Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds responded yesterday to my post regarding the increasingly common tactic of the mainstream Right of accusing particular individuals of treason and then publishing their home address along with the accusations. Several mainstream right-wing blogs, including David Horowitz's and StopTheACLU.com, have begun advocating the publication of the home addresses of private individuals whom they accuse of various sins. And as I noted yesterday, Reynolds minimized and implicitly defended this practice in a post by claiming that it is no different than a whole slew of garden-variety privacy invasions, and even equated it to what the NYT did in publishing its Travel Section story featuring the vacation homes of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Furthering his justifications for publishing the home addresses of the Enemy de jour, Reynolds added an Update to his original post and said this:
As usual, Glenn Greenwald is clueless . . . . why is your publishing of my email different, exactly, from the "thuggish" tactics you condemn? Grow up.
Reynolds is referring here to two posts I have written in the past regarding blatant falsehoods or hypocricies contained in posts of his which he refused to address, and I therefore encouraged readers to e-mail him asking him to respond. The reason I know his e-mail address is because he publishes it prominently on his blog. The last time I did this was to point out that Reynolds' post on the Virginia Democratic Senate primary contained multiple factual errors, and by encouraging readers to e-mail him, he was finally forced to respond, and did so by retracting two separate false statements he made in his posts.
Reynolds' "point" here is that what I "did to him" in including his e-mail address in my post is no different than what Horowitz and StopTheACLU did in publishing, respectively, the home addresses and telephone numbers of the NYT photographer and the plaintiff-family in the Delaware lawsuit. Listing someone's email address and their home address are, argues Reynolds, indistinguishable and equally "thuggish." Is it really possible that Reynolds is incapable of seeing why this argument is nothing short of laughable? Is there really anyone incapable of understanding the profound difference between these two acts without having it explained to them?
Reynolds lists his own e-mail address on his blog. But he doesn't list his home address. Why might that be? Perhaps if he asks himself that question, he will be able to see the distinction, one that is glaringly visible to any rational person, between publishing someone's email address and publishing their home address. If he really believes that there is no difference between the two, then he ought to publish his home address on his blog right under his e-mail address, just to really drive the point home that they are the same.
What is going on here is transparently clear. Reynolds long ago used to emphasize the libertarian aspects of his belief system, by, for instance, writing for Reason Magazine. But this weekend, he attacked Reason's Dave Weigel for criticizing publication of the home address of the NYT photographer so that Reynolds could justify and defend the actions of Michelle Malkin, David Horowitz and Rocco DiPippo with regard to the Travel Section murder plot. That is a clear reflection of what Reynolds is -- he has long ago dispensed with his libertarianism beyond the most cursory and decorative uses, and he has no meaningful differences with the most extreme elements of the Republican Malkin/Coulter right wing.
Reynolds' transformation is illustrative of a broader and much more significant dynamic. There are no more vibrant libertarian components left of the Bush movement. Libertarians (in the small "l" sense of that word) have either abandoned the Bush-led Republicans based on the recognition -- catalyzed by the Schiavo travesty -- that there are no movements more antithetical to a restrained government than an unchecked Republican Party in its current composition. Or, like Reynolds, they have relinquished their libertarian impulses and beliefs completely as the price for being embraced as a full-fledged, unfailingly loyal member of the Bush-led Republican Party.
Despite the bespectacled professorial costumes of respectability and moderation, Reynolds ceased being different than the Michelle Malkins and David Horowitzs of the world some time ago. That is the camp he has chosen, and any residual doubts about that ought to be resolved by the fact that he will always find ways to defend them even when it comes to blatant garbage like the treason accusations against the NYT and the subsequent, home-address-publishing right-wing lynch mobs which they foreseeably inspired.
The current Republican Party has become the party of the Michelle Malkins, Ann Coulters, James Dobsons, and David Horowitzs -- people who scorn libertarian principles and could not be any more hostile to them. Arguably, there are few conflicts more critical to national electoral battles than this one. As Cato Institute's Brink Lindsey recently observed: "libertarians are in the center of the American political debate as it is currently framed." But nothing has undermined libertarian principles more than Republican rule of the last five years.
For this reason, intellectually honest believers in liberty and restrained government have chosen to abandon the Republican Party because it is devoted to an endlessly intrusive, unrestrained and even lawless government, precepts which could not be any more antithetical to core libertarian principles. But there is a sizeable group of individuals, empitomized by Reynolds, who claimed adherence to libertarianism but who have now fully embraced the most extremist elements of the Bush movement and the Republican Party. In doing so, they have rendered their claimed libertarianism nothing but a hollow symbol, to be trotted out -- when at all -- purely as a manipulative instrument to maintain an image of rationality and moderation ("Extremist? Me? I'm for gay marriage").
That is the choice which national political figures with some degree of libertarian impulses, such as John McCain and Rudy Guiliani, are confronting. With Reynolds -- again and again -- invoking the most frivolous rationale imaginable in order to side with the most crazed schemes of Malkin, StopTheACLU and Horowitz (what's the difference, he bewilderingly asks, between publishing someone's e-mail address and their home address?), it's long past time to stop pretending that he is anything other than one of them.
UPDATE: I will be on the Alan Colmes Show tonight at 10:15 p.m. EST (
Before that, I will be on Air America's Majority Report at 9:30 p.m. EST to discuss How Would a Patriot Act? and recent issues relating to executive power abuses.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI predict that someday soon some families will start hiring "deprogramming" experts like they used to do for victins Moonies and Hare Krishna cultusts. The new cult is Bush-Republicanism. Is there any other way of dealing with people under the spell?
ReplyDeletethey're all "players", ask George Tenet how that's done. At the end of the day you get a medal, and an invitation.side comment: a friend recently returned from a short visit to Maine and Kennebunkport, she was showing me the postcards of the town, her hotel, street scenes, that kind of stuff and she also had one of the "Bush Family Summer Home" in all its resplendent beauty, architecture, views of the water, landscaped yard...all of it...without the mailbox that is...no foul.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteDelete that, or Glenn, please intervene. I will email glenn for speedier deletion and banning of whoever did that.
Delete that, or Glenn, please intervene. I will email glenn for speedier deletion and banning of whoever did that.
ReplyDeleteI already deleted it, as soon as I saw it. For the record, it was what appeared to be someone's home address in Tennessee.
