I am still locked away in my undisclosed prison cell, forcibly denied all contact with the outside world (other than my editor, but one's oppressor does not count as "outside world") until the manuscript for my book is complete. I have always been an ardent supporter of Jose Padilla but I have now, harrowingly, developed a personal empathy for his situation. The real, final, never-to-be-moved-again deadline is this Monday, so I expect to be emancipated and able to return to regular blogging early next week.
I am genuinely very happy with how this book has developed and believe that it can make a meaningful contribution to (what ought to be) the public debate over the fact that we have a President who has seized powers which are, in every sense, the antithesis of the principles on which this country was founded. The book, which will be released on May 15, is now available for pre-sale on Amazon, although the Publisher is planning some sort of grand announcement early this upcoming week and so I probably just lost my evening food ration by mentioning that.
This week, the Bush Administration essentially ensured that it will retain the power to abduct and imprison U.S. citizens based on nothing more than Presidential decree as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 decision refusing to hear Padilla's challenge to his lawless imprisonment. The majority denied review on the ground that criminal charges against Padilla - after a mere 3 1/2 years -- have now been filed against him, thus rendering "moot" the question of whether it is constitutional to imprison U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without charges being brought.
Three of the six Justices who voted to deny the hearing, including Chief Justice Roberts, issued an Opinion which seemed to indicate that they would be watching closely and would bring the case back if Padilla is not given a speedy trial. But no matter. The Administration got what it wanted -- the ongoing ability to detain and consign to a military prison whomever the President desires, just like the Founders intended. It was particularly odd that Justice Stevens voted against review, given that he had previously observed - correctly: "at stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society." One would think that concepts of "mootness" would give way to a case in which the essence of free society is at stake.
I wish I had more time to comment on several other significant events this week, both in the NSA scandal and elsewhere (many of which are detailed in this Times article), but I hear the guards coming, and I can't risk any more infractions, or any more broken bones.
Glenn, back to werke!
ReplyDeleteVee have vays to make you write!
Yours,
Dick Cheney (using inherent vicepresidential authority to read your postcards)
The denial to hear Padilla upsets me alot. I cannot forget the Padilla case or the lack of a case against the 'anthrax; terrorist whoever that was. These 2 cases enable facism ( without the anthrax attack there might not have been a patriot act as such)they bring fear into our lives and their lack of resolution is a continuing open door to do more in the name of fighting terror.
ReplyDeleteSecrecy News has an item today about a new House Intelligence Committee report that discusses NSA domestic surveillance:
ReplyDeleteIn a minority statement at the end of the report, Democrats criticized the President's warrantless surveillance program: "Allowing the NSA surveillance program to proceed without fully complying with the law threatens to undermine our entire Constitutional order--our system of checks and balances," they said.
Committee Republicans, in response, rejected what they termed "false and reprehensible claims of improper or illegal activities."
...your error here is the implied assumption that SCOTUS is some type of 'independent' check on the other Federal branches... and that this recent ruling is just some unfortunate hiccup in an otherwise sound political system
ReplyDeleteHowever, "they" (SCOTUS, Congress, Exec) are all on the same team -- the federal 'ruling-class' team. They all come from the same social segment of American society -- and there are very few boat-rockers among these Potomac Princes.
It should be crystal clear by now that mere ink-on-paper
(...Constitution, etc) is not an impediment to this ruling class.
Do you need any care package sent to you? I do make great butternut bars.
ReplyDeleteGood Luck!
Guilty or innocent the man has been through way more than you and comparing yourself to or, by comparison, making a joke about an American citizen that has been held under shifting charges for 3 years without due process makes my stomach turn
ReplyDeleteA good portion of my book is devoted, and lots of my blogging has been devoted, to the evil and danger of the Government's actions in the Padilla case. I'm really not receptive to complaints that I've demonstrated some sort of insufficient sensitivity to his plight or inhuman soulessness all because of an extremely innocuous joke that wasn't even at his expense. But some people love to be offended over nothing, which guarantees that every joke will always find an open-mouthed sermonizer ready to show everyone how upset they are.
I don't mean to be picky, but it is important to remember that the court did not not say the Padilla case is actually moot.
Fair enough. I haven't yet read the opinions themselves and was describing the media accounts of them. I did point out that the Court said it would be watching what the Government was doing and it could bring the case back if there were any shenanigans, so you're right that the court hasn't held the issues moot, which would have resulted in its dismissal.
Having said that, the Administraiton may not have obtained everything they wanted, but they got what they really wanted, for the reasons I said in the post.
The Bush administration addresses its “critics.”
ReplyDeletecongratulations on having come this far,
ReplyDeletemost of us don't.
talk with marcos zuniga some time;
he had a similar experience.
but, like you,
he and his co-author had the discipline to get the job done.
as for padilla,
i understand the humor
but also the caring in your comment.
i agree with your comment
of a couple of months ago
that
there is no act that the bush administration has taken
that is more contrary to the INTENT AND FOUNDATION of our constitution
than the padilla detention.
why?
because, by the bush admin's criteria,
and without judicial review,
anyone of us could
(i think of sheehan, but any blogger of record, or james comey, or p. fitzgerald)
be chargesd with being an "accessory", and artifically labeled an "enemy combatant".
what then?
we are placed in detention for any length of time necessary to negate our complaint about the actions of the bush administration.
given their knowledge of colonial and british history,
actions like bush has taken against padilla
would haave received strong condemnation from those who put,
not only their signatures,
but also
their lives,
family,
and property
on the line in signing the
u.s. constitution.
again,
congratulations.
p.s.
editors who care
are like coaches who care-
not necessarily nice folks when the game is one the line.
Hang in there, G. We got ya back. Keep it real.
ReplyDeleteI find what happened to Maher Arar to be pretty disturbing, myself.
ReplyDelete"There is but one thing of real value - to cultivate truth and justice, and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men" - Marcus Aurelius
I have to keep telling myself that. Otherwise I think I'd have a breakdown.
This'll be a drive-by. Sorry. But I wanted to go on record somewhere.
ReplyDeleteFirst, good luck on the book. I hope it makes money for you, and that you enjoy it.
On the NSA "case": the question of standing is crucial, because it speaks to the difference between law enforcement and an intelligence agency. The NSA has neither prosecutors nor police on staff; the most it can do is report suspected wrongdoing to law enforcement, just as you believe you are doing now. The law enforcement authorities are then obliged to investigate and/or prosecute according to law, observing Constitutional rights.
You and the rest are in such slack-mouthed, iron-nippled ecstasy at the prospect that you might Get Bush! that you cannot accept this. So my prediction: you will spend some time in an ever-more-desperate attempt to find someone with standing to challenge. Since no such person exists or can exist, you will then put forward a legal theory that will grant standing to some nebulous concept that, when examined closely, will include Americans, British Guianans, and the characters in the Pooh and Wizard of Oz books. This theory will be shot down by the courts, to many wails of anguish.
You will then fabricate something from the whole cloth. Perhaps you should get Bill Burkett to help; he could fax the documents from Kinko's. That fabrication will be exposed, probably by bloggers, and you will be permanently embarrassed. Worse, the whole effort will rebound in such a way as to make defense against real predations by Government more difficult.
I have no firm predictions about timelines, though my tentative estimate is that this will play out so as to end around election time plus or minus.
You read it here first. Perhaps you and Dan Rather can start a club.
Regards,
Ric Locke
(No, I have no account. Accuse me at Goldstein's, next NSA thread.)
I was extremely happy to read your brief comments on the recent SC decision as they reflect what my gut response to the decision was but, not being informed enough about law, I haven't known whether what I fervently wanted the outcome to have been was consistent with correctly applied Constitutional Law.
ReplyDeleteIf it's any solace, you are not suffering alone as you are being incarcerated and tortured. The withdrawal pains have been severe for those of us who have become addicted to your "take" on each new dramatic turn of events. Mercifully, it appears we will have access to our favorite drug of choice again shortly!
I don't believe that Glenn has written anything inappropriate by comparing himself to Padilla, even in jest. Don't you loath people who take themselves so seriously all of the time? Odds are the subject (here Padilla) would prefer to be written about than forgotten.
ReplyDeleteThere's also little doubt in my mind that Glenn is an experienced enough pro-wordsmith that he (you) can produce volumes of text when it's called for, by even the most demanding Dominatr...er...editor. (Hi Nixie!)
I believe the real challenge will be the balance between book tour shit and work/life balance issues...authors are expected to meet & greet fans - Are you ready for your coming out party Glenn? This ain't no NPR show with a pushover NRO pundit, it's the real deal.
You'll be shaking hands like, oh, I dunno, someone who's running for office, or maybe even get a little rock star treatment - maybe even GROUPIES! Only from the 'netroots, so like, smelly fever swamp types! Can you handle answering the same five questions over and over for the pleasure of hearing the rare good ones? ("What made you decide to write this ...")
You didn't think it would promote itself, did you?
I have my peach beret on.
Let the games begin.
ender,
ReplyDeleteI hear what you are saying but I disagree. If the Padillas of this world are to finally find justice, it will be because of the very hard work of people like Glenn.
There are times when humor can be heartless, but Glenn's use of it in his post was not one of those times. Glenn must realize there are many who are walking around with very, very heavy hearts these days, tempted to admit defeat and just withdraw, and anything "light" that
can serve to recharge and reassure is a very good thing.
Frankly, I think Glenn is one of the last people around who has to prove his credentials as a person who deeply and passionately cares about the plight of others who are treated unjustly and made to suffer.
Although I disagree with you about Glenn's post, I have to say I love the fact that you empathize so strongly with unfortunate victims of injustice and am so glad there are people like you who care so deeply about others.
I love hume's ghost's post. My problem is the "without anger" that is required to be effective.
ReplyDeleteSo, not having mastered that yet, I point out the hardly subtle way "Ric" tries to damn with faint praise by talking about the money from Glenn's book.
Hey "Ric", guess what? Glenn isn't motivated by money, which I know might be hard for you or those of your ilk to understand. He's motivated by passion and his devotion to cultivating the truth and justice about which Marcus Aurelius wrote.
As for your "predictions", although they may prove to be accurate in the short run, I don't think the final innings are going to appeal to you that much.
Those whose arrogance grows proportionately with their ruthlessness always make the mistake of crossing a line they didn't anticipate was as close as it really is and it is thus they seal their own doom.
eyes wide open,
ReplyDeleteI am expecting a reply to my post in the "NSA endgame" thread.
#2
This may be HUGE, a story breaking about how the EFF is making the news by working with a former San Fran AT&T technician who witnessed the building of an on-site room where the switching and massive net was cast, among others alleged in similar large cities (as they say, BREAKING):
ReplyDeletewired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html
"...In January 2003, Klein observed a new room being built adjacent to the room housing AT&T's #4ESS switching equipment, which is responsible for routing long distance and international calls...
...Klein's job eventually included connecting internet circuits to a splitting cabinet that led to the secret room. During the course of that work, he learned from a co-worker that similar cabinets were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego...."
From the EFF:
eff.org/news/archives/2006_04.php#004538
"EFF's evidence regarding AT&T's dragnet surveillance of its networks includes a declaration by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T telecommunications technician, and several internal AT&T documents. This evidence was bolstered and explained by the expert opinion of J. Scott Marcus, who served as Senior Advisor for Internet Technology to the Federal Communications Commission from July 2001 until July 2005.
The internal AT&T documents and portions of the supporting declarations have been submitted to the Court under a tentative seal, a procedure that allows AT&T five court days to explain to the Court why the information should be kept from the public..."
And then, my absolute favorite hit myself over the head ironic quote, from the wired article:
"In a letter to the EFF, AT&T objected to the filing of the documents in any manner, saying that they contain sensitive trade secrets and could be "could be used to 'hack' into the AT&T network, compromising its integrity."
