorists" attacking LA."
Your story doesn't add up. Again!
Your RNC is defecting. You are in the last throes. You have no hope of victory. Admit defeat.
An interesting quote from Hirisi Ali's Wapo editorial:
ReplyDelete"But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."
I'd be more convinced of such a principle in secular democracies if there weren't such staunch taboos as no denying legitimacy of the state of Israel, or uttering anything remotely interpreted as "anti-semitic".
I'd be more convinced of such a principle in secular democracies if there weren't such staunch taboos as no denying legitimacy of the state of Israel, or uttering anything remotely interpreted as "anti-semitic".
ReplyDeleteOh nonsense. You can deny Israel's right to exist and shout anti-Semitic diatribles to your heart's content without a whit of fear of getting your head sliced off while walking down a public street.
You may get criticism and even be ostracized for your hatred of Jews, but you won't get murdered.
So, Gman, now we're antisemetic. Unbeleiveable and crass. Won't work with this crowd. Go back into your cave and meditate on the teachings of say: Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and Ghandi. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mohandas Ghandi.
ReplyDeleteSolutions
ReplyDeleteCongress needs to pass this Congressional Code of Conduct: [ Click ]
Clearly, with people like Bart advocating nonsense, we have a great chance of never having this passed, and focusing on things other than FISA violations, unlawful NSA activity, the Joint Staff rebellion, and the President's unlawful use of an Act of congress to unlawfully, corruptly persuade others to fail to meet their statutory obligations.
Irrelevant Argument Alert
Dear readers of Glenn’s blog: Notice what they're doing. Changing the subject from "whether there was or was not a specific war-related term in FISA that trumped AUMF" to whether or not Congress did or didn't do something. Wow! Did you see that?
More non-sense
Yes, ladies and gentlemen -- this what the White House was doing prior to the Iraq invasion. To read more of this non-sense, go look at this link from 2003: The same kind of drivel. Read it all, and you'll see the same kind of non-sense is going on this blog: Distractions from the President’s violations of the laws. [ Click ] Do you work for DIA, or are you just stupid and work for the idiots in Langley? Holy cow, you must be in trouble if you really believe this kind of BS.
Notice the non-sense: Mixing up the AUMF and the FISA and the illegal invasion of Iraq. What a crock!
Bart: "And what law did Mr. Bush violate?
Go look up the FISA and laws of war yourself. Imminent threat. Try looking next to the shelf. The ones with books on it.
Bart: "Was it a US law? Not likely."
You're not sure if the FISA is or is not US law; or whether US treaties are or are not enforceable law? OK, so you're not a smart lawyer. You have a good chance of getting a job in the White House and DoJ.
Bart: "Congress passed a AUMF for the Iraq War."
They didn't authorize the President to commit war crimes; nor did that trump the FISA war-related-requirement to have a warrant. Specific language in FISA trumps the AUMF. See Specter for notes, if you need them. Yes, you need them.
Bart>: "Was it a UN resolution?"
You're not sure? Find out!
Here's the big non-sense
Watch out what they're doing! They're rewriting history over FISA, AUMF, and Iraq.
Bart"Iraq entered into a ceasefire agreement with the Coalition in order to keep the Coalition from removing Saddam from power during the Persian Gulf War."
Whether this is or is not true has no relevance to specific ministerial restrictions in FISA or the generalized terms in AUMF.
Bart: "The UN adopted that ceasefire agreement and then passed another dozen resolutions finding that Saddam violated that agreement."
Again, whether this is or is not true has no relevance to specific FISA war-requirements; or the generalized terms of the AUMF.
More non-sense
BartWhen Saddam violated the ceasefire agreement, he brought Iraq back into a state of war with the Coalition.
Aha, so there was no need to create all the non-0sense about WMD; so why did they do it? Answer, despite the 2002 provocations, Saddam didn't bite. You're rewriting history. Dream on, but you have a good chance of getting hired by Southern Command or Special Operations Command. They’re looking for people who can type, not think.