In fairness, Glenn, your links to Instapundit in your previous post do not even come close to your contention that Glenn Reynolds is a supporter of Stop the ACLU.
What I said was that he frequently cites them as a news source, and those linked posts demonstrate exactly that. Additionally, he is minimizing, and thereby implicitly defending, their publication of the home address of the Delaware faimly (it's no different, he says, than what the NYT did in its travel section article, or what I did in including his e-mail address in a post).
Those are the statements I made about Reynolds vis-a-vis StopTheACLU, and the posts to which I linked support those contentions completely.
To kellj -
ReplyDeleteI personally took this post to mean Reynolds and Stop the ACLU group were simply operating on the same (abysmally low) moral plane, not that Reynolds was an actual supporter of the group or its agenda.
I'm open to correction on this point.
Re: Libertarians and Republicans.
ReplyDeleteI think these differences were apparent by 2004. It a shame that so many libertarians still hadn't clued in to what this administration was really about then. They might have made the difference.
Not like the PATRIOT act is a testament to limited government authority, and presiding over a huge expansion of the federal government in the Department of Homeland Security wouldn't exactly sit well with libertarians.
Kellyj,
ReplyDeleteReynolds reminds me of Bush in 2004. He never made any of the Swiftboat claims, but nor did he repudiate them in any fashion. That was a tacit endorsement of them. In fact, he constantly tied them to all 527s as if Moveon.org is equivalent to SBVFT.
Reynolds has set himself up as a blogger/pundit who critiques the political scene, comments on big events etc. A Jewish Family being driven from their home because they protested being preached to in public schools has become a news item. Has Reynolds expressed regret the family had to move? No. Chastised those that forced them to move? No. He doesn't have to agree with their lawsuit, but if he has any moral integrity he can say "let them have their day in court, as is any American's right" and he won't.
His silence speaks volumes.
Excellent points again. You know, I call people like Reynolds "baby Republicans". Here in Oregon one major Libertarian converted over to the Republican Party. I was not surprised.
ReplyDeleteOne problem with Libertarians is they are also victims of culture war propaganda. They cannot make common cause with liberals on the Bush administration's extreme anti-libertarian principles because, well you know, liberals are bad people. They hate liberals more then they love their belief system, and are willing to run to the enemies of the liberals, which Reynolds has done.
By the way, as sort of a field guide to right wingers labeling themselves as Libertarians, you can always flush one out of the brush as they obsessively focus on taxes as the be all, and end all of Libertarianism. Destroy the Bill of Rights, destroy the separation of powers?? Naw,the government is stealing my money.
Pathetic on Reynolds part....
ReplyDeleteClassic "Chewbacca Defense"
Isn't it about time someone started looking into how much time Perfesser Ernest T. Bass spends on his money-making blog during his supposed "work" hours? Not to mention his use of taxpayer-funded resources to advance his partisan political "pundit" career? Or is he only posting during his "coffee breaks"?
ReplyDeleteAs a longtime reader of both Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com I have long been aware that real libertarians have been looking on in horror as the current Republican administration has made a mockery of their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe question remains, what is a genuine small-government Conservative to do under these circumstances?
Reynolds lists his own e-mail address on his blog. But he doesn't list his home address. Why might that be? Perhaps if he asks himself that question, he will be able to see the distinction, one that is glaringly visible to any rational person, between publishing someone's email address and publishing their home address
ReplyDeleteThen again, if these people asked themselves why they are posting the home address of a reporter in response to the posting of a PHOTO of a house, then they'd have to look
at the ugly truth of what they are.
Advocates of orthodoxy and authoritarianism are quick to take advantage of liberty and enlightenment principles when they work to their advantage, and quick to discard them when they don't. They certainly do not cherish liberty to the extent of tolerating opposing views. This is not an abandonment of values, because they never held those values. They just cynically coopted the language because it worked for them for a while.
ReplyDeleteAs grindingly frustrating as it is to see you embroil yourself in the netherworld that Instapundit inhabits, I thank you for it. Best to recognize the potential for more and more damage if not outright destruction and check it, as you do, before it goes unchallenged. This is dirty work and I'm not always hopeful that it will be successful, but Glenn your work provides a good role model.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that the clocks continue to run for the next two years with Bush as leader of the Republican party, a party that is increasingly synonomous with the Bush persona as it eats up all of its libertarian and other rhetorical and philosophical roots, who will be able to substitute their persona for Bush's. Or, will they have to repeal the XXII amendment to continue the party? I see no sufficiently "manly" replacement currently on the horizon.
ReplyDeletedread scot...most excellent comment...
ReplyDeleteI'm so sick of fake libertarians with hard-ons for big government and fake Christians who love war and torture.
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with Reynolds that he can't see how inconsistent and partisan his positions are?
Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com
I also read these sites, pretty much daily.
More fallout from the rampant "law breaking" by the Bush Administration violating al Qaeda civil liberties...
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the FBI busted an al Qaeda plot to blow up the Holland Tunnel in NYC which Zarqawi had pledged to finance.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/v-pfriendly/
story/433227p-364959c.html
This story begs the question of whether we identified this plot through the NSA telecommunications surveillance program and/or the Swift program and whether Zarqawi or the other plotters knew about these program before the NYT disclosed them.
Somehow, I doubt the NYT will do any digging to find this out.
Kellyj writes: do you think Glenn Reynolds is so opposed to the ACLU or in support of STACLU? He is pro-gay and pro-choice, and I would consider him strong on the 1st Amendment (results may differ)? Because, otherwise your attempt to lump him in with them seems disingenuous at best.
ReplyDeleteDisingenuous? Well this libertarian sees nothing but tepid, empty rhetoric from the ostensibly libertarian Prof. Reynolds. He often approvingly links to the authoritarian, Bush-supporting right, such as Powerline, Malkin, NRO and yes, StoptheACLU. Oh, he mutters about gay rights and being pro-choice, but there seems to be no GOP-led attack on those beliefs, or on the Constitution and the rule of law, which would induce Reynolds to renounce the populist, Bush/Frist GOP as unfit to hold office.
In other words, his unflagging support of neocon foreign policy, as implemented by Bush et al., has clearly caused Reynolds to subordinate all the libertarian values trashed by the modern GOP. He even attacks bloggers like David Weigel at Reason, for Weigel's objecting to the most gross excesses of the Bush-supporting right.
Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds has clearly chosen Bushism on the one hand over, on the other, libertarianism and his former affiliation with mainstream libertarianism as exemplified by the Reason crowd (a cohort in which I count myself). That’s been obvious for some time now.
This story begs the question of whether we identified this plot through the NSA telecommunications surveillance program and/or the Swift program and whether Zarqawi or the other plotters knew about these program before the NYT disclosed them.
ReplyDeleteUh, no it doesn't. What difference does it make? As you state, the FBI busted them. So, obviously, the NYT story had no effect one way or the other.
mr. ziffel said...
ReplyDeleteBart: This story begs the question of whether we identified this plot through the NSA telecommunications surveillance program and/or the Swift program and whether Zarqawi or the other plotters knew about these program before the NYT disclosed them.
Uh, no it doesn't. What difference does it make?
Ask the people who would have been driving in the Holland Tunnel when the bomb went off. Could have been Glenn...
As you state, the FBI busted them. So, obviously, the NYT story had no effect one way or the other.
Huh?
The NSA doesn't capture terrorists, they identify them for the CIA, FBI and the military to capture.
Thus, my question of whether the NSA identified this terror cell for the FBI.
I think Glenn reynolds can remain a libertarian if freedom from local intimidation and thuggery does not count as one of those vital human freedoms.
ReplyDeleteThus, my question of whether the NSA identified this terror cell for the FBI.
ReplyDeleteMoron, the NSA is empowered to eavesdrop on terrorist without breaking the law. They just get a warrant to do it.
Stop lying by claiming that the Bush administration has to violate FISA in order to eavesdrop, as though FISA prohibts eavesdropping on terrorists.
Doesnt the fact that you rely on outright lies show how stupid your arguments are?
From bart at 1:43pm:
ReplyDelete"Thus, my question of whether the NSA identified this terror cell for the FBI."
Go ask them, for gods sake. What the hell does this have to do with the topic under discussion?
This story begs the question of whether we identified this plot through the NSA telecommunications surveillance program and/or the Swift program and whether Zarqawi or the other plotters knew about these program before the NYT disclosed them.
ReplyDeleteno it doesn't. according to CNN, the plot was discovered in "internet chat rooms"
It looks like they uncovered it with old fashioned sleuthing, by playing around in the chat rooms, not NSA spying.
ReplyDelete"with regard to the Travel Section murder plot."
ReplyDeletehow about 'with regard to Travel-Section-murder-plot-gate?'
Ron said...
ReplyDeleteBart: Thus, my question of whether the NSA identified this terror cell for the FBI.
Moron, the NSA is empowered to eavesdrop on terrorist without breaking the law. They just get a warrant to do it.
I am not regurgitating again why FISA does not apply to the NSA Program under its own language and as a matter of constitutional law.
However, presuming that the NSA program did identify the al Qaeda cell ready to attack NYC, what makes you think NSA had the probable cause to surveil the terrorists if FISA applied?
Bart wrote:
ReplyDeleteThis story begs the question of whether we identified this plot through the NSA telecommunications surveillance program and/or the Swift program and whether Zarqawi or the other plotters knew about these program before the NYT disclosed them.
Your own linked story says:
This story begs the question of whether we identified this plot through the NSA telecommunications surveillance program and/or the Swift program and whether Zarqawi or the other plotters knew about these program before the NYT disclosed them.
So I guess not. Better luck next time.
Bart:
ReplyDelete(1) An official has stated that the FBI was monitoring internet chatrooms and stumbled onto this (quick, string up this leaking, treasonous bastard). (2) The case has been under investigation for about a year, and they had no specific target planned (funny, it just happens to get published now - when are you righties going to start clamoring for this leaking traitors head?). (3) THE INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING (leaking traitor has endangered the investigation, off with his head!). (4) Counterterrorism officials have stated that the plot wouldn't have worked due to the fact that the financial distrcit (what they were supposedly targeting) is above the level of the Hudson (is this going to be like the plot to blown up the Brooklyn Bridge......with a friggin blowtorch??). (5) The NY Daily News published this seditious information that gives aid and comfort to the enemy before anyone else did (string 'em up). (6) After a year, this was still in the 'aspirational', rather than the operational phase. (7) The FBI itself states that there was NO IMMINENT THREAT from this. (8)From the report "Another U.S. official called the plot "largely aspirational" and described the Internet conversations as mostly extremists discussing and conceptualizing the plot. The official said no money had been transferred, nor had other similar operational steps been taken.". Translation, this had nothing to do with SWIFT (really, how do they think combing through 6 trillion dollars per day worth of transactions is going to net anything anyway, given that the last 3 terrorist strike against US targets, including 9/11, only required about $600,000 total), not did it have anything to do with the NSA at all.
Next.
oops ... that second quote should read:
ReplyDeleteThe FBI discovered the plot by monitoring Internet chat rooms, where the aspiring terrorists discussed striking the U.S. economy, rather than causing mass casualties, a source said.
sorry 'bout that.
Let's get back on topic: Irreconcilable differences between libertarians and the Bush Persona Party
ReplyDeletebart said...
ReplyDeleteMore fallout from the rampant "law breaking" by the Bush Administration violating al Qaeda civil liberties...
Bart, you're oozing nonsense from your tentacles. Go back to your mothership.
Are you saying al Qaeda based a probably-months-if-not-years-long plot on an article that came out a month ago? You're a weird guy, Bart, but you need to come to the playground better prepared.
Fine. Keeping in mind the NY Post is up to its usual (sub)standards of reporting, this is either good news or no news whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteCan we please get back to the more interesting topic at hand?
cleek said...
ReplyDeleteBart: This story begs the question of whether we identified this plot through the NSA telecommunications surveillance program and/or the Swift program and whether Zarqawi or the other plotters knew about these program before the NYT disclosed them.
no it doesn't. according to CNN, the plot was discovered in "internet chat rooms"
Interesting.
The NSA Program reportedly surveils internet telecommunications. Did we surveil the chat room or did the enemy's communications with the chat room lead us to it?
Also, I doubt that Zarqawi made any pledges of money and support over an internet chat room. I wonder how they found out about that? Were any money transfers made. Did the Swift program find them?
Should be interesting to find out.
I'd like to know who these Libertarians are. I read Karen Kwiatkowski at LewRockell and hear a voice that is attuned to the nature of human suffering--the sympathy and love of others not herself, the fear and trembling for the victims of war machines and the soft machine's new fangled fascist/rube ideology.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I see little in the geek/libertarian or "Hayekian/I'm unlike everyone else because I can't be classified into one party" and those like Kwiatkowski.