God forbid someone hacks the network or challenges its integrity...jeesus christ.
Uh....did you you really just joke up a comparison between yourself leaning into your manuscript, and Jose Padilla, whose life was vaccuumed up into a black Kafkaesque hole? That was really in poor taste. Seriously.
ReplyDeleteI know you said you are "not receptive" to these comments (weird phrase for readers who read through all your words), but just step back and think about it. I love your stuff. But really. What makes it crass is the "I know what he feels like" tone that comes through. Because, my friend, you have no idea what he feels like if you can make these little jokes as you prepare to get money and noteriety for your typed out thinkie-think.
And actually, the joke seems out of character for you. From what little I have read here. Odd choice.
Iran has prepared a high-level delegation to hold wide-ranging talks with the US, but the Bush administration is resisting the agenda suggested by Tehran despite pressure from European allies to engage the Islamic republic....
ReplyDeleteA senior Iranian official, Mohammad Nahavandian, has flown to Washington to “lobby” over the issue....
Iran’s willingness to engage the US on Iraq, regional security and the nuclear issue, is believed to have the approval of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It represents the most serious attempt by the Islamic republic to reach out to the US since the 1979 Islamic revolution.....
But the White House insisted on Thursday that its own offer of talks with Iran....was limited to the subject of Iraq.
Here's the link to the article which contains really sickening information about how Washington is refusing to have talks and is instead stepping up its rhetoric against Iran.
Why are we cursed to have our fates in the hands of people like Nicholas Burns?
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/76a939b6-c5bc-11da-b675-0000779e2340.html
Iran has prepared a high-level delegation to hold wide-ranging talks with the US, but the Bush administration is resisting the agenda suggested by Tehran despite pressure from European allies to engage the Islamic republic....
ReplyDeleteA senior Iranian official, Mohammad Nahavandian, has flown to Washington to “lobby” over the issue....
Iran’s willingness to engage the US on Iraq, regional security and the nuclear issue, is believed to have the approval of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It represents the most serious attempt by the Islamic republic to reach out to the US since the 1979 Islamic revolution.....
But the White House insisted on Thursday that its own offer of talks with Iran....was limited to the subject of Iraq.
Here's the link to the article which contains really sickening information about how Washington is refusing to have talks and is instead stepping up its rhetoric against Iran.
Why are we cursed to have our fates in the hands of people like Nicholas Burns?
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/76a939b6-c5bc-11da-b675-0000779e2340.html
While it's hard to know exactly what supreme court justices are thinking, Steven's vote not to hear the case is a bit disturbing. It makes me wonder if he felt the court was likely to go the way of Congress and find some excuse for Bush. Some decisions (e.g. Bush vs. Gore) are determined well in advance of the court even hearing agruments, and it may be that no decision is better than a horrendous one.
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDeleteThis week, the Bush Administration essentially ensured that it will retain the power to abduct and imprison U.S. citizens based on nothing more than Presidential decree as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 decision refusing to hear Padilla's challenge to his lawless imprisonment.
Huh?
By transferring Padilla to civilian custody and a civilian court rather than face Supreme Court review, the Bush Administration retreated on this issue.
I think Justice would have a very rough time explaining on what grounds an American citizen can be denied his rights under the Constitution.
While I have no sympathy at all for extending constitutional rights to foreign enemy combatants, I would personally join Scalia in holding that you have to try an American for treason or similar crimes before a civilian or military court which extended the full range of due process under the Bill of Rights.
By removing Padilla from review, the Bush WH retreated. This is hardly a victory for them.
That is why DOJ maneuvered so cravenly to prevent SCOTUS from deciding it.
ReplyDeleteCraven? That's a strong word, isn't it? I read it differently. The president is contending for certain powers, especially in the matter of "enemy combatants," which many don't want him to have. The Founders intended that such struggles be carried politically, within a framework of their design.
And, that is precisely what's happening. The president is playing each card in his hand. So are his opponents. The struggle is moving toward conclusion. As I am sure you agree, its resolution will almost certainly involve some sort of compromise, which is precisely the outcome the Founders hoped would ensue when weighty social forces contend for political power.
There is nothing "craven" about playing the game by the rules.
Playing by the rules, huh? That's how you see the Bush Administration? Well, when the Fourth Circuit accuses the government of sleazy conduct -- the Fourth Circuit, for god's sake...
ReplyDeleteThe Fourth Circuit's ruling was overturned by SCOTUS on January 4th, and the administration's legal moves were deemed "within the rules" by the SCOTUS in its recent denial of Padilla's cert application. The president and his team play hardball, and so do his opponents. Would you expect otherwise? Your complaints sound more like sour grapes than they do of anything else.
Mach Schnell, Yud!!!!
ReplyDeleteSour grapes, indeed.
ReplyDeleteThe anon posting all the bullspit about the Fourth Circuit and the semi-denial of cert in Padilla is the same individual who had been posting under the handle "Gedaliya." Glenn has asked this man to post only once per thread, and this guy, Dave, refuses to respect that decision of this site's owner.
Glenn is too busy with his book to monitor and delete anon/Gedaliya/Dave's posts. But I am well familiar with Dave's voice, and once Glenn is out from under, and should Dave continue his rude flouting of Glenn's decision, I will identify Dave's posts so that Glenn may delete them (as Glenn did when "Gedaliya" posted more than once, and hence this brazen man's reverting to anon posting).
In the meantime, I will identify Dave posts and request that he be ignored, as he is violating Glenn's decision by posting more than once in any thread.
JaO said...
ReplyDeletebart: While I have no sympathy at all for extending constitutional rights to foreign enemy combatants, I would personally join Scalia in holding that you have to try an American for treason or similar crimes before a civilian or military court which extended the full range of due process under the Bill of Rights.
So you believe that Hamdi v Rumsfeld -- which by vote of 5-4 (with Scalia dissenting) found that an American citizen captured on a foreign battlefield could be held as an "enemy combatant" -- was wrongly decided?
Yes. While there are going to have to be some compromises with speedy trial and possibly other due process provisions if you capture the citizen on a foreign battlefield, the man or woman should still be tried in a court.
BTW, Scalia's dissent in Hamdi did not endorse military courts authorized only by the President as a lawful remedy in such a case. Quite the opposite. Scalia said military jurisdiction could be justified by exigency only when Congress has suspended habeus corpus.
Congress arguably suspended habeus corpus to combatants when it authorized the war which made the Hamdi a combatant.
In the trials of citizens acting as enemy combatants, the military has often provided the courts. The need to keep evidence gained through intelligence gathering secret also argues for a military court.
It's kind of nice to have Bartalyia back together again. The propaganda money spigot must be gushing at the White House.
ReplyDelete"Gedaliya" is not on the Bush payroll. Bizarre as it is, this is all a labor of love. It takes a very perverted morality to see games of "hardball" and cards in the detention without charge -- or access to a lawyer -- of a United States citizen. He perceives his Leader as being a manly man, in the gross abuse of a citizen and the rights bestowed un us all by the Constitution. Where JaO (correctly) sees craven legal maneuvering, and Scalia writes rebukes in the context of a paean to the rights of citizens, Gedaliya swoons in admiration for how cunningly he thinks his Macho Man is playing a game.
Gedaliya is an authoritarian conservative, entirely willing to trust the Goodness of a Republican leader. If Bush were captured on video sodomizing a toddler (maybe the child of a terrorist suspect), Gedaliya would justify it. He is in thralldom to George Bush, and will defend him no matter what Bush does on any subject that could actually be dangerous to Bush. Glenn's blog has become dangerous to Bush, hence Gedaliya'spresence.
If the People in Charge are Republicans, Gedaliya is of the mindset that will defer to nearly anything they do, and will forgive even the most awful positions that he may not himself agree with, but which are permissible when promoted by the Overall Good Republicans. Republicans, especially religious ones, and especially if embraced by National Review, simply cannot be bad for Gedaliya.
They must be defended from all attacks, and Gedaliya does that out of adoration and fealty, not for money. But his arguments are frequently extremely stupid and when repeatedly stated -- as has been his habit - hijack discussions.
JaO writes: That's the first time I've seen anyone even assert that preposterous proposition. Your absurdity exceeds even that in arguments made by the DOJ in that case.
ReplyDeleteAs Scalia noted in the dissent you distort:
Answering Bart may well provide a service for lurkers who do not realize he is a lying, dishonest troll; a lawyer who "speaks legal" entirely to mislead the unwary into thinking there are actual, meritorious defenses to Bush's positions.
By I refuse to engage him any longer. He doesn't just distort judicial opinions -- tho he certainly does do that, too - he blatantly lies about what they state. I realized he was a troll when he and I had an exchange that essentially went like this:
Hypatia: Justice X in Widget v. U.S -- a case having nothing at all to do with criminal law procedures -- wrote, "Congress may legislate in this national security area."
Bart: Yes I agree with Justice X, that Congress may legislate in this criminal law area.
Bart is a dishonest Bush shill.
JaO said...
ReplyDeletebart: Congress arguably suspended habeus corpus to combatants when it authorized the war which made the Hamdi a combatant.
RFLMAO. That's the first time I've seen anyone even assert that preposterous proposition. Your absurdity exceeds even that in arguments made by the DOJ in that case.
My friend, a majority of the Supremes stripped Hamdi of nearly every other due process right of a US citizen based on the AUMF except for habeus and that was only because the Court wanted to remain involved in the case.
A majority of the court is allowing Hamdi to be detained indefinitely after a simple hearing conducted by a military tribunal. I am suggesting that a US citizen acting as an enemy combatant should at minimum receive the equivalent of a courts martial with perhaps protections for the top secret evidence gathered.
As Scalia noted in the dissent you distort: "No one contends that the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force, on which the Government relies to justify its actions here, is an implementation of the Suspension Clause."
I didn't once characterize Scalia's dissent, you did. The only thing that I stated is that I agreed with Scalia that he ought to have a trial. The argument concerning a military trial was my opinion.
"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDeleteAnswering Bart may well provide a service for lurkers who do not realize he is a lying, dishonest troll; a lawyer who "speaks legal" entirely to mislead the unwary into thinking there are actual, meritorious defenses to Bush's positions.
By I refuse to engage him any longer. He doesn't just distort judicial opinions -- tho he certainly does do that, too - he blatantly lies about what they state.
You are, of course, free to repost any example of where I "lied" about the holding of a case.
When you fail, you may apologize or admit that you are the one lying.
I realized he was a troll when he and I had an exchange that essentially went like this:
Hypatia: Justice X in Widget v. U.S -- a case having nothing at all to do with criminal law procedures -- wrote, "Congress may legislate in this national security area."
Bart: Yes I agree with Justice X, that Congress may legislate in this criminal law area.
Bart is a dishonest Bush shill.
I don't think you'll lose your food ration for spilling the secret. I for one had already found and pre-ordered it on Amazon.
ReplyDeleteHypatia says:
ReplyDeleteGedaliya is an authoritarian conservative, entirely willing to trust the Goodness of a Republican leader. If Bush were captured on video sodomizing a toddler (maybe the child of a terrorist suspect), Gedaliya would justify it.
The personal attacks on anyone disagreeing with the company line are getting really old and pathetic.
Well, the gauntlet is down between Hypatia and Bart. Everyone has a bad day and over-speaks. Certainly Hypia’s comment is a candidate for an over-speak. My reading comprehension is not always the greatest, but I would say that Hypatia has branded Bart a lying troll. Bart has responded by calling Hypatia a liar. The ball is in Hypatia’s court. Bart says “prove it”. Hypatia has represented that she has just the case to do it, so her proof should take a minimum of effort. Bart has left it open; she can use that case or switch to any of a number of others where Bart has made representations.