Yo, Bart-head: Why would Saddam -- as the Iranians today -- "cooperate" with an inspection program with one real goal: To annoy, and provoke an Iraqi attack? That didn't happen.
Earth to Bart: There was no WMD in Iraq that satisfied what the President, Vice President, Libby, and the other goons were saying "justified" war. None. The AUMF was based on fraud.
Bart: ”And this Congress does nothing about it...” Should Congress resign en masse for passing the AUMF?" You're not sure, hey this is your distraction from the President's war crimes, violations of FISA.
You go first: What should be done when Congress continues to pass funding for an unlawful war; and they know that there was no imminent threat -- should the President be given a "pass" to continue violations of the Constitution, or should he just resign admitting, "I'm a moron, and have no clue."
You go first: Feel free to discuss why the Congress should or should not lose their legislative immunity; and be found to have conspired with the White House rebellion in this unlawful attack on the Constitutional system of checks and balances.
Go ahead, after WWII during Nuremburg they created new laws -- why not do the same with Congress. At a minimum they should impeach the President, find that the AUMF is unconstitutional in that it was based on fraud, and then explain to their constituents why they continued to appropriate money for a war they knew – or should have known – was illegal.
Go look the statutes up yourself. I'm not here to help you with your legal issues. Find a lazy, ignorant White House or DoJ attorney who can waste your time with drivel. That might be a start. Tell them Constant told them to kiss their rear-end. They know who I am and how to find me.
Mike writes: The rabid far right is up in arms about the Muslim response to the cartoons and what that signifies for freedom of the press.
ReplyDeleteAnd? This should dictate the response to Islamic thuggery exactly how?
(And some on the right, btw, are the most vocal defenders of not publishing the horrid cartoons.)
gedaliya said:
ReplyDelete"You may get criticism and even be ostracized for your hatred of Jews, but you won't get murdered."
Who said one would? I'm talking about the observance of taboos, and the idea of it being not of respect but of submission - the very thing Hirisi Ali was talking about in her editorial I quoted.
Your statement right there pretty much proves that it is verging on persecutable to not observe my examples of secularly democratic taboos, not to mention your retort against an insinuation of perceived anti-semitism.
So could you run that by me again why I should be convinced of such a principle in the West? Because one won't get silenced through death but instead merely by harassment or ridicule? Okay then.
Because one won't get silenced through death but instead merely by harassment or ridicule? Okay then.
ReplyDeleteYou are collapsing some enormously important distinctions. Bracketing out "harassment" since it is not clear what that might mean, there is on the one hand, an ocean of difference between having one's head lopped off or being otherwise murdered or threatened with same, and/or one's family threatened with death, and on the other, being called humiliating names.
In the West, the latter happens all the time; the former, almost never, the current exception coming from certain Muslims. It isn't grounds for membership at LGF to acknowledge the reality that Hrisi Ali and others live.
Alert! Here is the evidence!
ReplyDeletePresident and Gonzalez proven to have lied about DoJ workload to the FISA court and Congress!
Evidence available for you to review showing:
- DoJ employees were not "too busy"
- DoJ employees were not working on FISA warrants, as the President and Gonzalez said
- The FISA Court has had fraud committed upon it by the President, Gonzalez, and Joint Staff [ Click ]
The evidence is clear: This President has violated the law, has failed to secure warrants as required under the law, and his excuses do not add up.
Check the other DoJ IP numbers in the Wiki and find out how many other DoJ employees that were poorly supervised weren't detailed to cover this FISA issue.
This shows a simple problem:
A. The President failed to organize resources to support a clear requirement;
B. At a time when the requirement was clear, personnel were goofing off inside DoJ.
This smacks of a grand excuse to explain away war crimes, FISA violations, and attacks on the Constitution.
We have evidence. It's all there!
Let the Litigators know: There's evidence showing the US has violated the law, not used the DoJ resources as required to process FISA warrants, and the Phone companies have failed to ensure the necessary warrants were in place.