The cynic librarian brings up a good point, although I'd ask if anyone can provide a clear, definitive definition of what constitutes a "libertarian" in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid the term has become so debased by close association with the current Republican machine I have difficulty distinguishing it as anything else.
yankeependragon said, "I'm afraid the term has become so debased by close association with the current Republican machine I have difficulty distinguishing it as anything else."
ReplyDeleteI think that the whole concept of "libertarian" and "Republican" has become so associated with agressive bravado that the terms have simply become merged into the perosona of Bush. My question is whether the entire movement will just fall apart if Bush retires. I do not see any replacement persona for him. If he leaves, how can the whole travesty continue its vitality?
>>This story begs the question of whether we identified this plot through the NSA telecommunications surveillance program
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone contests the theoretical point that we would all be safer from certain threats if we lived in a police state. Why don't we put surveillance cameras in everyone's homes so that the government can prevent further attacks? We would definitely stop more crime that way; that is an indisputable fact. (If you object to your home being bugged and wired, you must want al Qeada to win, right?)
I guess, though, if you want to live in a democracy (or a democratic republic like the US is/was), you would be reluctant to trade your liberty for some extra security. Why is that? Well, those with any knowledge of history realize that absolute power corrupts absolutely and that "loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger - real or pretended - from abroad."
So, Bart, this is a war of values -- American and Western values vs. the values of religious fanatacism and Islamo-facism. Did you notice the word "facism" in there? And what is facism? What are the hallmarks of facism? An unchecked executive, a contempt for the rule of law, torture, secrecy...in short, a police state.
George W. Bush once said that the terrorists hate our way of life, they "hate our freedoms," and that they want to change us, but that we shouldn't lose our values and our way of life in the face of this threat. I agreed with Bush when he said that. Unfortunately, he betrayed those words as so many of my fellow "conservatives" have over the past few years.
Patrick Henry:
ReplyDeleteWhy, oh why, do you hate America so much?
Libertarianism would only work if there were no terrorists. Perhaps Reynolds believes in removing the terrorists first before implementing libertarianism?
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mr. David Horowitz (da ho, for short) is suffering from liberal envy as one of his beloved professors has suggested?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAssuming that the clocks continue to run for the next two years with Bush as leader of the Republican party, a party that is increasingly synonomous with the Bush persona as it eats up all of its libertarian and other rhetorical and philosophical roots, who will be able to substitute their persona for Bush's. Or, will they have to repeal the XXII amendment to continue the party? I see no sufficiently "manly" replacement currently on the horizon.
1:28 PM
One word: JEB! And he can win, too. Easily.
Interesting analysis. The "true" libertarians must really be in a pickle.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I did see where the Lew Rockwell Brigade is gearing up to make nice with the anti-war Dems: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lea1.html
bart said...
ReplyDeleteI am not regurgitating again why FISA does not apply to the NSA Program under its own language and as a matter of constitutional law.
If you don't want to regurgitate, then why are you still talking?
Regarding the claim that the timing of the NYT Travel piece was sinister, coming as it did just days after the Bush administration began lambasting the NYT, these claims strike me as improbable. I am not a newspaper professional, but I have to imagine that a feature article like the one at issue was probably written well ahead of time and was probably completed and ready for publishing at least a week ahead of time.
ReplyDeleteLew Rockwell publishes Gary North. If North is a libertarian, so is Osama bin Laden.
ReplyDeleteThis is how Walter Olsen at Reason describes the “libertarianism” of Rockwell’s North. Quote:
So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."
Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." And he may be right about that last point, you know.
Reason is, well, reasonable, and its libertarian tent isn’t big enough for the theocratic likes of Christian Reconstructionist Gary North, who would also aim those stones at gay men. IOW, Reason libertarians are not crazies.
Libertarianism would only work if there were no terrorists.
ReplyDeleteThis makes no sense. What possible motivation could terrorists have for attacking a libertarian state? Such a state would not use coercion to get resources and treaties, and would not employ the usurious interest-bearing money that bin Laden has condemned us for (among other things, of course.)
Governments aren't that good at stopping terrorists. They have an economic incentive to allow at least a certain amount of terroristic activity to continue.
The "War on terror" is not a war on terror. It is a money-grab, involving the plainest sort of lies and murder.
Perhaps Mr. David Horowitz (da ho, for short) is suffering from liberal envy as one of his beloved professors has suggested?
Horowitz does not suffer from liberal envy. He is a big-state liberal, who uses the rhetoric of libertarians. He used to be a Marxist and Stalinist; it's no surprise that he loves the Stalin-alike Bush.
Most neocon followers don't know it, but the entire neocon movement grew directly out of the same philosophers that fomented Stalinism. "Neocon conservatism" bears as much resemblance to traditional conservatism as Stalinism bore to Marx's ideals (which is to say, none at all.)
The US is, after all, a place where people can grow up sincerely believing that, say, Clinton's health care proposal was equivalent to the Soviet gulag.
Now, the numbers and theories (flawed as they may be :)) do show that a free-market health care system would provide the optimum return on investment.
However, our current system is not free-market based at all, but rather relies on regulation and subsidy to prop up leeching conglomerates that provide no services whatsoever. Most libertarians think that such entities could not survive without the explicit and implicit subsidies they receive from the government.
Between taxes and monthly bills, I pay as much for health care as Canadians do and receive far worse coverage. My rational self-interest tells me that such a plan (if feasible) would benefit me more than the pseudo-free-market (actually nothing like) that we have now.
I don't want to get into a big debate about these OT issues, but that is what one libertarian guy thinks about some of these things.
hypatia: Lew also publishes articles critiquing the HIV/AIDS link and sometimes evolution. You have to use some discretion, as with any site.
Trying again to get those links to work: Rockwell publishing North.
ReplyDeleteWalter Olson on North..
Just my opinion, but you're seeming to border on a personal feud with Instadouchebag. I understand your reasons that these folks should be argued down rather than ignored, but your arguments are stronger when they seem less personal.
ReplyDeleteMax Ren wrote, "One word: JEB! And he can win, too. Easily."
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Max Ren. I may be wrong, but I think JEB carries too much bagage to carry the party. George will always haunt him because he is a beta dog submissive to his alpha dog brother. As long as GWB is around, JEB will always submit and that disqualifies him.