ReplyDeleteAs discussed above, lying requires a specific motive or at least a lack of care. I am on record agreeing (generally) with Bart, but it wouldn’t shock me if Hypatia’s legal position were to be upheld by the SCOTUS. A typical legal stand-off, the kind that leads to court cases.
An attorney citing a case as standing for one thing and having another attorney declaim loudly that it does not stand for that at all is not uncommon (perhaps an understatement?). Calling the citing attorney a liar? Not common, even if one is correct, and that charge is relatively uncommon, at least in court.. In the hallway after a court proceeding......
I hope Hypatia walks the walk and produces the proof. Let me rephrase that. I hope Hypatia produces the proof or apologizes. Anything in between would make her...a lying troll.
Have I mis-stated this issue?
The personal attacks on anyone disagreeing with the company line are getting really old and pathetic.
ReplyDeleteHypatia is usually less shrill when attacking her opponents. She must be having a bad day. She has the ability to craft very good postings and comments, but when she resorts to vulgar insults and descends to puerile name calling, she embarrasses herself.
Perhaps next time we’ll see her use a bit more of the creativity she’s cultivated in the 15 or so years that she’s been posting online.
Perhaps next time we’ll see her use a bit more of the creativity she’s cultivated in the 15 or so years that she’s been posting online.
ReplyDeleteDave, go away. Could Glenn have made it any more clear that you are not wanted here? He limited you to one post per thread, and you have repeatedly violated that decision of his.
Please. Leave. Go attack him at your own blog.
Notherbob: I don't engage Bart, directly or indirectly. He is fully aware of the exchange in which I branded him a lying shill after he patently mischaracterized a Thomas opinion. I told him I would not engage him further, and I meant it.
He is a troll.
Could Glenn have made it any more clear that you are not wanted here?
ReplyDeleteThis is a public place. If Glenn wants to delete anyone's comments here he has the power to do so. When I feel compelled, from time-to-time, to comment on an issue on this blog, I will do so. You may as well desist from attempting to threaten and warn me or anyone else away. You just sound silly.
And Hypatia, do yourself a favor and get out into the real world and away from the computer for some hours of the day.
You need it.
I think Hypatia pretty much nailed it when she characterized the trolls here. Bart at least seems earnest in the claims he makes, but they're so far from reality it gets tiring having to debunk them every time. It's easy to see where bart gets his ideas. Reading Bart is like listening to Rush Limbaugh or watching FAUXNews. I know there are a few people left who still buy that load of crap, but they're the same people who still think Iraq sent terrorist here to fly planes into the WTC. The only place where people believe the horseshit Bart was saying yesterday about Plame and Wilson is the fanatsyland of Hannityland.
ReplyDeleteAs for notherbob's attempt to hijack the conversation by making it sound like the things Hypatia says about the trolls needs to be further expounded upon, I hope she won't fall for it. They're just going to have to get used to the fact that people aren't buying their tired old line anymore.
It was frustrating watching America go temporarily insane while it followed Bush into the quicksand, but that's over now. Now that everybody sees Bush for the idiot he is, the hacks and flunkies come out of the wordwork to try to shore up the collapsing walls of their fanatsy kingdom. It's hilarious reading their daily drivel, but it's just a fact that as long as they cling to their ridiculous fantasies, they'll have to get used to being ridiculed from here on in.
I apologize. I didn’t realize that I was late and missed the fight. The one where you proved Bart a liar. And speaking of lying:
ReplyDelete“I don't engage Bart, directly or indirectly. He is fully aware of the exchange in which I branded him a lying shill after he patently mischaracterized (sic) a Thomas opinion. I told him I would not engage him further, and I meant it.”
OK. So, if you were not lying in the bolded statement, why are you now saying:
“He is a troll. ... Bart is a dishonest Bush shill. He doesn't just distort judicial opinions -- tho he certainly does do that, too - he blatantly lies about what they state.”
Is this not engaging him further?
Of course, you have simply changed your mind. You were not lying in the bolded statement above. You meant it at the time. You have simply reconsidered in view of ...whatever. Smart folks have already tumbled to the meaning of my remarks here.
I like what neo-neocon has to say today about confronting Islam. Relevance to the discussion on this blog? See the bolded material:
ReplyDelete“I can well understand the West's denial, for so many years during the last decades of the twentieth century, of the nature and seriousness of the enemy we face--after all, in my own small way, I [as a liberal] was part of that denial. Some are still in denial, and this is also understandable: who among us can face the sort of destructive prospect Dr. Sultan is suggesting be unleashed? Can there not be a Wilsonian solution instead? Please? Oh, pretty please?”
I must confess that I am a Jacksonian. What is that? Neo-neocon says:
”The driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. Government in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the US shouldn't seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is "there's no substitute for victory" – and Jacksonians will do pretty much whatever is required to make that victory happen. If you wanted a Jacksonian slogan, it's "Don't Tread On Me!" Jacksonians are generally viewed by the rest of the world as having a simplistic, uncomplicated view of the world, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.
Is this not engaging him further?
ReplyDeleteOf course, you have simply changed your mind.
No. I said at the time I would state that he is a troll on occasion, to explain why I do not respond to him.
Bart is a dishonest troll. JAO has proven that in this thread alone -- with Bart's help. I'm not revisiting the substantive reasons why I came to that conclusion months ago, because that reintroduces that old argument, which is exactly the sort of distraction Bart is looking to engender.
So when Bush took us into iraq, and endangered us not only physically, but economically, he was acting in a way that was absolutely counter to what jacksonians believe. I agree with your point there. We used to just have to worry about Al-Quaida, a small fringe extremist group. Now we have the whole Muslim world out to kill us anywhwre and everywhere on earth. So Bush was the worst POTUS in history from a jacksonian POV. I think you're making real sense now notherbob. And the economic damage bush has done is almost incalculable. We'll be paying this off for years. How many vital things will we have to forego to pay for this insane war. Bush certainly went looking for a quarrell in iraq, didn't he. We Jacksonians should do all we can to make sure bush pays for what he's done.
ReplyDeleteFinally we're making sense here. Thanks notherbob. The US will have to get back to its Jacksonian roots as soon as we get these Wilsonian neocons out. Spreading democracy where its not wanted has caused more pain than any Jacksonian war of self-defense ever could. Way to go no-bob.
ReplyDeleteI wish everyone would just sort of grow up. We're talking about serious things here.
ReplyDeleteI pity the poor historians who will be sifting through webblogs and virtual communities trying to get information about how people of our times reacted to events.
The problem is that the bad apple cliche is a powerful reality in webland. It's really pretty easy for the few bad apples to spread rot in a good web discussion where most participants are sincere and like to toss ideas around about. Why they do it is another question - some of them may actually be paid antagonists, but mostly I think they're just aging adolescents. Or some may really believe their own nonsense, who knows. It would be interesting to meet everyone here in a room - easier to figure out what's really going on with them.
And to think this is a relatively high-level discussion, as blog discussions go - more genuine diversity of opinion than is typical. Of course, we have an unusually good leader here who doesn't easily fit into any stereotype and who time and again posts articulate, idea-laden essays which one would think would keep the talk on a reasonably high plane. But, that would be wishful thinking.
notherbob2,
ReplyDeleteDo you have any insight into how a neo-neoJacksonian neo-neocon with neo-Wilsonian leanings would view a neo-Islamist with neocon leanings and a slight but undeniable resemblance to Wilson.
brambling,
I for one am already drinking, as I wait for my late friends to dilute the pointlessness of painting this alphabet town. Considering this is Saturday night and Dad is away on business, there could be many more dishes in the sink. I am sure we can get the carpet shampooed before he gets home. Always betrayed by a bottle cap.
and in passing...
" Ya gotta laugh or ya gotta cry. It is just easier to see where you are going without tears in your eyes"
well, while your in prison -- DON'T DROP THE SOAP!!!!!!
ReplyDelete...and if you do, don't bend-over to pick up up!
...at least unless you want to be bloggin' over at americablog
"Some are still in denial...
ReplyDeleteEnter Anon 1 and Anon 2.
Iran nuke chatter has reached defcon levels in the last three days. Everyone's joining in as evidenced by articles such as those just written by Hersh and Patrick Buchanan.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it this means one of three things:
l) It's true we are planning to nuke Iran. If this is the case, one needn't be a genius to figure out that all our other concerns will be secondary. For the rest of our lifetimes no American will be completely safe here or abroad.
Domestically a complete police state will be installed to cater to the "increased terrorist threat."
This first possibility is so insane I think it might be best to eliminate it as a serious contender to explain the "chatter."
2) Scare Iran into making certain concessions. This is a real possibility, but it is wrongheaded and misguided because what the "wargames" crowd always fails to take into account is that the mass of humanity is not in on the gameplan and it's the mass of humanity which always has the last word. That means that this threat itself, if it goes far enough, will itself have really ugly consequences.
3) Shoot up the price of oil so that the oil crowd/Wall Street/military industrialists can cash out big time.
Third might be the real one.
But if the first is the correct door to pick, someone had better stop it quickly before it's too late or the American people will have been checkmated.
BTW, there are some strategists who have written about a certain strategy that I personally think is wildly illogical. That would go, briefly, that if we nuked Iran, the Iranian people would be angry and hold it against their current leaders and rise up against them and replace them with leaders we liked.
My own opinion is that exactly the opposite would happen.
6) Hersh likes his name on the front page.
ReplyDeleteI sure hope we are spying on Iran and I hope they have military plans ready at all times.
There is no doubt that we want regime change in Iran. It is way too early for that.
Hersh is just blowing smoke because they kept open an option to use a nuclear bunker buster to be sure to take out the main facility. Unless Iran does something incredibly stupid, this article is jumping to conclusions that make me wonder about Hersh's motivations.
thor likes pizza:
ReplyDeleteFourth: The moron some call president wants to be recorded in the history books as the one true savior of mankind who stood up to the quislings and defeated the great evil by bombing them until their DNA vaporized in the white heat of a thermonuclear explosion.
Fifth: bush wants to show everyone he is a big man.
I agree these two additional explanations are seductive enough to be real possibilities, but I have one problem with the psychology of each and ask your opinion about it.
Each of the above speaks mostly to the personal dementia of a runaway madman deluded into thinking he is some sort of messiah.
But to carry out this scheme not only would his entire cabinet have to go along, but presumably and with good evidence Congress would also.
That seems to be a contradiction. Meglomanical exploits are normally carried out only by the meglomaniac himself using force.
Why would everyone else sign on? Is your conception of human nature so low that profit motives, fear, desire to maintain a comfortable status quo position etc. would explain signing on to such an insane personal adventure?
I am not saying such a view of human nature would be inaccurate, but I think we'd all agree it's pretty depressing. The question is how realistic is it? I personally do not know.
I must say that unless my eyes are deceiving me because of the insanity of everything that has been happening, I have personally thought that in some of Bush's recent televised speeches and performances he has shown evidence of a type of new (to me) self-aggrandizing dementia, not unlike the last stages of foaming at the mouth of a dog gone mad with rabies. Of course Bush doesn't snarl. He leans into the mike, hunches over and smiles....
But there appears to me to be an increased component of narcissitic sociopathologic deviation from reality.
I am not speaking to whether he has always been bonkers. I leave that to historians, if any survive. I am asking if anyone has also felt that in his last three or four appearances there has been a whole new level of end-time madness behind the posturing as if he has finally sold himself on what he says and is delighted with himself in the process.
But that's Bush. What about the others who would have to go along with such an insane plan?
I add that recent appearances by Condi Rice have also appeared to reveal some sort of "coming undone" type of somewhat agitated instability.
Hard to say anymore if I am right in those perceptions.
Finally, as I have said before, the best place to go for anyone interested in this new "chatter" is antiwar.com.
There are always about eight or ten lead stories to do with the most recent news developments on the few issues with which that site is most concerned and about five or ten excellent articles written by people who have different perspectives, some calm, some more excitable, but generally in basic agreement on the big points.