There was no "workload" problem as the President would have you believe.
http://constantpated.blogspot.com/2006/02/president-and-gonzalez-caught-lying.html
Spread the word to all those you know who are litigating against the telephone companies over this: Here is admissible evidence showing the President and Gonzalez have lied, committed fraud upon the court, and have failed to ensure that all DoJ employees were focusing on the issues, as they would have the FISA court and Congress believe.
Which poster on this blog sounds the most like bin laden?
ReplyDeleteBin Laden Vows Never to Be Captured Alive
Feb 19 9:48 PM US/Eastern
By STEVEN R. HURST
Associated Press Writer
CAIRO, Egypt
Osama bin Laden promised never to be captured alive and declared the U.S. had resorted to the same "repressive" tactics used by Saddam Hussein, according to an audiotape purportedly by the al-Qaida leader that was posted Monday on a militant Web site.
The tape appeared to be a complete version of one that was first broadcast Jan. 19 on Al-Jazeera, the pan-Arab satellite channel, in which bin Laden offered the United States a long-term truce but also said his al-Qaida terror network would soon launch a fresh attack on American soil.
"I have sworn to only live free. Even if I find bitter the taste of death, I don't want to die humiliated or deceived," bin Laden said.
In drawing the comparison to American military behavior in Iraq to that of Saddam, the speaker said:
"The jihad is continuing with strength, for Allah be all the credit, despite all the barbarity, the repressive steps taken by the American Army and its agents, to the extent that there is no longer any mentionable difference between this criminality and the criminality of Saddam."
With the implied criticism of Saddam, bin Laden appeared to be denying assertions by the Bush administration that the former Iraqi leader had ties to al-Qaida _ ties that were given as one rationale for invading Iraq.
The tape's release in January came days after a U.S. airstrike in Pakistan that was targeting bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and reportedly killed four leading al-Qaida figures, including possibly al-Zawahri's son-in-law. There was no mention of the attack on the segments that were broadcast.
In the full tape that was posted Monday, bin Laden engaged in renewed propaganda, mocking President Bush's aircraft carrier declaration in April 2003 that major conflict in Iraq had ended.
Speaking directly to the American people, the speaker said:
"You can rescue whatever you can from this hell. The solution is in your hands, if their (U.S. troops') situation matters to you at all."
The initial excerpts had been the first tape from the al-Qaida leader in more than a year _ the longest period without a message since the Sept. 11 2001 suicide hijackings in the United States.
The CIA last month authenticated the voice on the initial recording as that of bin Laden, an agency official told The Associated Press at the time. The al-Qaida leader is believed to be hiding in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The last audiotape purported to be from bin Laden was broadcast in December 2004 by Al-Jazeera. In that recording, he endorsed Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi as his deputy in Iraq and called for a boycott of Iraqi elections.
Previously, the longest period without a message from the al-Qaida leader was from December 2001 to November 2002. He issued numerous tapes in 2003 and 2004, calling for Muslims to attack U.S. interests and threatening attacks against the United States.
Since December 2004, al-Zawahri, the al-Qaida Number 2, has issued a number of video and audiotapes, including one claiming responsibility for the July London subway bombings, which he said came after Europe rejected the terms of bin Laden's truce offer.
All of this is chilling, terrifying really, but the absolute worst thing the Bush Administration has done in foreign affairs, perhaps the single greatest blunder in the history of American foreign policy, was initiating a pre-emptive war.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting point that David S made and it ties into what Glenn argued on the blog after the SOTU speech, that "fear" is what our whole foreign policy has been based on since 9/11.
The greatest foreign policy triumph of the twenty-first century will prove to be the pre-emptive removal of Sadaam Hussein from power in Iraq before he initiated a conflagration that would have been at least as destructive as that which was unleashed by the Nazis in September, 1939.
I think you are overstating the threat of Hussein when you compare it to Nazi Germany and you are conviently forgetting recent history. After the Gulf War, Iraq was under sanctions and and buffeted by no-fly-zones that kept it from building up a credible army. There were no WMDs because the sanctions did work. So, it isn't anything like the appeasement of Germany taking over the Sudetenland.
I think the greatest policy blunder was the "the three evils- Iraq, Iran and North Korea" speech because it has thrown us back into the threat nuclear proliferation.