Has Bush exhausted his party much like Clinton did the democrats so that no one can step into his persona to continue the power of BushCo, or is the Bush-Persona-Party now unbeatable?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYes, YES!
ReplyDeleteIs this guy really a law professor, with students and everything?
ReplyDeleteWow.
FungiFromYuggoth - I deleted your comment due to its discussion of methods for obtaining his home address. I realize it wasn't done with malice but I'd rather not have that here.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to re-post the rest of your comment (I would have just edited that part out if Blogger allowed that).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletehypatia: Lew also publishes articles critiquing the HIV/AIDS link and sometimes evolution. You have to use some discretion, as with any site.
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism is also frequently used as a cover for racism as exemplified by the phrase "freedom of association" And of course, in some circles, Lincoln is held up as the preeminent example of a federal power grab.
The bottom line is that the alliance of free-market small government conservatives and religious-right authoritarians is a fragile one. I'm hoping some small-government types decide to vote Dem this year, if for no other reason than to dilute Federal power.
In a libertarian world the vigorous resistance to aggression might become very expensive, since weapons purchased from other countries would be subject to price gouging.
ReplyDeleteReynolds's refusal to simply come out of the Republican closet has become the most irritating thing about him, not unlike Fox News and its "fair and balanced" blather. 95% of the man's posts link approvingly to conservatives or denunciations of liberals, and 95% of his blogroll is conservative, and yet he gets offended if anyone calls him a conservative.
ReplyDeleteShow me a self-described "libertarian", and I'll show you a run of the mill Republican who likes drugs and casual sex, or sex and casual drugs.
Hey -- I thought that neocons and people like David Horowitz were former Trotskyites, not Stalinsts.
ReplyDeleteConservatives, libertarians, whoever, will put up with just about anything, to avoid a Gore or Kerry in the White House.
ReplyDeleteWrong. I have serious problems with Gore, Kerry, and other Dems.
Every single critique I have of them can be equally or better applied to the Bush administration.
I will vote for the lesser of two evils.
Show me a self-described "libertarian", and I'll show you a run of the mill Republican who likes drugs and casual sex, or sex and casual drugs.
Or, just barely possibly, someone who understands a little economics and wants the best for his country.
Bart wrote:
ReplyDeleteThis story begs the question of whether we identified this plot through the NSA telecommunications surveillance program...
This is an incorrect use of the phrase "to beg the question." This phrase does not mean "brings to mind a question which begs to be asked," as in:
Bart's commentary begs the question, "Is Bart thinking clearly?"
Rather, the correct usage of the phase "to beg the question" is to point out a form of tautological linguistic usage in which the conclusion of a statement is predicated upon its premise, as in:
We should trust President Bush to preserve our freedom because he is tapping our phones to catch the terrorists.
That begs the question.
I think the paranoia about the New York Times' travel piece is absurd; I condemn publishing home addresses & phone numbers, whether for political reasons or in retaliation for same. I find Malkin dogmatic and extreme, and stopped bothering to read Horowitz long ago.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I got the impression that Reynolds was equating publishing an email address with publishing an office phone number, although I could be mistaken. In Malkin's case, however, she did not publish private addresses, private phone numbers or private email addresses; she cited email addresses which had already been publicly posted as contacts by the young men in question and official business phone numbers, not private numbers. I do not endorse Malkin's politics, but several commenters seem to be confused on that point and/or unaware that Malkin herself (& family) have been the victims of the very sort of vicious assault being decried here.
Shooter242 said...
ReplyDeletephd9 says:
The question remains, what is a genuine small-government Conservative to do under these circumstances?
Wait for 2008
Actually one of the Anon's called it correctly. Conservatives, libertarians, whoever, will put up with just about anything, to avoid a Gore or Kerry in the White House.
Based on the principle that trolls say the opposite of the truth, here is a translation:
Conservatives, libertarians, whoever, will put up with just about anything, to avoid a Bush II in the White House.
In the testosterone-dominated world of chimpanzee f*cking, the alpha male has access to females, while other males (whose testerone plummets, according to blood samples, because of their inferior status) can only sit by and scream and hoot and wave their arms and hope to catch a female unaware somewhere hidden from the mainstream community for a Warholian three-seconds of "fame."
ReplyDeleteof course, this has nothing to do with Glenn Reynolds, but it's interesting to note that in an authoritarian system, all the little screamers don't really matter...they just serve as a chorus for those getting the goodies.
maybe that makes them think they matter...
Politics in a democracy is always about tradeoffs and alliances of convenience. Things are no different for libertarians. I am libertarian in most things apart from foreign policy and am a fair example of these tradeoffs.
ReplyDeleteA 100% libertarian has his or her own party. However, 100% libertarians have about the same market share as my beloved Macintosh computers. If you want to want to win elections, you have to join one of the two major parties.
An economic libertarian will almost always choose the current Elephants over the current Donkeys. Bush leaves a lot to be desired to an economic libertarian like me, but at least he cut taxes. The Donkey alternative on vivid display in Jersey is much worse.
A civil libertarian will generally feel more comfortable with the current Donkeys, although the leftist political correctness movement has made party choice much more of a tossup. I support things like drug decriminalization, but the Donkeys are too cowardly to stand with me here so I have no reason to override my economic libertarianism to support the Donkeys.
A foreign policy libertarian (otherwise known as an isolationist) would also feel more comfortable among the current Donkeys, unless he or she is a Buchananite. I am an internationalist and not close to libertarian in foreign policy. There is no reason for me to join the Donkeys here. The GOP is the only remaining internationalist party.
So, you can see why many of us libertarian leaners support the Elepants, even when we have to hold our noses sometimes.
When it comes to people claiming to have some libertarian impulses who are telling the Big Lie, Orin Kerr wrote the book.
ReplyDeleteHegemonic Tyrant Courts Doom
by Paul Craig Roberts
.....Gentle reader, consider what it means when our government believes other countries have no right to their own interests unless they coincide with U.S. interests. It means that we are the tyrant country. We cannot be the tyrant country without being perceived as the tyrant country. Consequently, the rest of the world unites against us.
How is the U.S., which has spent three years proving that it cannot successfully occupy Iraq, a small country of only 25 million people, going to control India, China, Russia, Europe, Africa, and South America?
It's not going to happen.