The Hersh story is old Hersh and Scott Ritter regurgitated from 15 months ago. It is almost word for word the same baloney he was spewing at that time. Here is a story from February of 2005 --
ReplyDeletesound familiar???
http://electroniciraq.net/news/1881.shtml
On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran." Hersh also reported that "The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer." According to Hersh, "Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran. ... Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military’s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran. ... The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans’ negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act."
Well Hersh may have been saying that a year ago, but was the Washington Post? In tomorrow's paper they have a story which says essentially the same thing Hersh does.
ReplyDeletehere
HEY! I DID IT! I put in a link and it worked! I cannot tell you all how happy I am because every other time it didn't work but I had done exactly the same thing I did now!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, eureka!
lastnamechosen: Oh, I see exactly what you mean! I just read this article "Does Israel Conduct Covert Action in America?
ReplyDeleteYou bet it does
by Michael Scheuer" which talks about how people are trying to get other people not to say anything about Israel.
here
This is a terrific article which explains the whole thing and even makes an allusion to the book we were discussing.
The only thing I feel uncomfortable about is that I don't approve of what these people are doing, and telling me not to mention that book is the same thing they are doing but I agree not to mention it anyway because I don't want to hurt Glenn's site.
I do think after reading this article that it is clear, clear, clear, clear, clear that the Volokh Conspiracy is one of the places that is doing that same thing because everything that the article talks about goes on at VC every day. I bet the word Islamofascist appears on that site second only to the word "the".
I am delighted that certain famous people started pointing out three years ago that the King George Court were the real fascists, because now when they start calling everyone else fascists they are going to look pretty silly, as most intelligent people already know who the real fascists actually are.
Get this which was written on Oct.25, 2004:
ReplyDeleteGeorge Bush's great virtue, however, is that he has stood up to terrorism — knowingly, and at grave risk to his political viability — when his predecessors Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. On many occasions during their administrations terrorists attacked American lives and property. Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless retaliation such as bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on faulty intelligence, to boot).
Then shortly after Bush became president he was hit with "the big one" — 9/11. It was clear to him that terrorism was more than a series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon U.S. and indeed to the entire civilized world long before his administration. He decided that action had to be taken to protect us against future 9/11s involving weapons of mass destruction, including "suitcase" nuclear devices.
Indeed, today it is Islamic fundamentalism that increasingly threatens the world just as Nazi fascism and Soviet communism did in previous decades. The Islamo-fascists would be happy to eliminate all non-Muslims without a tinge of regret. Many Americans still indulge in wishful thinking on this issue, viewing militant Islam as a kind of nuisance, which can be handled without great inconvenience in much the same way as one swats flies, rather than as hordes of genocidal religious fanatics dedicated to our destruction.
I am not going to link to this fucker's
site because I do not support theives.
But why I print that here is because one of the things which infuriates me most is the way that Ayn Rand's legacy has been hi-jacked by a bunch of maniacal, bigoted neo-cons fascists.
Ayn Rand, who was one of the few most passionate anti-totalitarian writers in history is also the victim of the greatest case of intellectual theft in history. Since her death these bastards have twisted and perverted her message until it has become the exact opposite of everything she stood for.
Both The Ayn Rand Institute which is the "official" Ayn Rand site and all Ayn Rand sites such as the one where I found that quote above are totally controlled by neo-cons.
I sincerely hope dead people cannot see what happens on this earth because if they could, she would be dying a death by a thousand cuts every hour of every day these people are allowed to get away with what they are doing.
And nobody does anything about it! Not even that disgrace Alan Greenspan who was once one of her prize pupils.
It's such a tragedy. These people are ruthless. They have no shame. They are the embodiment of evil.
Michael Birk said...
ReplyDeleteinthehighlands:
"This may be HUGE, a story breaking about how the EFF is making the news by working with a former San Fran AT&T technician who witnessed the building of an on-site room where the switching and massive net was cast, among others alleged in similar large cities"
I too thought, at first, that this may blow the NSA issue wide open. After reading the Wired article, however, I am not so sure. Perhaps our resident telecom experts can weigh in. According to the article:
"[The technician's] job eventually included connecting internet circuits to a splitting cabinet that led to the secret room."
Sorry to say that I think you will be sorely disappointed if you think this will blow anything wide open. It should, but it seems that we for the most part have turned into a nation of sheeple. Over a month ago I wrote a post about how the system had to work. It is already known that the Government has been tapping into main switches. Alberto Gonzales testified that he would not rule out the fact that the Government has been tapping into purely domestic calls and internet messages. I posted a blurb the other day about a man in Arizona that is being tried in court for stealing baby food, part of the evidence having been obtained from an NSA wiretap.
The evidence of Government wrongdoing is all there for everyone to see. But most of the nation's people are like the passengers on the 9/11 jets, content enough to go along for the ride. Unconcerned enough about the unknown destination to stand up and do anything about being hi-jacked.
The only remaining question is if the sheeple will show up at the polls in November and express their displeasure with their vote. If they don't, or if there is widespread voting fraud as in the last two major elections, and they won't stand up demanding something be done about it, then we are in for more of the SSDD we have been experiencing for the last five years.
I like what neo-neocon had to say yesterday about confronting Islam. Then I read EWO at 6:33. Of course, initially I said: “EWO is one of those in denial”. However, that may not be true. Just because EWO struggles (successfully) with html doesn’t mean that he cannot be a whiz at political philosophy. DISCLAIMER: Because of the length and volume of EWO’s posts (like Bart’s) I have not read them all. If he is not in denial, then he has, somewhere in the vast verbiage of his past comments, offered an alternate solution to the threat posed by militant Islamo-fascists. The neo-con strategy well may be less than optimal. If such alternate strategy has been offered, I apologize for taking up your time. If not, then EWO is a whacko in denial and deserves to be blown up with all the other whackos who deny this danger. I believe that terrible f*ck*r is right. However, we should always listen to the loyal opposition, for what else will save us from making grave errors? Certainly not whackos in denial who cannot confront dangers that do not fit into their carefully constructed fantasy world view.
ReplyDeleteEyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDeleteIran nuke chatter has reached defcon levels in the last three days. Everyone's joining in as evidenced by articles such as those just written by Hersh and Patrick Buchanan.
The way I see it this means one of three things:
2) Scare Iran into making certain concessions. This is a real possibility...
I congratulate you in even considering this most likely of options. Most of the leftist blogs and many of the righty blogs missed this entirely.
The military has had contingency plans to use low yield nukes a bunker busters since they invented low yield nukes. This is nothing new for anyone with a passing knowledge of the air force.
However, if you want to scare the bejezus out of a theocratic dictatorship, you don't want the measured tones of some general on Fox or CNN explaining how "everything is on the table."
Rather, you feed disinformation to a professional media hysteric like Hersh about a crazy cowboy president who is overruling his measured generals and is on the verge of nuking your theocracy with the purpose of performing his third regime change in the ME.
All of the sudden, screwing the the eminently screwable UN doesn't look like such a smart play for Iran.
If you are interested in the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, you should read this.
ReplyDelete“Tracked down to his remote village in south-eastern Afghanistan, Naqibullah has memories of Guantanamo...”
“Alain Grignard, the deputy head of Brussels' federal police anti-terrorism unit. Grignard, who is also a professor of Islam at the University of Liege, served as an expert to a group of lawmakers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on a visit to Guantanamo Bay last week.”
What Mr. Grignard has to say really drives home the current (shocking) state of affairs at this notorious prison. Also, there is an amusing final paragraph that pokes pretty good fun at our loyal ally France. The whole post is worth a read.
Greg Djerejian over at Belgravia Dispatch has some interesting insights on the Iran/nukes issue. What I appreciate about Greg is that, like me, he had supported the war in Iraq, but has been entirely unwilling -- to the ire of many Bush worshippers who had formerly loved Greg -- to accept all the rosy spin, claims that the MSM is destroying support for a successful war, it is all a liberal plot of Bush-haters trying to make us believe bad things about Iraq...Greg is having none of that, and he accepts the fact that Iraq is a thorough debacle, courtesy of George W. Bush. So, he's not thinkin' we want incompetent Bush beginning a military campaign now in Iran.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, there is an option to do the "run screaming with your hair on fire" thing... or one can take a more reasoned view.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, there is an option to do the "run screaming with your hair on fire" thing... or one can take a more reasoned view.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, notherbob, as Greg D. has been writing and exploring for some time now, one cannot trust Bush and Rumsfeld to do the reasoned and reasonable thing. Greg is no "moonbat." He simply insists on an honest assessment of Iraq and Bush's military and foreign policy acumen.
And I'm certainly not inclined to accept that Lieutenant General Gregory S. Newbold fails to take a reasoned view when he expounds on the theme: Why I Think Rumsfeld Must Go: A military insider sounds off against the war and the zealots who pushed it. To quote:
I've been silent long enough.
I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice. ...
To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it. ... What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures.
Bush lead us in dealing competently with Iran? Please.
eyes wide open,
ReplyDeleteDo not try to pull me into your quicksand. My point was and is very simple.
- Your previous comments advocating ""The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" could easily be interpreted as anti-semitic.
- You pretend you don't know what I am talking about.
- I try to slowly explain the situation to you.
- You say, I see what you mean, Israel is trying to stop discussion of these important issues.
You are so full of it.
As I said in my final post to you in the "NSA endgame" thread, I don't believe you. I think you are purposefully acting. I am not sure what this charade is about, but it doesn't matter to me if you are a provocateur or you just have one foot on dry land. The end result is the same.
Thanks Hypatia, for the link to the Time article. It's inspiring to read someone with such immediate knowledge of the situation. He reminds us that our true obligation to support the troops is in doing our part, however small that may be, to make sure they are never sent on a mission that isn't absolutely necessary. As Newbold points out, there was no rational way to claim that this war was necessary. Those who pointed out the flaws in their plans were relegated to the sidelines. They cherry-picked and outright lied their way into a war, and then utterly mismanaged it. Those responsible owe those soldiers a debt they'll never be able to repay. Not only must they be replaced before we begin any program to fix the damage they've done, but a good long sit in one of their own gulags would go a long way toward bringing some justice to those who've paid with their lives.
ReplyDeleteOnly someone mindlessly loyal to Bush would still maintain that he deserves anything less than to be run out on a rail. His incompetence is truly mind-boggling. But some simply can't let themselves see what's happening. They'll concoct a vast left-wing conspiracy to explain the failure of the war to bring democracy to the ME. If the media would just tell the truth, the war would be a smashing success. The masses are being fooled by the media again. Of course when the masses vote for Bush they love to tell the masses how the "democrats think you're stupid." It's those democrats who have to tell themselves the masses got fooled into voting for Bush. The Dems just can't admit how smart the folks are when they see through the liberal media's lies and vote for Bush. But when the masses fail to see how well things are going in Iraq, boy do the masses drop in IQ points. Suddenly the masses can't tie their own shoelaces.
Damn liberal media. Damn ignorant masses. Damn vast conspiracy.