It's one thing to use rhetoric, but the rhetoric became policy after invading Iraq and it put North Korea and Iran on notice that they might be next.
Clinton had both countries under wraps when it came to compliance with their nuclear programs, but now both are openly pursuing nuclear capabilities because they fear what the US might do next.
It's the reasoning of the cold war, the reason why we never attacked the USSR, nor they us, was because of the nuclear deterient each side had. Now, Iran & North Korea want their nuclear deterients against this stated US position that they are "evil empires."
So, Bush's "evil empire" speech has pushed nuclear weapon capablility more closer to terrorists than it ever has been before. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can't be shuddering over the inept way GWB has handled Iran and North Korea.
It's unfortunate that this thread was overwhelmed by a discussion of whether or not the inflammatory cartoons had validity (I, personally, don't think hate speech, even when thinly disguised as "political commentary" does) and whether or not Muslims had a "right" to violently protest their publication (I think we have to look at the politico-socio-economic issues surrounding these events before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn - most of those folks are living in poverty, the poorest countries are the ones with the most violence, big surprise).
ReplyDeleteCondi is supposed to be a devastatingly intelligent person with a capacious memory and a firm grasp of geo-politics. I'm not a fan, but I don't doubt she's smart as a whip. That said, I think if folks were to investigate the financial ties of this administration and follow the money trail of the Bush family's politics going back a century or so on both sides, not to mention Ashcroft (who holds a substantial investment in the makers of Tamiflu last I heard), as well as others (Cheney/Haliburton) then the foreign policy quagmire becomes clear as crystal. Sadly, this is no conspiracy theory floated on a sea of merde.
These are the best of times. I think if we look back on the history of humanity we are at the cusp of creating a truly great society. It's not going to happen, however, without real action. People actually getting out and putting their hands on the problem.
I think we have to talk about campaign finance reform, foreign ownership of our news and publishing media, and our world trade policies, as well as the amount of wrongdoing that goes unpunished in our executive and legislative branches. Besides all the many issues with our "shadow" government....
Glen, the entire basic premise of your blog post on Presient Bush's popularity is inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteFrom Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll of Presidential popularity.
President Bush's job approval rating is at 49%
Rasmussen's polling and tracking polls were the most accurate by far in predicting the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election. If you build your premise on biased polls you are just preaching to a small choir while deluding yourself into thinking the whole church is singing to your tune.
Says the "Dog"
constant, gotta love 'ya, and I do! You have a youthful passion and unbounded energy, and are very quick to cut through the BS and get to the core issues.
ReplyDeleteNotice what a commie Gedaliya is: she says, WE have plenty of oil, and then proceeds to include Canada's as our own! This of course contradicts her prior post that oil is fungible. If it's fungible, Canada could just as well sell to another nation as to us.
Isn't Gedaliya starting to look a little like Mary Matalin, around the edges? Without reason, without truth, without credibility, and without grace.
Apparently Alito has hired as a clerk a lawyer who was one of the architects of Bush's post 9/11 war on terror policies.
ReplyDeleteThose whose view it was that the selection of Alito and Miers, if not Roberts, was based mostly on their presumed support for the President as King policy, are looking more and more accurate in that assessment.
I should have said "racism and religious intolerance", since Hypatia's foul but revealing comment about "that religion's excesses" is clearly a case of the latter. I wonder if she even read Flemming Rose's editorial that she cited:
ReplyDeleteIn January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.
But for bigots like Hypatia, it is about "them" and "us".
Here's an interesting bit from Slate that I think makes a strong case against these vexatious cartoons (which sucked anyway). http://www.slate.com/id/2135661/
ReplyDeleteconstant: I see you wrote on your blog that you are leaving the country because you are disgusted. You say America sucks.
ReplyDeleteI agree with almost everything you write, but I don't think it's productive to say "America sucks." I prefer to phrase it something like "the people who have taken over America and are holding it hostage" suck. After all, it was once the greatest nation on earth, and there's a chance it could be again.
I don't like to be lumped in with the "America" you have come to despise, as I view myself as someone on your side, not an apologist for what is presently going on in this country.