What it does mean is that the U.S. government in its hubris and delusion is going to continue starting wars and attacking other countries until a coalition of greater forces smashes us. Even among our European allies we are already perceived as the greatest threat to world peace and stability.
Our power is not what it once was. We are weak in manufacturing and dependent on China for advanced technology products. We are dependent on China to finance our wars and our budget and trade deficits. How long will China accommodate us when China reads about Bush's plans to prevent China from achieving military parity?
The Bush regime thinks that it can have every country under its thumb. Neocons are fond of proclaiming that it is a unipolar world in which the U.S. is supreme. This is a fantasy, and it is rapidly becoming a nightmare.
I am reminded of Samuel Johnson's great quip about second marriages being the triumph of hope over experience.
I think if any of the leading candidates for President, from either party, get elected in 2008, that would be the ultimate triumph of hope over experience.
For a definitive analysis of the situation in North Korea, and how present American foreign policy can make any foreign situation worse, read What Does North Korea Want?
To be left alone by Justin Raimondo.
This is a really astute analysis and a good history lesson for those not on top of all the ins and outs of our foreign policy over the years and a scathing attack on both the Republican and Democrat Parties' lunatic foreign policy positions.
....The Democrats, of course, can't afford to have this come up, because they're equally culpable when it comes to our Israel-centric foreign policy, and so – if they're "smart" – they'll just confine their arguments to proving how the "national security Democrats" can apply the policy of imperial preemption far more creatively and decisively than those Republican pikers.
The solution to the Korean "crisis" is to recognize that Pyongyang is not a threat to the U.S., or, really, to anyone. They are mostly a threat only to themselves. The regime is on its last legs: desperate for cash, they have commandeered trains used by the Chinese to send much-needed aid – and have refused all Chinese demands to return the trains forthwith! The last Stalinist regime on earth is not long for this world: the irony is that our war threats provide the regime with its only basis for popular support.....
Justin of course represents a true libertarian slant on things in contradistinction to both the Republican and Democratic party power elites and most of their followers.
bart: An economic libertarian will almost always choose the current Elephants over the current Donkeys. Bush leaves a lot to be desired to an economic libertarian like me, but at least he cut taxes. The Donkey alternative on vivid display in Jersey is much worse.
ReplyDeleteYou are completely wrong on this. The Republican-controlled congress and the Republican administration have saddled us with a record debt that smashes the old record by something like 8 or 9 times.
Bush cut taxes? What are you, stupid?
Deficit spending is a tax. Forcing the public to take on debt is a tax. It may be a deferred tax, but it must be paid.
There is no economic libertarian who supports Bush. This is a myth promulgated by Republican partisans.
Clinton's economic program, which I opposed at the time, is a more libertarian economic program than Bush's. That is a fact.
I see ya got the "memo" from kos -- good work agent greenwald.
ReplyDeleteThat faux "advertise liberally" circle of links is really great. If they can make the folks over at FDL "experts" for all of their misleading and wrong speculation about plamegate - just imagine what they can do for you.
Way to steal the heritage of a once proud liberal/progressive tradition while promoting yourself and the "gang". Kudos!
bart, thanks for trying to make sense and sticking to what you know. Others may point out that you are confused in your thought processes, but I could detect no self-serving lie in your last post.
ReplyDeleteThumbs up!
(Just trying to encourage civil behavior!)
Instapundit can be ignored. They lost a slew of users who broke off for Wizbang. The latter right-wing blog still allows people with differing views to post.
ReplyDeleteInstapundit banished other conservatives who were less extreme in their views on immigration.
PhD9 wonders:
ReplyDeleteThe question remains, what is a genuine small-government Conservative to do under these circumstances?
Move to Somalia?
In all seriousness, has any postwar administration, Democratic or Republican, ever actually done anything to reduce the size of government? (And no, cutting taxes does not count as reducing the size of government.) The only difference between the parties is which parts of the government they want to enlarge.
And it's never going to change, because as Grover Norquist cleverly figured out, people don't really want smaller government; they want big government that they don't have to pay for.
Let's not forget that on a Free Republic thread they were encouraging people to send in not only addresses and home phone numbers of NYT employees, but also where spouses worked, where children attended day care, their travel routes and times to day care, where their parents lived (and photographs and maps of the these various buildings) - maybe he could explain to us why the Freepers needed this detailed information and just what they intended to do with it.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Reynolds could see the difference between publishing his e-mail address that he himself publicly publishes for everyone, and having someone taking photographs of his parents home and his wife Helen’s relatives homes and their travel routes.
Professor? A little explanation would be helpful? Why is this no different than publishing your e-mail address? Enlighten us, please.
md: And, the surest way to increase suffering in the world is to expropriate private property through taxation in the name of "compassion for the suffering," otherwise known as government run redistributionist schemes.
ReplyDeleteYour comments make some sense to me. In theory, they're okay I guess. But then so is the Marxist notion of getting the means of production into the hands of the proletariat.
There are some examples that tell against your assertion quoted above. The plan put into place by Roosevelt seems to have worked well during the Depression.
I'd even go so far as to say that the more people are/were helped by the welfare system than were hurt--at least by your criteria of "help." Those criteria surely, however, need some further clarification don't you think; otherwise, you're begging some very big questions it seems to me.
But theoria's far away from the type of human compassion I was looking for in my original comment. Spouting some hackneyed phrase about property ownership to someone who's poor and begging for a next meal seems pretty heartless to me.
I wonder how many of your geek/libertarians work with the poor. How many do more than spout quaint apothegms relating to no-taxation, victimless crimes, legalizing prostitution/drugs, etc.?
Then you have folk like Bart rattling off the types of libertarian like a jack-in=the-box--no mention of compassion there, by golly. It's all guccis and get mine before everyone else has their chance to get theirs.
That's libertarian compassion? Look up the word compassion, then let's talk...
"Libertarians (in the small "l" sense of that word) have either abandoned the Bush-led Republicans based on the recognition... there are no movements more antithetical to a restrained government than an unchecked Republican Party in its current composition." - glenn
ReplyDeleteI am with you there. The problem with libertarians as a political force, is that (contrary to some of the comments here) they draw more or less equally from both major parties. Hence - completely impotent politically. Powerful ideas, but a useless political party. I agree with your thesis here (in the context of limited government the Republicans have clearly become the greater of two evils) and that should drive support to the Dems on '06.