I have a friend who gets all his news from right-wing media. He sounds a lot like the folks here who believe they're getting the truth from those places. He also reminds me of his heroes at FOX, whose egos are so bloated they can't admit they've been wrong about Bush. Theyre tethered to Bush at this point by all the lectures they've delivered about His Goodness and Infallibility. They simply cannot admit how far off the mark they've been on everything Bush has done. There's a personality type common to most Bush True Believers. We all know it when we see it. Like Hannity and O'Reilly, they have massive egos and love to talk condescendingly to those who have the temerity to disagree. They're stubborn to a fault, and will bend the facts like pretzels to keep themselves from having to admit they were ever wrong. The talking heads on right-wing media have created a bunch of wannabe hucksters, who think Rush and the gang are the greatest thing they've ever seen. It's a unique type that's impressed by these flacks, and they're buying into a major conjob. The pundits on right-wing TV/radio are like boxers who build their records fighting people who are made to have one arm tied behind their back. With their fingers on the volume and the mute, they shout down those they disagree with, and make it sound like the awesome power of their righteous truth just left another moonbat speechless. The folks at home are amazed and impressed and decide they're going to go forth like apostles and bring the hammer down on all who stand in their way. Just like Rush and Coulter they talk down to those they hate, thinking their awesome power is going to amaze and astound the stupid liberals. Unfortunately notherbob quickly learns it doesn't work that way when the ones you're arguing with can talk back. (Where's that mute button when you need it?) My friend gets so frustrated when he repeats the talking points and it fails to render people speechless. But his ego makes it impossible for him to admit there might be something wrong with his argument. It has to be the irrational hatred of Bush that makes people fail to see the wisdom of His words and actions. What else could it be? He can't imagine.
Up to now I've ignored the talk about Iran, as there's no way we can afford to start something new when we're in a quagmire already. They couldn't possibly be that stupid. But then I remember who we're talking about and I realize nothing is too stupid for this bunch. Bush's megolamaniacal self-image makes him a candidate for the utterly bizarre. Who knows what will go on in his peabrain as his poll numbers shrink into the 20s and he realizes his legacy is doomed to be one of catastrophic failure. What will he be capable of as he tries to salvage his place in history as God's Own Special Frat-boy? It isn't any more irrational to believe bombing Iran will make them turn against their govt than it was to think we'd be greeted in Iraq as liberators, and they'd lay down their weapons and beg us to show them how to be just like us.
And as Newbold points out, these guys are so inept there's no way in hell we should think they'll do any better in Iran than they have in Iraq. I don't think we appreciate yet just how colossally they've bungled things in Iraq. As I've wondered elsewhere, what would Eisenhower say about the stupidity of this war? What would people who managed huge projects think about our sudden inability to secure even a road to the airport in a country we "control?" Newbold is correct in his contention that it's those who've never been there who can so mismanage a war. Sending our troops into harms way is the last resort, and is only done when there is absolutely no other way. Cheney and Rumsfeld had other priorities when it was their turn to defend their country, but when they're safely back in the bunker, boy do they talk tough. Suddenly they pick fights like drunken frat-boys, then hide under the table as the innocent people around them get stuck fighting the battle they started. All this patriotic bullshit is a front for their greed and cowardice. What's even more obnoxious is when they call people who won't get behiind their cowardly actions, traitors. Their attempt to commandeer patriotism for their own private glory makes you realize what they really deserve is to be jailed for treason.
So I won't put it past them to start something in Iran to salvage their legacy. But I'll hope that even they aren't that stupid. As for the possibility it's a bluff, get real. Other people react the same way we do. If another country tried to threaten us into submission, we'd go through anotherv round of post 9/11 patriotism and anything the POTUS asks of us, we'll do. If we hadn't blown things so badly in Iraq our threats might mean something. They certainly used to. But Bush has allowed the world to see that our success in the 1st Gulf war was largely an illusion. If they're still fighting when the firworks end, we can't do much to force them into submission. Iran knows it can be at least as successful as Iraq in holding off American military might. The Romans viewed the barbarians as inferiors and it eventually led to their downfall. Why do we make the same mistake? The success of Bush's policies has always depended on the people of the ME behaving the way Bush thinks they should--like inferiors who know their place. He is shocked they didn't fold at the sight of our mighty war machine. But he's still willing to bet Iran will. Somebody get the hook before it's too late.
I’m not really sure what a “whacko in denial” is, but anyone who has read James Fallows piece on Iran knows that much of our own military thinks it would be a disaster. Perhaps it is these military “whackos in denial” who are leaking this stuff to Hersh, The Washington Post and The Times in the U.K.
ReplyDeleteNow I’m hoping like hell that this stuff about “nuking Iran” is simply to scare Iran, but it says a whole lot about the Cheney administration that the entire world believes they are capable of such “total insanity.” This shit seems to be scaring the Brits more than the Iranians.
Many of us believe that we’ve boarded a bus to crazy town. So, sadly, it is not that hard to believe.
And just to put things in perspective, take a look at some of the things that Gen Boykin (a “whacko” who is apparently not in denial) has said, starting with his repeated assertion that “God chose” Bush to be President to his use of the term “crusade.” Nope, no denial there.
The lead up to this is too similar to what the administration did in Iraq. Now “whackos in denial” don’t think that is going particularly well, but those who are “not in denial” call it “a magnificent success.”
Just who is in denial? Just who are the whackos?
And, what is most disturbing is so many people think that this decision depends on whether Bush poll ratings remain in the doldrums. They are able to envision a 15 point jump in the polls, but tens of thousands of dead Iranians doesn’t seem to much of an issue.
Denial.
Hell of an intro, Zack. For some reason the link to the plan for dealing with Islamo-fascism that conflates with your concept of how things should be done was omitted. Could you include it in your next post?
ReplyDeleteI am concerned that the omission might be taken by rational readers as a sign that you are in denial.
As Newbold points out, there was no rational way to claim that this war was necessary. Those who pointed out the flaws in their plans were relegated to the sidelines.
ReplyDeleteI don't even entirely agree with him that the war was not morally justified. But it could be in our interest to prosecute it if, and only if, it could be done without unacceptable losses of blood and treasure and with a good outcome for the general state of affairs in the ME. Clearly there was no planning for the infrastructure issues in Iraq, or for the predicted outbreaks of extreme sectarian and tribal animosities. It is as if Bush sang "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I can't hear you" to his military and geo-political advisors, because he wanted to do it right now, and didn't want to listen to any common-sense from naysayers. If it was too dangerous and could be expected to be very costly and protracted, then it shouldn't have been done.
And now we, and especially our troops and the Iraqis, pay the price.
So Glenn says he is a strong supporter of dirty bombs and terrorist activities conducted by muslim citizens of the USA against innocent civilians.
ReplyDeleteWell, I have to say I've always suspected this, but I never expected Glenn to actually admit it, as he did in this post.
Then we have hypatia and others continuing with their pro drug illegal drug use commentary, and the picture of the KOS Kids lefties regurgitating their poison here and elsewhere emerges. You appear to be a group of dope heads and dope head supporters seeking to strike out against the "man", and supporters of the Padilla's, SLA, Weather Underground terrorists du jour.
Well that certainly explains a lot.
Says the "Dog"
The idea that anyone who opposes Bush is not only a “whacko” but in “denial” is commonplace in right-wing blogostan.
ReplyDeleteNuking Iran is long overdue according to this post. And the left, who is surely going to oppose it, is ready to “cave and submit to dhimmitude.”
So, we have no choice. We either nuke Iran or American women will be wearing burkas. What’s it going to be?
Ah, yes, a clear plan for dealing with Islamo-fascism. Clear, concise, and crazy.
Hypatia, I don't know if you're referring to me, but if you are, you're mistaken and I hope you'll apologize. I almost cried when the Supreme Court first turned down Padilla's appeal. I certainly would never call what the Justice Department did "playing by the rules."
ReplyDeleteOn this blog, I have consistently opposed "justifications" for wiretapping, as well as John Yoo, David Addington (even going so far as to recommend that they be tried for war crimes), and John Roberts. I have also given Glenn suggestions for making money with the site, and providing him with ideas for his book via email. Please explain a) why you think I'm a disruptive troll or b) how I got confused with someone else.
Thanks,
Dave
Never mind. I didn't realize Gedalyia's real name was "Dave." If people are going to be criticizing "Dave" all the time, I may need to get a new blogger name.
ReplyDeleteDave
bart, I agree with you. Thinking it all over, it would seem that the "deterrent" possibility is the one most likely.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think this poses risks and is somewhat ill thought out (and it's always hard to swallow the "deception" aspect of politics in general), I also think it is the least dangerous of all possible "takes" on the Iran nuke chatter, and I suppose if it worked peaceably, it could actually land up okay and conclude with what I hope will be the outcome: some sort of negotiated agreement between the United States and Iran that will prevent further warfare.
notherbob: I cited an article which, based on everything I have read so far, offers the best solution. I will try to find that article again and link to it.
In essence, it's written by someone who I think is a war historian, who goes through the history of warfare from before World War 1 in what is, to me, a dispassionate, informed and logical manner, and concludes (and gives his reasons for) that the best way to solve the Iran problem is through deterrance and negotiation. Sort of like what Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union, which worked out pretty well in my opinion.
Lastnamechosen, I really don't know what your problem is, but I am not going to be interested in your posts anymore. Who knows better if I am "for real"? You, or me? Since I know that I am, I have less respect for your ability to analyze words and the people behind the words, and I will read other posters instead and I am sure you will also.
That's what makes horse races.
Good Dave writes: Hypatia, I don't know if you're referring to me, but if you are, you're mistaken and I hope you'll apologize. I almost cried when the Supreme Court first turned down Padilla's appeal. I certainly would never call what the Justice Department did "playing by the rules."
ReplyDeleteLOL! No, I most definitely do not mean you, and I do deeply apologize if anyone thought I did. The person I mean has never identified himself here by the name of Dave, tho that is his name. The only moniker he has chosen is "Gedaliya." His voice is very distinctive and it was my desire to communicate to him, by calling him by the name I know is his, that no matter whether he posts anonymously or as Gedaliya, his authorship is recognized. Glenn finds him disruptive to the blog and has limited him to one post per thread, a decision Dave/Gedaliya has been brazenly violating be switching to anon and posting an endless stream of inane, pro-Bush commentary on (among other things) legal issues about which he is quite ignorant.
Sorry for the confusion, and I certainly did NOT mean to associate you with the Dave who is Gedaliya.
Zack, your comment is the pardigm of a lefty-in-denial comment. You shoot the far right fish in the barrel, but you omit any reference to a better plan. What do you think the definition of denial is?
ReplyDeleteI've got a fairly long new post up exploring the possibility of obtruction of justice charges against both Bush and Cheney. God, I'd love to bring them down on a cover-up...
ReplyDeleteVichyDems: Dick Cheney "Spun" Attention Away from Bush in February. Did He Similarly Misdirect Fitzgerald, Too?
lastnamechosen: one last point. Are you insane? You say I advocated that book?
ReplyDeleteDid my professor in college who assigned Mein Kempf and The Prince and the writings of Chairman Mao advocate those books?
Not one of those books above puts forth views with which I agree. Same with the other book. If I ran the world, I would run it totally the opposite of any of those four books.
It's really ridiculous to say that someone who suggests reading a book is advocating it. Maybe the single best reason to read a historical book which contains ideas repugnant to a person is so that each person can do his part to make SURE that cetain history does not repeat itself, and to "resist the beginnings" when he sees history veering in a wrong, but unfortunately familiar, direction.
Knowledge is power, not malice.
PS. The single thing most important to my mind in the book whose name we shall not speak is the role of government sponsored media.
Maybe you admire the current state of the "independent" media in this country in 2006, but if so, I do not share your enthusiasm. And who would have ever thought (not I) that the media would have come to this?
To wit: a full page "opinion" article in today's NY Post written by a Ralph Peters, author of a new book called "New Glory:
Expanding America's Global Supremacy"
hysterically puts forth the thesis that since Iran (like Isreal, the United States, North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, etc.) wants to develop nuclear energy, they are DRAGGING us into war, contains these sentences:
The most dangerous error we could make in our sharpening confrontation with Iran is to convince ourselves that its leaders will act rationally.
I might point out here that Hypatia quotes from a knowledge military expert in our own country who suggests that OUR leaders are acting anything but rationally....
If we're pulled into war, we need to strike hard and fast--before Iran's allies can make mischief in international forums. We should destroy as much of Tehrans' nuclear infrastructure as possible, eliminate its air force and air defenses and wreck its naval facilities beyond repair--no matter what the collateral damage. The madmen in Tehran must pay an unbearable price.