Please do not leave. Yours is one of the freshest, most informed, most passionate voices that has risen up in the resistance movement.
In the last few days, I have suddenly come to feel that this battle can, and will, be won.
The President and his amoral, corrupt, depraved, lunatic neocon circle are, of course, beyond redemption.
But even a cowardly, currently morally bankrupt Congress can come to life if there is a popular revolt against this madness.
Remember, constant, that nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. This is a very new "idea" which really didn't even exist in fully realized form until Joseph Wilson's article, the NYT's story on NSA's illegal surveillance, the Abu Graibu revelations, the Gonzales testimony, etc.
Prior to that, there were Democrats who hated Bush, but Democrats always hate Republican Presidents, so that was just politics as usual. There were people who protested the invasion of Iraq, but there are always people who don't want war, so that was nothing new. Isolated voices cried out against this or that, but they were isolated voices, each with a different point of view.
But this is something different. This isn't politics. This is a War to Save the Republic, a war against infant totalitarianism, and in my opinion, when the dust settles, it's the people who are economic conservatives with a strong libertarian streak who have always identified themselves as Republicans who are going to be the ones to bring the house down.
The majority of Democrats are not as outraged as disenfranchized Republicans because they never really believed in the individual, in capitalism, in the Constitution as written. They were always the ones who viewed government as a dispenser of all that is good, who viewed special interest groups as more important than the individual.
After all, what could be more totalitarian than sticking your hand, under the auspices of the State, into another man's pocket, and robbing him of the fruits of his labor?
So now, when it is the liberty, dignity, privacy, and freedom of INDIVIDUALS which are under attack, Democrats are not really horrified. They have been engaged in wars against the individual for so long that new assaults on the individual elicit only yawns from them. Their opposition to Bush is generally not truly borne of principle, but is merely a posturing to gain political advantage. That's why the Democrats have rolled over and played dead on the important issue of freedom vs. totalitarianism, the state vs. the individual.
But people like me, and my friends, who are not that political, but have always voted Republican because we dislike the basic socialistic Democratic Party platform, are the ones who are in a state of shock, the ones who feel most betrayed, the ones who have turned with a vengence on the present administration and its fascist, lunatic, warmongering policies.
That's why I say, this "idea" is very new, but I sense it's time is coming fast. When I first heard that our government had engaged in a policy of torture, not that long ago, I assumed that was a lie. It was inconceivable to me that our government would ever do something like that. Only monsters adopt policies where sadistic torture, degradation and humiliation become the norm. Barbaric foreign regimes whose form of government we all grew up despising engage in torture, not the United States of America.
The day that I realized that it was no lie was the day I woke up to what was happening, looked around, and freaked out. And I know I am not alone.
Stay and fight, constant. There's a good chance this administration is in the early stages of imploding from within.
It's a battle worth waging.
!
But according to that Slate article, the most vexatious cartoons were those distributed by Muslim extremists, not those published in Jyllands-Posten. Flemming Rose's WaPo editorial makes a persuasive case for publishing the cartoons that the Slate article doesn't address.
ReplyDeleteDebate about publication of the cartoons avoids the real issues, which are Muslim fundamentalism and extremism on the one hand and anti-Arab and anti-Islam bigotry and oppressive U.S. (and allies) foreign policy. The fight is not really about cartoons, it's about reactionaries and other bad actors on both sides.
Please do not leave. Yours is one of the freshest, most informed, most passionate voices that has risen up in the resistance movement.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, there's no where to run to -- even Greenland is melting. It is vital to rid ourselves of "the President and his amoral, corrupt, depraved, lunatic neocon circle", but our problems go far far beyond them.
This is the corruptive abilities of damnable Political Correctness at work. I have been saying for years that PC will be the downfall of our culture, this 'cartoon' brouhaha just seems like one more step down that path. Someone needs to inform one and all, both old and young, the sage words of the prophet Mymama, who taught: "Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me". What a better place we'd be living in if all heeded those words of wisdom. Taking offense is in the ear of the offended...expecting others to cater to that or even give a damn about your precious widdle feelings getting hurted is no solution. Indeed, a collective mentality that goes out of it's way to offend no one will collapse under the weight of all that self righteousness.