In the post linked below, I explore this concept im more detail and generalize it into an organizing principle and voting strategy. The strategy, while improbable, could permit libertarians to have a major impact in national elections, far out of proportion to their actual numbers:
Hand-wringing Libertarians.
There is a lot of great writing on some of these blogs and many comments are very smartly and cleverly written. I have seen many questions posted that have also crossed my mind when it comes to today's Repliconservalibitarians. But all the questions were best summed up in Prunes response to Bart in the simple phrase that I had heard and used many times growing up:
ReplyDelete"What, are you stupid?" Indeed
I will listen to Colmes. That should be good. Don't know if anyone posted this yet. From Debbie Schussel:
ReplyDeleteAbout the ACLU Intervention and Jay Stephenson/StoptheACLU Stealing Funds
By Debbie Schussel a rightie.
At the time of the ACLU Lawsuit regarding NSA Spying, I announced that if you were interested in intervening in the lawsuit to please contact me. Michelle Malkin was kind enough to link to it. I was contacted by John Stephenson a/k/a Jay Stephenson of StoptheACLU.com, who--like hundreds of others--wanted to get involved.
Since I informed Michelle and others that the only costs would be filing fees and costs, Jay volunteered to have the Paypal account for this set up at his site. That was a mistake (because Jay has since shown a predilection for stealing--more on that below). Both Michelle and I (and other websites) generously linked to Jay's site (he was one of hundreds of people who contacted me), and we asked that people donate at that Paypal account. Mistake #2. We gave Jay and his site many links each time he asked (incessantly).
Since then, Jay informed me that he misused the bulk of the funds on himself, spending $600.00 of the money on an ad for his blog and $200.00 on maintenance for his site. I doubt the fifty or so people who donated wanted their money meant to pay expenses to go to the Jay Stephenson a/k/a John Stephenson Personal Pleasure Account. In short, Jay stole the money. When Jay informed me of this, I insisted he put the money back. I don't know whether he ever did, and I doubt it. He refuses to provide any accounting.
(And apparently, Jay is stealing from anyone reading who is a U.S. taxpayer. You see, Jay is in the military, but yet, he appears to be blogging all day long. Don't you enjoy paying his salary to blog? Talk about conduct unbecoming...)
What more do you need to know?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/02/about_the_aclu.html
That's it. I'm done. I give up on trying to convince otherwise intelligent people with reason or facts that they're feeding a giant corporate fascism vortex that benefits a select few at the expense of society and our future. Not only won't they see, they won't even look.
ReplyDeleteI have given up on trying to use logic, statistics, common sense, published reports, quotes, emotional appeals, visual presentations, historical precedents, hypothetical situations, diagrams, telestrators, religious scripture, irony, sarcasm, reverse psychology, coloring books, or puppet shows.
I'm afraid it's going to come down to armed conflict, and soon-- I'm guessing when the GOP steals the 2008 election. Or maybe they'll get a taste of their pre-emptive war doctrine.
prunes said...
ReplyDeletebart: An economic libertarian will almost always choose the current Elephants over the current Donkeys. Bush leaves a lot to be desired to an economic libertarian like me, but at least he cut taxes. The Donkey alternative on vivid display in Jersey is much worse.
You are completely wrong on this.
The Republican-controlled congress and the Republican administration have saddled us with a record debt that smashes the old record by something like 8 or 9 times.
Hardly.
In 2005, our federal deficit was 2.6% of GDP, which is modest compared to the 40 year average of 2.3%. The 2006 deficit is likely to drop to the 40 year average as revenues pour in.
Since the deficit is a function of spending and Kerry was proposing far more federal spending, I see no reason to jump ship to the Donkeys on this issue.
Bush cut taxes? What are you, stupid?
Deficit spending is a tax. Forcing the public to take on debt is a tax. It may be a deferred tax, but it must be paid.
First, I should have used the proper terms. Bush at least cut tax rates.
In fact, taxes in the form of tax revenues have soared since Bush cut tax rates in 2003.
The entire debt is due to over spending and has nothing at all to do with a reduction of tax revenues due to the Bush tax rate cuts, which never occurred.
Clinton's economic program, which I opposed at the time, is a more libertarian economic program than Bush's. That is a fact.
Which one?
If you are talking about the pre 1994 program of tax rate and spending hikes, you are insane.
If you are talking about the Gingrich cuts in taxes and slowdown in the rate of growth of entitlement spending to which Clinton signed on in 1997, then you are correct.
After Mr. Bush's return to big government, I most definitely miss Mr. Gingrich.
The GOP is the only remaining internationalist party.
ReplyDeleteI totally disagree. Bill Clinton, whatever else one might say about him, was hardly an isolationist.
So many right wingers will call themselves things other than right wing republican. Why? Well, I think they do it to try and act like the current republican party is a "big tent" party. It isn't. It's so monocultured that one good virus would wipe it out were it an organism.
I think a lot of it too has to do with the conservative need to feel like underdogs even when they're pretty clearly running the entire country. That "insurgent" image that grew up around Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh 15 years ago is an appealing pose, which is why you see conservablogs paying so much attention to relative small potatoes like Ward Churchill rather than to the people who actually decide how this country is run.
If you say you're a Republican, you're the establishment, and therefore boring. But as a "libertarian" you can sell yourself as edgy and iconoclastic.
A terr'ist plot may have been uncovered by an FBI agent monitoring a chat room--that means what, exactly? That terr'ists use the Internet? That it's time to shut the Internet down? That George Bush is, by God, protecting us? That the FBI is doing its freaking job? What?
ReplyDeletee_five: Well put.
ReplyDeletebart: Are you still smoking the supply-side weed? I thought most people quit that when they graduated from college.
The entire debt is due to over spending and has nothing at all to do with a reduction of tax revenues due to the Bush tax rate cuts, which never occurred.
ReplyDeleteThis is correct. However, the debt is a worse burden than any taxes proposed by the Democrats (at least in the plans I'm aware of.)
And aside from whatever spending plans were proposed during the races, looking at what Republicans have actually done, they did not fulfill their promises, they went so far over budget that they had to change the law by raising their maximum budget to make what they had already spent legal! (Oh, and then four months later gave themselves raises. I know that Congressional salaries are a drop in the bucket, but it is indicative of their attitude.)
Cutting the deficit by a tenth of a percentage point is no solution. That is like saying "we are only going to let you hemorrhage 1.5 pint of blood an hour, instead of two! Aren't you lucky?"