Now that would be a sensible plan if another nation attacked us, but for a pre-emptive war against a nation that only wants the same thing that a number of other nations have and presumably even less?
Also, if bart agrees that the Iran nuke chatter on the part of our own leaders might be designed for deterrence, is it at all logical to refuse to consider that Admadinejad's own words about Israel may be exactly the same thing?
This author also says that Iran has probably "wildly over-estimated the anti-war constituency in the U.S."
Funny, I don't anyone who is pro-war and polls show 70% of Americans now are against the war in Iraq and want out. I doubt this 70% wants out of Iran so we can lose 300 times as many Americans by attacking Iran, and jeopardize the safety of Americans all over the world.
Iran no doubt senses that a majority of Americans do not want war, and that upsets our leaders. Conversely, if a poll were taken of the Iranian "people", no doubt at least an equal per cent would also not want war.
The leaders of both countries would do well to listen to the citizens of their nations. And IF we do attack Iran, I agree with those who say that every single Congressman and politician who favors it should be the first to have THEIR children enlist and go fight that war.
Enough of these chickenhawks. They simply do too much damage to be indulged anymore.
Hypatia's link drives home this very point: who really pays the biggest cost in wars?
People who don't care about "collateral damage" are the ones who are safe from having that "collateral damage" ruin their own lives and those of their families.
OK. Here is that article I really like.
ReplyDeleteIran:The Logic of Deterrence
And here are the final few sentences:
Still, although a nuclear-armed Iran is not a pleasant prospect, neither is it an intolerable one. Tehran won’t be the first distasteful regime to acquire nuclear weapons. The United States has adjusted to similar situations in the past and can do so this time. Rather than preventive war and regime change, the best policies for the U.S. with respect to Iran are the tried and true ones: containment, deterrence, and diplomatic engagement.
So what I am saying is if I were running this country, I would be listening to people like the author of this article and hearing what they have to say, weighing their arguments, and deciding if they could be right.
armegednoutahere: about your post of 6:31.
ReplyDeleteThat was sensational! Too bad it wasn't posted here as a guest blog, because it is the type of post that is so great to read.
Thank you!
From notherbob2 from 8:44PM:
ReplyDelete"Zack, your comment is the pardigm of a lefty-in-denial comment. You shoot the far right fish in the barrel, but you omit any reference to a better plan. What do you think the definition of denial is?"
One could go to the Webster's definition, but I daresay that would simply be an exercise wasted energy.
I would simply point out that (a) none of us here are in any position to advise or implement any plan, (b) the party presently in power has proven itself so hopelessly incompetent, corrupt, and out of touch with reality that their plans are the near-definition of 'denial', and (c) it isn't encumbent upon us commentators to offer alternatives if the Administration is too lost in its own hubris and stupidity.
This is their mess. Making it a bigger one won't undo past mistakes; it'll just give us a bigger body count.
Oh, and using the same tired buggaboo about 'Islamofascism' doesn't impress or frighten anyone here, it just demonstrates ignorance on your part.
Zach's post at 6:37 has a link called "crazy town."
ReplyDeleteThat links to one of the best articles on everything that has been happening that I have read yet. Everyone should read that article. Every single thing which has "outraged" me in recent times is contained in that article.
We really have taken a bus to crazy town and it really is time to catch a bus in the other direction and return home to the beautiful America, the one where every day of our lives we always used give thanks that we lived here.
Crazy town, however, would put Kakfa to shame.
PS. Notherbob, why are you here? Like minded people enjoy being among like minded people. So why are you here? Are you thinking you are going to convince anyone of your particular point of view? That seems unlikely to be your motive. So why are you here?
The leak. Any legal minds have an opinion on Greg Palaste's latest story?
ReplyDeleteOK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a bigger crime: Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops for a burglary that never happened -- but far, far worse. Let's not forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter Judith Miller went to jail.
For years, I worked as a government investigator and, let me tell you, Bush and Cheney withholding material information from the grand jury is a felony. Several felonies, actually: abuse of legal process, fraud, racketeering and, that old standby, obstruction of justice.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=490&row=0
From a textbook on Abnormal Psychology:
ReplyDeleteNarcissistic Personality Disorder Symptoms
The narcissistic personality disorder is one of the top three most difficult personality disorders to treat. It is defined as an ongoing pattern of grandiosity and need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others. It should be noted that it is three times more common in males than females. These individuals have an obvious self love, and believe they are knowledgeable and indeed expert in a wide variety of areas. They are usually shocked when they are not praised for their efforts. These individuals are preoccupied with success and power. They feel they are gifted and talented... They rarely admit to a mistake or wrongdoing. They rarely apologize when the occasion arises.... They are grossly defensive, and unable to look at themselves objectively. They have an inflated and false sense of entitlement, and lack of sensitivity towards others. They feel they deserve whatever they want or need. These individuals are extremely self-absorbed... These individuals are extremely sensitive to criticism, although may not show it outwardly.
Gee, I wouldn't want such an abnormal personality who is extremely sensitive to criticism to ever be in a position of power, would you? He might just ship anyone who "criticizes" him off to Gitmo, or something crazy like that.....
Thank heavens we don't have to worry about such a person ever having the self-granted power to even kill anyone he alone decides is an "enemy" of his .....
???
Eyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDeleteOK. Here is that article I really like.
Iran:The Logic of Deterrence
And here are the final few sentences:
Still, although a nuclear-armed Iran is not a pleasant prospect, neither is it an intolerable one. Tehran won’t be the first distasteful regime to acquire nuclear weapons. The United States has adjusted to similar situations in the past and can do so this time. Rather than preventive war and regime change, the best policies for the U.S. with respect to Iran are the tried and true ones: containment, deterrence, and diplomatic engagement.
Appeasement under the alternative terms "containment" and "detente" only served to egg on the Soviets and brought us to the brink of nuclear armegeddon.
The Cold War was finally won when Reagan rejected containment and adopted a policy of regime change for the Soviet Union.
Appeasing North Korea only allowed them to gain nukes and work on ICBMs to target our cities.
Allowing a lunatic who openly speaks of wiping other countries off the map when he is not speaking of the ethnic cleansing of Israel to gain nukes will hardly make us or the world safer.
eyes wide open said...
ReplyDeleteAre you insane? You say I advocated that book? Did my professor in college who assigned Mein Kempf and The Prince and the writings of Chairman Mao advocate those books? Not one of those books above puts forth views with which I agree. Same with the other book. If I ran the world, I would run it totally the opposite of any of those four books.
In a previous thread, eyes wide open said...
(bold is my emphasis)
I really believe nothing would be more important and instructive to any citizen of the United States who is moral and cares about individual liberty than to read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
This brilliant, diabolical, evil, but horrifyingly true dissertation has been able to be entirely marginalized by ascribing its authorship to a certain sect of Zionest Jews, then fanning a world wide outcry against it by "proving" it was written by some lunatic Russian mystic.
I suggest to anyone who thinks I am purposefully ignoring the nuanced and carefully thought out context in which you drop this "history assignment", to read your original post and subsequent conversation between us in this thread. It was my preference and intention that this discussion die in the same thread it was born in, but there have been two exceptions.
1) When I first confronted "eyes wide open" with the fact that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was considered anti-semitic, they decided that the prudent choice would be to just ignore me. I made two very short posts suggesting it probably wasn't going to work that way.
2) Today's pathetic, desperate, last ditch attempt by "eyes wide open" to accomplish something(?) by dragging this conversation into the main thread.
I am confident that the record speaks for itself and that I have thrown enough wrenches into your plan, intentional or not. You may now resume posting links. I am done with this.
Yeah, Islamofascism is just a buggaboo. 9/11 never happened or has been severely overstated. Do you have any idea what you are saying? Yes, speech is free and soap-boxers in the park, street preachers and blog commenters are free to be as idiotic as they wish. You do not have to have an alternative. Or even support an alternative that you really don’t understand. You can just bitch. Bitching about what is wrong and that which seems not be working is your political right. Bought and paid for by those who hang in there against the bitchers and whiners who have no better ideas.
ReplyDeleteEWO wonders why I am here. I am here to learn. Reading blogs that agree with me and circle-jerking with commenters who already agree with me will provide a minimum of learning. The learning potential in interacting with those on the left is great, if difficult to effect. As I believe that I have learned something, I repeat it back to test that learning. That is why I say you are in denial. Your (lack of) responses have proven my learning on that issue to be correct.
lastnamechosen: Last post of this, since you insist on distorting. I said repeatedly that I didn't think the book was written by or about those to whom it was first alleged to be either by or about.
ReplyDeleteA THESIS in a book can be true or untrue(i.e. for a "Prince" to surround himself with a loyal "court" he can be certain can be trusted to have absolute personal loyalty to him as opposed to being open minded about ideas of governing) without it having to apply to any specific "Prince" or country or even Royal Family. It's a political thesis which could be true of any leader in any land, including Chavez, if he chose to follow that doctrine or Tony Blair.
The particular thesis cited about is, in my opinion, horrifyingly true about President George Bush as has been pointed out by just about every person addressing the subject whether Democrat or Republican. (See Miers, Harriet; Gonzales, A.)
If you cannot understand that simple point, I cannot explain it further. You are looking for a fight, and I am not interested in fighting with you.
Notherbob, what is one thing you have "learned" on this site that has changed an opinion of yours?
THE HUFFINGTON POST JULY 4,2106
ReplyDeleteLOOKING BACK IN HISTORY
In the early years of the 21st Century, the Former United States of America, led by the principle architects of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, Condaleeza Rice and Karl Rove, forumlated a plan to "globalize" and control the world by conducting wars which would enable them to conquer and then put in place "regime changes" in an increasing number of foreign nations.
The Republican Bush Administration intended to faciliate this plan to run the world by getting control of the Main Stream Media, working in concert with the corporatists who ran and profited from both the military/industrial war machine and the oil industry and replacing the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation.
Obviously the above is satirical science fiction and what is great about this country is that is that such non-sensical silliness could never happen here.
THE HUFFINGTON POST JULY 4,2106
ReplyDeleteLOOKING BACK IN HISTORY
In the early years of the 21st Century, the Former United States of America, led by the principle architects of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, Condaleeza Rice and Karl Rove, forumlated a plan to "globalize" and control the world by conducting wars which would enable them to conquer and then put in place "regime changes" in an increasing number of foreign nations.
The Republican Bush Administration intended to faciliate this plan to run the world by getting control of the Main Stream Media, working in concert with the corporatists who ran and profited from both the military/industrial war machine and the oil industry and replacing the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation.
Obviously the above is satirical science fiction and what is great about this country is that is that such non-sensical silliness could never happen here.
The Cold War was finally won when Reagan rejected containment and adopted a policy of regime change for the Soviet Union.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I missed that. Can you put up any links about our invasion of Russia or our bombing of their military installations?
What a slimy fellow Obama is, as befits a man symbolizing everything that will continue to be wrong with the Democratic Party for the next twenty years. Every time I look up he's doing something disgusting, like distancing himself from his fellow senator Dick Durbin for denouncing the torture center at Guantanamo, or cheerleading the nuke-Iran crowd.
ReplyDelete-Alexander Cockburn at Counterpunch
I like the idea of being "good Dave."
ReplyDeleteThanks, Hypatia.
:-)
From notherbob2 at 1:13AM:
ReplyDelete"Yeah, Islamofascism is just a buggaboo. 9/11 never happened or has been severely overstated. Do you have any idea what you are saying?"
Do you? Your comment above shows me how little you comprehend or understand of either Al Qaeda, its operations, or 9/11 itself. Your continued used of the non-term "Islamofascist", while catchy, shows me you are unwilling to either study the subject or understand the nature of the enemy.