ReplyDeleteThe irony of the Democrats refusal to push hard for an inquiry here is that the whole issue is a political loser ONLY IF it's not investigated, and its full illegality is not exposed quite publicly.
ReplyDeleteInsofar as the program remains entirely secret in its purview can Rove make the argument that it is somehow keeping American safe while doing no harm to our Constitutional right to privacy. Any investigation would fully expose the extent of its illegality, the scope of its invasion into our privacy, as well as the utter ineffectiveness, indeed, counterproductiveness, of the program.
Rove clearly gets this. Why don't the Democrats? Isn't the very heavy handed resistance by the WH absolutely the best possible evidence that there's something here that is going to damage the Bush agenda and reputation -- something that the Bush WH is in a privileged position to know?
Hypatia, I've found myself in agreement with everything you and Glenn G. have written on this blog. But I find it highly perplexing that you voted for Bush in 2004. The penchant to practice all possible secrecy, disrespect for individual liberty, and manifest incompetence[1] was apparent, well before the 2004 election. Given that evidence, things like this FISA mess were inevitable. In terms of protecting the Constitution, the best outcome would have been divided government. Yet you voted to keep the monopoly, and may have voted to perpetuate the executive power monstrosity that has deleted FISA. So I don't know how to judge this change of heart. If the fundamental principles of openness, oversight, and individual liberties weren't important then, why are they now?
ReplyDelete[1] We begin our litany with the WMD argument, modest little lies like the cost of the prescription drug entitlement, and continue, ad infinitem.
Hypatia says [in the middle of a discussion of such things as "hate speech", incitement to violence, holding the speakers' responsible for theirt aurdience, etc.,]:
ReplyDeleteViolence as a response to free speech is a cancer in the Public Conversation. It cannot and ought not be tolerated, but rather, should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
Thought occurs to me that we can see violence "in response" to free speech not only from those sympathic to the message and moved to overt acts in "support" of it (or at least as they see "it"), but also from those who respond to free speech negatively are are moved to violence on the contrary side.
Any analysis of free speech has to recognise that the purported evil -- the violence and disturbance of the peace caused by the speech -- is the same whether done by supporters, opponents, those who mishear or misconstrue the message, or just plain eedjits and hooligans. It seems quite unfair to hold the speaker to account for the content of their message when you have such a disparate crew reacting in socially undesirable ways and for such a host of different reasons. There might even be a case made that free and open discussion of various hot-button topics would provide an alternative to violence. This is why I think it's important to limit the corbs on "free speech\" to that which is an overt act intended in furtherance of actual acts of violence.
Cheers,
...no one seriously argues that the United States, or any European country, should have invaded Germany, pre-emptively, i.e., before Germany launched its military incursions.
ReplyDeleteQuite the opposite is true. Winston Churchill argued tirelessly that the west should have pre-emptively stopped Hitler in 1935, and no serious historian disputes him.
It is astonishing, and shameful, to read that you oppose pre-emptive war under any circumstances even though we know for a fact that scores of millions of innocent human beings would be alive today if we had stopped Hitler in 1935.
he United States was led into war by the Bush Administration, which claimed that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States with its weapons of mass destruction.
ReplyDeleteThis is completely and utterly false. No responsible leader of any nation waits until there is an "imminent" threat before taking defensive measures. If you wait until the threat is imminent you've waited too long.
Everyone, and that means the UN, the Germans, the French, the Senate and everyone else, including most of the left, assumed and believed Hussein had a WSD arsenal. The debate was how to deal with it, not whether it existed. President Bush took the morally imperative road, the road the world should have taken in 1935, and excised the cancer before it metastasized into something far worse than it was.
History will judge him very well for his decision in this case.
(I agree that the cartoons should be published far and wide, but I don't espouse the contradictory principle that winning the "hearts and minds" of Muslims is our overarching goal)
ReplyDeleteShorter Glenn Greenwald: white First Worlders should spit on Johnny Foreigner and fuzzy-wuzzy until the wogs learn their place, harumph! What d'ye mean, do I know what's what? Don't need to know more than that the natives are no match for good wholesome English noble spirits, pah!
Paraphrasing from memory, he criticizes George Bush for insisting the enemy is not Islam -- Rushdie says that of course it is. It isn't about football, says Rushdie. It isn't about all Muslims, but it most certainly is about a lot of them, says one of their victims. (He has kept his life, but a Japanese and one European translator of his book were murdererd by religious fanatics for blaspheming Allah -- their racial identity is irrelevant and could be various.)
ReplyDeleteBy the same argument, as applied to the outrages of Christian fundamentalists now and in the past, the enemy is Christianity .
The argument is blatantly wrong, whether Salmon Rushdie or anyone else makes it. And it's an argument that incites genocidal violence and oppression, and leads to such things as Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and the destruction of Fallujah.
"Everyone, and that means the UN, the Germans, the French, the Senate and everyone else, including most of the left, assumed and believed Hussein had a WSD arsenal."
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
Everyone believed that because BUSH LIED!
BUSH LIED and suckers believed him, so that made it ok, right?
Most people I talked with believed it only because he got up and declared it to be so!
And just for the record, I never believed him. It's just good practice to note when a peson is a confirmed liar and view their statements with a pound of salt.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteSometimes you have to temporarily work with dictatorships which choose to help you fight your enemies, but you never stop pushing democratization in those countries.
For example, Reagan was ripped for working with dictatorships around Central and South America to defeat the communist insurgencies. The leftists scoffed at his claim that he was working for democracy in those countries. My poli sci professor at BC told us that Latin America could not support democracy. (Sound familiar?) Yet, nearly the entire hemisphere for the first time in history was governed by democracies after Reagan.
Please tell me you are trying to be facetious? The U.S. Government hardly has a particularly favorable record when it comes to supporting democracy and attacking dictatorships in Latin America. The most egregious example of all being the overthrow of Allende in Chile and his U.S. supported replacement with Pinochet. One must not forget that Latin American leftist and socialist governments were targeted regardless of whether they were democratically elected or not.
Despite the inevitable setbacks we will experience, we absolutely have to do the same thing in the Middle East. We cannot militarily defeat an ideology, we can merely keep it in check by denying them sanctuary and by attritioning their leadership. However, unless we defeat the ideology by replacing dictatorships with democracy, sooner or later one of these groups will get some WMD and get to your city.
Am I to believe that you genuinely would like to see democracy in, say, Saudi Arabia? Or that the U.S. government, considering its long relationship with the House of Saud, has any intention of working to realize a democracy in the most reactionary fundamentalist polity in the Middle East? Ignore that I'm a 'leftist' for a moment, if you would, as the substance of my critique here has been realist in nature.
The single greatest blunder in the history of American foreign policy was not pre-emptively
ReplyDeletestopping Adolph Hitler when he re-occupied the Rhineland, annexed Austria, and occupied the Sudentenland in 1935-1939. That blunder cost the world the lives of 50,000,000 innocent human beings.
Is this supposed to be satire? In what sense can a war launched after a nation has invaded and occupied another nation be construed as pre-emptive? If anything, it instead precisely parallels the justification for the non-preemptive first Gulf War.
I just wanted to post a note in support of Hypatia. Whoever Hyaptia is, she or he is someone who believes in Western values. When my mistress heard about the Mohamed pictures flap, she said that every paper in the country should run the cartoons along with some of the typical anti-Jewish cartoons that are run regularly in the Arab press. Like most bullies, they can dish it out, but can't take it.
ReplyDeleteI seconded the motion, but we don't have much of a free press left these days. It's been nothing but a clucking bunch of chickens since the 1980s.
Personally, I'll take Western values over all the others, anytime. Of course, it would be nice if there weren't so many people giving up on them in the name of submission.
Go Hypatia, and watch out for those oyster shells.