"Yes, speech is free and soap-boxers in the park, street preachers and blog commenters are free to be as idiotic as they wish. You do not have to have an alternative. Or even support an alternative that you really don’t understand. You can just bitch."
As we see so very often here and elsewhere.
There are of course alternatives aplenty to be had for Iraq and other issues, some worse and some better. The comment threads here, some more directed or more pointed than others, allow us to express our frustrations and share opinions and perspectives.
If you're looking for alternative policy prescriptions, go to Daily Kos or the websites of the various Congressmembers and Senators who are actually addressing these issues.
"I am here to learn."
Presumably by the Socratic Method. If so, the lines of inquiry you pursue practically guarantee scorn in reply, sophmoric and ill-reasoned as they often prove.
"That is why I say you are in denial. Your (lack of) responses have proven my learning on that issue to be correct."
In other words, unless I agree with your perspective (which is frequently and effectively countered by either facts on the ground or simple common sense) or respond (which I do, with almost masochistic frequency) in a manner that satisfies your preconceptions, I am 'in denial'?
Sophmoric thinking like that barely deserves a response. If you wish to learn, engage the argument from the opponent's perspective and highlight its shortcomings. I have yet to see you do anything but recite popular talking points, although I grant you show an occasionally flash of comprehension here and there.
Keep trying.
From Bart at 11:43PM:
ReplyDelete"Appeasement under the alternative terms "containment" and "detente" only served to egg on the Soviets and brought us to the brink of nuclear armegeddon."
Spoken as a true conservative hawk, though conveniently overlooking the Soviets were just as anxious to minimize conflicts (both internal and external) so as to equally minimize the chance events might spiral out of their control and lead someone, somewhere to push a little red buttom.
"The Cold War was finally won when Reagan rejected containment and adopted a policy of regime change for the Soviet Union."
That's certainly one way of looking at it, again conveniently overlooking the contributions of Gorbechev's reforms, two generations worth of damage cause by centralized planning upon the USSR's economy, and three generations worth of careful diplomatic and cultural engagement and Raido Free Europe.
Saying it was purely President Reagan alone who brought the Cold War to an end is about is disingenuious as saying it was President Bush alone who brought an end to the Taliban in Afghanistan or brought complete and prosperity to Iraq.
"Appeasing North Korea only allowed them to gain nukes and work on ICBMs to target our cities."
I believe they were in full compliance with the original agreement the Clinton Administration negotiated, pulling out only when the Bush Administration proved less forthcoming and more beligerent.
Would they have reneged anyway? Now we'll never know, will we?
"Allowing a lunatic who openly speaks of wiping other countries off the map when he is not speaking of the ethnic cleansing of Israel to gain nukes will hardly make us or the world safer."
Neither does having someone of such questionable judgment and emotional/intellectual maturity as George W Bush as President of the United States, especially given The Bagman is still within constant calling distance from him and the US is maintaining a very, very large nuclear arsenal.
I agree the current regime in Tehran is every bit as jingoistic and beligerent as the bunch at Powerline or Little Green Footballs, and a nuclear-armed Tehran is a reason to be worried. Does it however constitute an *immediate* danger to either the US or Israel?
Sorry, not convinced. More evidence please.
Two important reports on Iran and nuclear weapons:
ReplyDeleteThe US Army War College, "GETTING READY FOR A NUCLEAR-READY IRAN" which suggests the following measures:
1. Clarify what is peaceful under the NPT.
2. Establish country-neutral rules for NPT violators.
3. Offer Russia a U.S. nuclear cooperative agreement.
4. Reduce the vulnerability of the Saudi oil production and
distribution system by building additional capacity.
5. Call on Iran to agree to a Montreux Convention to demilitarize
the Straits of Hormuz and an agreement to limit possible incidents
at sea.
6. Encourage Israel to initiate a Middle East nuclear restraint
effort that would help isolate Iran as a regional producer of fissile
materials.
7. Back these diplomatic-economic initiatives with increased
U.S.-allied anti-terrorist, defense, naval, and nuclear nonproliferation
cooperation.
Also see this article by Christopher Layne, in The American Conservative who, among other things, suggests that a nuclear Iran is something we can live with.
Well, judging by Cynic Librarian’s last post, the US Army War College (just like our military experts and members of the Joint Chief of Staff) is in denial, has forgotten 9/11 and is unwilling to confront the boogeyman “Islamo-fascism” – at least according to our trolls.
ReplyDeleteNow compared to our trolls, our military experts are a bunch of girlie-men who rely on sissified concepts like diplomacy and multi-lateral relations with other countries.
Our super-macho trolls rely on this concept “Islamo-fascism” which is useful for them because it equates fundamentalist Muslims with terrorism, making the threat from them much greater than it really is. There are lots of fundamentalist Muslims, but only a small percentage who is actively willing to resort to terrorism. The macho-hawks need a replacement for the cold war, so they need to manufacture a threat just as severe, although any Middle East expert will tell you that Al Qaeda is hardly the threat the Soviet Union posed – and to equate the two is laughable.
Now all of us “moonbats” here who think nuking Iran is an insane idea are accused of being in denial, and the proof of that is the lack of a specific plan. However, the War College plan, while specific relies on three ingredients that are anathema to our trolls who believe:
1. Diplomacy is useless. The link I provided earlier on this thread to a hawk, shows quite clearly that they do not believe that any sort of “diplomacy” is an option because the ignorant brown hordes in the middle east do not understand it and only understand brute force.
2. Multi-lateral are not possible either because the Euroweenies are unwilling to defend themselves, and that’s why the US must act alone. Heck, even Jack Straw said that the idea of nuking Iran is “insane” – what a wussie.
3. The bigger the force the better. Thus, we have to play the nuclear card, just to show those brown people that they must submit to our will and accept being subordinate to the US and Christianity.
4. All other options are useless. Military action is the only answer.
Once you accept these four core beliefs, you have no choice but to conclude that Bush’s nuking of Iran is “long overdue” as one hawk put it, and you also must believe that anyone that disagrees with this position is, by definition, in denial and a coward willing to submit to dhimmitude. It’s all so very clear isn’t it. A perfect black and white answer. No grays allowed in this ideology, you’re either “with us or against us.”
How very sad – and frightening.
EWO: I am sorry that I cannot post my comments (on the article you linked) elsewhere and link it. Readers who are not interested may simply skip my next comment (which will be those remarks) and that should provide the next best thing. If you are irrevocably committed to the liberal talking points on the Iran issue, you could skip my next comment for that reason as well. I don’t give any reasons to change your mind [I do snark about the propaganda-like nature of the article] The article under discussion is a statement of liberal talking points and some of the arguments behind them. I have read the same material in the statements of the two retired generals recently in the news. In fact, I was struck by the similarity in all three presentations. It was almost as if the same liberal consultant took otherwise straight articles and inserted standard liberal spin. By that I mean the manner of presentation, not just the content. Check this post out for a good discussion of the issue of consultants (and some heart-warming reminiscense of RFK):
ReplyDelete“Consultants are unavoidable, given the complexity of modern communications. But I have a vague hope that the most talented politicians now realize that the public has come to understand what market-tested language sounds like... the regurgitation of carefully massaged nostrums.”
Of course, it may just be the authors using the phraseology of those talking points and a mere coincidence. That would be like different right wingers using the phrase “God and Country” or “Freedom to Bear Arms”. I don’t think so, but....
Anyway, citing an article like this can get you around the charge of being in denial. Like the retired general who was identified as a Republican, the author is an historian and is publishing on a Conservative site. Just as if it was just another conservative citizen, speaking up. As if.
Instead of merely opposing Bush, a liberal can memorize the talking points contained in this article and have a pretty good spiel on why Bush in wrong on Iran. Of course, the article, being a political screed, shorts the arguments for the other side. Therefore, if they are brought up you will have no counters and will have to switch to ad hominem or whatever your coping skill is when too many facts are presented by the other side. We are still awaiting the article that gives a reasoned discussion of both sides.
April 10, 2006 Issue, Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative “Iran: The Logic of Deterrence”
ReplyDelete”Tehran’s quest for nuclear weapons is a rational response to a real threat, which makes diplomacy a more prudent option than regime change.”
A fair enough statement of the author’s position, which puts the author clearly athwart the Bush Administration on the issue of what to do about Iran. Good. An alternate plan.
“The main source of conflict—or at least the one that has grabbed the lion’s share of the headlines...”
Uh-oh, first sign of a screed. Using the media as a determinative of what key issues are is...at the least, not scholarly. Well, maybe it will be all right, we must begin somewhere.
In a real sense, however, Iran’s nuclear program and role in Iraq are merely the tip of the iceberg.
Well, OK, now we are going to get some real, deep-down historical analysis, beyond the sound bites of the news and the liberal talking points. Great start. Next comes some good historical analysis, all the way down to:
“The obvious question, then, is what has changed? The answer is to be found in George W. Bush’s grand strategy, the so-called Bush Doctrine.”
Wait a minute. There has been no mention [no mention!] of the Iran Hostage Crisis! Geebus, how can any historical summary of our relations with Iran totally fail to mention Jimmy Carter’s debacle? Maybe, for clarity, the author will be coming back to cover that and fit it into his position after a flow is established [or something].
”Here, administration officials betrayed a naïveté about international politics.”
Aha! The author disagrees with the Bush Doctrine. They are naive and he is sophisticated. OK. Let’s see his reasoning.
“...particularly President Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech—had the effect of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: it made U.S. relations worse than they already were and triggered a self-defensive reaction by Tehran.”
This not only sounds political, in the present-day sense, but it is backed up by nothing more than the statement itself. Hmmmmm. Let’s go on:
“Throwing nearly a half-century of American strategic doctrine out the window...”
That sounds more like political spin rather than a scholarly statement.
Although the administration’s strategy is logical on its own terms, the assumptions on which it is based are dubious.
Now we are getting down to it.
”To put it simply, although there is considerable strategic rationale for pre-empting terrorist threats, there is very little justification for attacking states pre-emptively or preventively.”
Well, there certainly is very little justification in this article. The Administration’s arguments have received very short shrift here.
“The very notion that undeterrable rogue states exist...”
I liked this section the best. Pointing out past history (Chine) where preemptive strikes could have been used, but weren’t, is very strong. However, the argument is one-sided. A preemptive strike, say when Hitler invaded Poland, would have been bad how? Wasn’t that an undeterrable rouge state? And what about China’s actions in the Korean War? With the casualties, etc.? Well, it is a short article and some things must be left out.
”Insofar as Iraq was ... threatened by regime change by the most powerful country in the world, Saddam Hussein’s desire to develop nuclear weapons may be seen as understandable.”
Hmmmm. America as the cause of the problem again. I detect a liberal bias here.
”Once China became a nuclear power, however, where nuclear weapons were concerned both its rhetoric and its policy quickly became circumspect.” ...”The U.S. experience with China illustrates an important point: the reasons states acquire nuclear weapons are primarily to gain security and, secondarily, to enhance their prestige.”
The logical extension of this reasoning is that all we need do is give all countries nuclear weapons. Then they all can feel secure and have prestige and we can all sing Kumbaya in the U.N. and we won’t have any nasty wars and stuff. And remember, all Hitler wanted in re-arming was security and prestige. A historian doesn’t see this as relevant? The article goes rapidly downhill from there, repeating liberal talking points:
“... the near-hysterical rhetoric of the Bush administration... . Even if one believed the administration’s hype...
Playing the Lone Ranger... this is a notoriously cloistered administration... President Bush remains at the apex of this decision-making process, imprisoned in his intellectual bubble and impervious to facts that create cognitive dissonance... impose America’s will on its enemies...
”The U.S. ultimately cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
There is certainly much room for argument on this statement! Not much is offered.
”On the other hand, the risks to the United States are higher than any benefit that might be gained ... Because of its links to the Iraqi Shi’ites, Iran has the capability to intervene in Iraq and put U.S. forces and the entire American project there in serious jeopardy. Tehran can also use its ties to Hezbollah and Hamas to create instability throughout the region. And the Iranians have the capacity to create a good deal of trouble for the U.S. in Afghanistan as well.”
They are not doing that now? I don’t think that this is “on the other hand”. It is on the same hand, supporting the need to do something. It also is another iteration that America is the cause of the problem. Finally, the author summarizes:
”the best policies for the U.S. with respect to Iran are the tried and true ones: containment, deterrence, and diplomatic engagement”
Well, hey, that worked for Jimmy Carter in dealing with Iran, didn’t it? China in Korea? Oh, never mind, we left that out, remember?
Juan Cole on trolling for war in Iran:
ReplyDeleteThe Bush administration has arbitrarily taken the position that Iran may not have a nuclear research program at all, even a civilian one. This stance actually contradicts the guarantees of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Washington officials continually intimate to the press that Tehran has an active weapons program, but it is speculation.
And, of course, the United States itself is egregiously in violation of several articles of the NPT, keeping enough nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert to destroy the world several times over and actively pursuing new and deadly weapons, even dreaming of "tactical" nukes. Its ally in the region, Israel, never signed the NPT and was helped by the British to get a bomb in the 1960s.
Helena Cobban--who once worked at the Strategic Studies Institute--on the recent Sy Hersh article:
ReplyDeleteI still have some unanswered questions about the extent and goals of the Iranian nuclear program. I'm sure a lot of people do. I don't think that Amb. Javad Zarif answered them all in his recent op-ed on the topic in the NYT. But luckily, a team of IAEA inspectors have just arrived in Teheran to start one of their scheduled inspections there. And IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei will going there sometime next week for high-level talks.
That, surely, is the way to have the world's questions answered. Meanwhile, I think we should take all the nonviolent actions we can possibly think of to halt in their tracks the activities of all the war-mongering Americans identified so clearly in Hersh's article. Truly, those people must have warped, distorted, and deeply hurting spirits.
Wow -- can't believe you said you have real empathy for Padilla now. You're not in prison and can never have any real idea of what he has gone through. I have always respected your writing but this was completely out of character for you.
ReplyDeleteEyes Wide Open said...
ReplyDeleteThe Cold War was finally won when Reagan rejected containment and adopted a policy of regime change for the Soviet Union.
Sorry, I missed that. Can you put up any links about our invasion of Russia or our bombing of their military installations?
You are avoiding the point. You obviously do not have to invade a country to intend to compel and to achieve regime change.
Every single one of Reagan's speeches on the subject attacked the legitimacy of the Communist government.
When he assumed office, Reagan implemented a secret program to gut the Soviet economy and force the retreat of its over extended military through the use of insurgencies against Soviet satellite states.
I would recommend the book Reagan's War by Peter Schweizer for a good outline of Reagan's intent and his programs.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 11:43PM: "Appeasement under the alternative terms "containment" and "detente" only served to egg on the Soviets and brought us to the brink of nuclear armegeddon."
Spoken as a true conservative hawk, though conveniently overlooking the Soviets were just as anxious to minimize conflicts (both internal and external) so as to equally minimize the chance events might spiral out of their control and lead someone, somewhere to push a little red buttom.
Given the expansion of the Soviet military and its sponsorship of wars to create an expanding array of Soviet client states around the world during the period of containement, exactly how were the Soviets "anxious to minimize conflicts?"
Bart: "The Cold War was finally won when Reagan rejected containment and adopted a policy of regime change for the Soviet Union."
That's certainly one way of looking at it, again conveniently overlooking the contributions of Gorbechev's reforms, two generations worth of damage cause by centralized planning upon the USSR's economy, and three generations worth of careful diplomatic and cultural engagement and Raido Free Europe.
You cannot avoid these facts:
Under "containment," the military expansion and reach of the USSR continued unabated.
The USSR did not collapse until the US went on the offensive with the goal of destroying the economy and overextend the military of the USSR.
Gorby's "reforms" were simply a desperate and failed attempt to reform an unreformable system.
Saying it was purely President Reagan alone who brought the Cold War to an end is about is disingenuious as saying it was President Bush alone who brought an end to the Taliban in Afghanistan or brought complete and prosperity to Iraq.
Putting aside the very valued help of the Brits and several other countries, the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq would not have happened without Bush. There is no evidence whatsoever that algore or Kerry would have done the same. Indeed, their non campaign speeches after they lost their elections show that they are both firmly within the Dem anti-war group.
"Appeasing North Korea only allowed them to gain nukes and work on ICBMs to target our cities."
I believe they were in full compliance with the original agreement the Clinton Administration negotiated, pulling out only when the Bush Administration proved less forthcoming and more beligerent.
And upon what facts do you base this "belief?" The NK were supposedly a few years away from a nuke when we attempted to pay them off in the early 90s. That means they never stopped working on their nukes if they all the sudden had a half dozen during the beginning of the Bush Administration.
Would they have reneged anyway? Now we'll never know, will we?
I truly hope NK is lying about having nukes. I would much rather eat a big plate of steaming crow about Clinton's role in NK gaining nukes than to have an actual nuclear NK with a whackjob who thinks slasher movies are high art in control of the button.
Bart: "Allowing a lunatic who openly speaks of wiping other countries off the map when he is not speaking of the ethnic cleansing of Israel to gain nukes will hardly make us or the world safer."
Neither does having someone of such questionable judgment and emotional/intellectual maturity as George W Bush as President of the United States...
As soon as I hear a plan by the Dems to actually stop Iran from getting nukes, then I might treat your criticism of Mr. Bush's plans as something more than partisan sniping.
I agree the current regime in Tehran is every bit as jingoistic and beligerent as the bunch at Powerline or Little Green Footballs, and a nuclear-armed Tehran is a reason to be worried. Does it however constitute an *immediate* danger to either the US or Israel? Sorry, not convinced. More evidence please.
When a criminal gang with a long reputation for murder is represented by a terrorist who kidnapped our citizens during the Carter Error, who now boasts about wiping countries off the face of the Earth and who in reaction to a weak UN scolding starts running military exercises, exactly what more evidence do you need of that criminal gang's intent if it gains nuclear weapons?
If a man I know has killed people in the past says he is going to buy a gun and kill me, I am not waiting around for actual evidence before taking action. Either the police (UN) or I am going to take care of that problem by any means necessary.
Why isn't A.L. writing an expose that our latest secret prison isn't in Cuba, but Rio?
ReplyDeleteAnd "Rio" means "river", which implies water, which means Glenn's probably being waterboarded by his editors until he has confessed to intentionally using the passive voice.
Damn their cruelty!
From Bart at 1:39PM:
ReplyDelete"When he assumed office, Reagan implemented a secret program to gut the Soviet economy and force the retreat of its over extended military through the use of insurgencies against Soviet satellite states."
Another translation of events: the United States engaged the USSR in a game of 'nuclear chicken' while formenting revolutions and bankrolling paramilitary militias in central Asia, Latin America, and Africa. In the process of which they managed to turn the US from the world's greatest creditor to the world's largest debtor, destabilize more than a few otherwise stable (if somewhat unfriendly) governments that led to more than a few modern atrocities as those same paramilitaries attacked civilians as often as the 'Marxist' governments they were supposedly opposed to.
Just about the only thing we have to show for this is a barely-functioning autocratic Russia, a surplus of otherwise-useless nuclear weapons, and whole regions of the world that are still unstable and veritable breeding grounds for terrorists and other criminal enterprises.
Oh, and Usama Bin-Laden and his ilk. Mustn't forget them.
From Bart 2:01PM:
ReplyDelete"You cannot avoid these facts:"
I grant each point as an interpretation of events. Grant me the same by at least acknowledging there was a great deal more to it (some of which I mention here) than Reagan's recklessness.
"Given the expansion of the Soviet military and its sponsorship of wars to create an expanding array of Soviet client states around the world during the period of containement, exactly how were the Soviets "anxious to minimize conflicts?"
I should have specified: the USSR was always anxious to minimize *direct* conflict with the US and NATO. Yes, they were busy trying (not always succeeding) to set up client states so to stake out solid zones of influence; so too was the US and our own allies.
However, when these proxy moves threatened the interests or clients more directly (say during the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Yom Kippur War), the Soviets and US were always comparatively quick to talk things out and allow each other to step back without undue loss of diplomatic face.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan threatened no vital US interests any more than the 20+ year US intervention in Vietnam did the Soviet's, and so the US limited its response by bankrolling and supporting the Afghan mujahadin.
Realpolitik and all.
"As soon as I hear a plan by the Dems to actually stop Iran from getting nukes, then I might treat your criticism of Mr. Bush's plans as something more than partisan sniping."
The reality, simple and unavoidable, is that there likely is no way to stop this from happening short of completely destroying Iran via nuclear bombing every square inch of the country.
This option appears to appeal to the fantasists presently in the White House, of course, but then look who we're talking about and their track record to date.
"When a criminal gang with a long reputation for murder is represented by a terrorist who kidnapped our citizens during the Carter Error,"
Given the hostages were ultimately returned to the US alive, *without* us having to invade the country (Operation Desert Claw being an overly-complicated mess from start to finish), I'd say President Carter did a remarkably competent job of defusing the situation.
That said, has the current regime in Iran actually engaged in any cross-border invasions or done more than run its mouth? Talk like that inflames passions, yes, as it does on our side. But is Tehran realistically in a position, militarily or politically, to attack with the US or Israel?
Again, more evidence than just rhetoric if you please. I remind you I've said a nuclear-armed Iran is indeed something we should worry over, but not so much so we have to reduce another country to rubble.
From Bart at 2:01PM:
ReplyDelete"And upon what facts do you base this "belief?"
The fact there are presently no accounts that North Korea reneged on their end prior to 2000. Could I be wrong? Certainly.
"The NK were supposedly a few years away from a nuke when we attempted to pay them off in the early 90s. That means they never stopped working on their nukes if they all the sudden had a half dozen during the beginning of the Bush Administration."
If I recall correctly, civilian nuclear research was still allowed under the agreed-upon framework. This of course is the great difficulty with this kind of research: how easy it is to weaponize it.
The first successful experiments in nuclear fission were carried out in the laboratories of the Kaiser Wilheim Institute for Chemistry in Germany in 1938 and the first uncontroled nuclear fission chain reaction successfully created in labs on the University of Chicago campus in 1942; neither were attached to the Manhattan Project.
Keep in mind we also have no actual evidence that North Korea has completed even one nuclear weapon of any design (whether using plutonium or uranium; the two materials require different designs). May I suggest taking a breath and recalling which side has *more* functioning nuclear weapons before screaming in panic?
From Bart at 2:01PM:
ReplyDelete"There is no evidence whatsoever that algore or Kerry would have done the same. Indeed, their non campaign speeches after they lost their elections show that they are both firmly within the Dem anti-war group."
True, but irrelevant. It is President Bush who is in office now and who made the decision to go into both countries, it is his Administration that has consistently and unforgivably bungled both at every turn, and it is his decisions and that of his Administration that leave us in greater danger than before.
Quite the accomplishment.
Bart, never was an attempt to debunk an argument made by someone else so illogically handled as by you in your discussion of "Iran: The Logic of Deterrence."
ReplyDeleteLogic isn't your strong suit apparently. That could explain things.
ender said...
ReplyDelete"It could be a matter of not realizing your own choice of words I suppose but it appears, from your response to my comments, that you do indeed consider yourself to be able to empathize (rather than simply sympathize) with Padilla."
re: sympathy/empathy
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -Inigo Montoya
You've got the whole empathy vs. sympathy thing about 180 degrees ass-backwards there, sporto.