- Kaleberg
If I could chime in on a few points:
ReplyDelete-- While there is no exception for speech with consequences, that doesn't mean there aren't limits to speech, either. Specifically, there are criminal limits: there are myriad laws against incitement (particularly to murder), threatening, and intimidation. If Matt Hale had specifically urged Ben Smith to engage on that rampage, he likely would have been both criminally and civilly liable. But he wasn't.
-- Nonetheless, Hale's moral culpability was undeniable in the Smith case, and he essentially deserved to be forever shunned by decent humanity forever thereafter.
Here is a worthwhile discussion of the issue.
-- FWIW, I wholeheartedly support Glenn's principled defense of Hale in his efforts to obtain a law license, even if I am not wholly persuaded by his arguments.
-- Even though I don't think it should affect one's free-speech rights, I think the point about consequences is important.
Coulter's hateful speech against Arabs, for instance, was not just bigoted, it was positively harmful to our national well-being. But the response should not be censorship, but more and better speech specifically condemning hers. Doing so is not intended to silence her, but to counter her.
I don't think the cartoons should have been not printed, but I do think their publication should have been accompanied by open and public condemnation of the paper and the cartoonists for their endorsement of bigotry, instead of a round of hand-wringing about their free-speech rights.
Among the consequences we have to face are those for failing to stand up to hateful speech.
your summation Glen hits the nail on the head.
ReplyDeleteAt every turn his policies have been defeated.
at the summit on free trade in SA he was hated and people marched in the streets
A Japanese court of law has filed charges ,and convicted him for war crimes.High crimes against humanity , for the use of torture, using banned weaponry ,and leaving the middle east a toxic sewer among other crimes.
Canda has a lawsuit pending.
How do you get the Iraq peoples to love America ,or indeed the rest of the World. they now live in a DU 4.5 billion year half life toxic dump.
There is no insurgency , Americans are killing civilians ,that fight an invader .America has no intentions ,except oil and the sale of oil to remain in Dollars not Euros.
How does America feel about their army attacking a third world nation ,that was disarmed by the UN,
and in so doing used the most
force possible. Including using chemical wmd weaponry and DU ammunition as if armed for world war three against the ussr or china
and then triumphantly calling it a unprecendented victory.
I would categorize it as a cowardly act .
no matter the outcome America will lose ,American soldiers will come home contaminated with DU poisoning,and die without medical help from it's govt. they will be discarded with a note job well done left to fend for themselves in an increasingly poor nation America .Their homes will fall to eminent domain.While Americans play nintendo and go to the big footbal game the country crumbles around them , they are oblivious.
the Bush foriegn policy can be summed up as shamefull dastardly and unAmerican!
that it continues makes it very clear that in America people dont care about the constitution, or the country.As long as they get to play nintendo and get the football games ,they are content to whallow in their own manure.
The rest of the world looks and is in shock and awe
be watchfull the rest of the world may decide to take matters into their own hands if the American people are too stupid to do so.
America the 5% of the worlds population , be very watchfull the rest of the world may decide to straiten you out.If you cant control your madmen don't expect 95% of the world's population to sit by while the planet falls apart
on account of Bush the cowboy is a madman and americans havnt got the guts or means to get rid of him.
There is a growing and gathering threat and the world is starting to get impatient and restless.
Americans are in the dark their media hides what the rest of the world is privy to.
nuremburg II maybe just around the corner for tyrrants and war criminals
I never heard of a war that wasnt fought for money.
America's economy is a war economy , without wars the fatcats and warmongers in AMErica get very upset.
America could never be beaten in a war in a 1000 years if America dies it is from an enemy within.
What the british utterly failed to realize in 1776 was that its arrogance of its might could not win a war so far away
that Arrogance today is Americas arrogance
and is why they have not won a war
Vietnam lost
Korea lost
bay of pigs lost
ww1 and ww2 was a coalition that won the wars
but with vietnam and korea the fatcats and warmongers were grining from ear to ear with all the cash they made of the backs of the American soldiers that died.
Americans I love you what has happened to you please come back
the world needs a strong America if we are going to make it not an out of control America that is Imperialistic.