And Bush himself has never vetoed a single bill. He does not fulfill his Constitutional obligation to check Congressional spending. It is a sort of quid pro quo where they don't fulfill their obligation to reign in his authoritarian mania.
Libertarians - especially those who style themselves 'economic' libertarians - have long considered themselves to be the ones who give Republican policies a patina of intellectual gloss. The problem is, it just ain't so; that sort of nonsense has been repudiated since at least the early 90's (anyone remember the list of luminaries who lined up to say that the Budget Reconcilliation Act would invariably lead to the worst recession since the Depression?)
ReplyDeleteNo, as much as I admire Glenn's wedge approach to politics, the knuckleheads who style themselves libertarians are just not for the most part going to break with the Republican party if they haven't done so already.
This all seems really quite silly. How much time did it take to type this post up? Hope it wasn't much.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the FBI busted an al Qaeda plot to blow up the Holland Tunnel in NYC which Zarqawi had pledged to finance.
ReplyDeleteOh, please, this is obviously an imposter, not the real Bart. After all, the real Bart has told us time and time again that we are fighting the terrorists “over there” in Iraq, to make us safe here at home.
Now, Zarqawi couldn’t possibly be behind this plot because he was hopelessly bogged down in Iraq, which keeps us safe here at home.
I hope the real Bart shows up to denounce this imposter soon, and set the record straight.
It’s also been a month since he bragged that the day after “the decider” visited Iraq there wasn’t a single car-bombing (and he’s not buying that it had anything to do that all the fact that no cars were allowed on the road that day).
I’m sure Bart will cite the statistics proving once again how the death of Zarqawi was the last turning point as we round the corner to victory, and that violence has substantially subsided in the last month.
“We’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here” is a brilliant strategy, so don’t give us some cockamamie story about a Zarqawi plot to blow up bridges. Please. The real Bart is smarter than that.
Canadians pay 30 to 40% less for health care than Americans.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I should have said at least as much. Our system is a real mess.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart: It appears that the FBI busted an al Qaeda plot to blow up the Holland Tunnel in NYC which Zarqawi had pledged to finance.
Oh, please, this is obviously an imposter, not the real Bart. After all, the real Bart has told us time and time again that we are fighting the terrorists “over there” in Iraq, to make us safe here at home.
Now, Zarqawi couldn’t possibly be behind this plot because he was hopelessly bogged down in Iraq, which keeps us safe here at home.
Try thinking before typing.
Zarqawi has been operating out of Iraq since 2002.
Zarqawi reportedly lent his support to this terror cell from Iraq.
We killed Zarqawi in Iraq before he could pull off this attack.
We started to roll up his terror cell in Lebanon.
This is a perfect example of how you protect the US by taking the war to where these animals live.
Has there been anything further about how the email address and the home address are the same thing?
ReplyDeleteThis is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week. Perhaps we can have a vote?
Intellectually dishonest
or
Plain simple
I'm going with intellectually dishonest cause plain simple would mean I have to feel sorry for him a bit.
A CBO analysis last week noted that withheld individual income and payroll taxes are up 7.6% from a year ago, with the gains picking up in recent months.
ReplyDelete"Those gains suggest solid growth in wages and salaries in the national economy," CBO said.
While gains are broad, those at higher-income levels are enjoying bigger salary hikes. Because they pay higher rates, federal tax revenues soar when they do well.
Those making over $200,000 now pay 46.6% of total income taxes, presidential adviser Karl Rove recently said. That's up from 40.5% — despite Bush's tax cuts.
Nonwithheld income tax receipts are up about 20% vs. a year ago. That may reflect year-end bonuses and capital gains.
IOW, those who enjoyed the sharpest tax cuts 4 years ago are now enjoying the sharpest salary increases this year. I know that's going to make all the redistributionists feel better!
Sorry, here's the link.
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect example of how you protect the US by taking the war to where these animals live
ReplyDeleteThree points.
1. It was the FBI that cracked the case. Not the NSA, not the Army.
2. The perp is an idiot who thinks water flows uphill.
3. the money was supposed to come from "operatives in Jordan, who were associated with Abu Musab Zarqawi"
Quoting VOA
"It is not clear if the plotters actually received help from al-Qaida"
Charlie T. said...
ReplyDeleteBart: The GOP is the only remaining internationalist party.
I totally disagree. Bill Clinton, whatever else one might say about him, was hardly an isolationist.
Clinton was an internationalist only when it came to free trade.
When is came to the use of military force, Clinton was an isolationist in line with his post Vietnam party. He cut and ran from Somalia, he only went into Bosnia after the ethnic cleansing was done and he repeatedly declined to attack and kill bin Laden because of fear of civilian casualties.
We have not had a Donkey president willing to use military force in a real ground war since JFK/LBJ.
This is a perfect example of how you protect the US by taking the war to where these animals live
ReplyDeleteWell, thanks for clearing that up, Bart. I guess I just imagined all that talk about some flypaper theory.
And that’s why our subways, and London’s subways are completely safe from terrorist attacks – we’re fighting them in Iraq, we’ve brought the fight to where they live, it all makes such perfect sense now.
repeatedly declined to attack and kill bin Laden because of fear of civilian casualties
ReplyDeleteGee, someone whose actually concerned about innocent people dying. No wonder you hate him.....
Bart:
ReplyDeleteThis is what we grownups call a "lie.":
When is came to the use of military force, Clinton was an isolationist in line with his post Vietnam party. He cut and ran from Somalia, he only went into Bosnia after the ethnic cleansing was done and he repeatedly declined to attack and kill bin Laden because of fear of civilian casualties.
Clinton was prevented from acting earlier because of, you guessed it, YOUR TEAM in Congress. Liars all. Show us some evidence for your last assertion, because it's new to me.
As long as the Republicans keep cutting taxes, they will maintain a significant percent of the activist Libertarian (Big L) vote. The Big L's are almost as single issue as Operation Rescue
ReplyDeletePhD9 said...
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect example of how you protect the US by taking the war to where these animals live
1. It was the FBI that cracked the case. Not the NSA, not the Army.
We can not be sure what parties were involved with identifying the terrorists.
If you check out the NYT article disclosing the Swift program, you will note that the leakers told the NYT that the US government took pains not to identify the uses of Swift when Justice took the perps to trial. The FBI always got the glory.
Since it has been government policy not to disclose uses of these intelligence gathering programs, why do you think they would start now?
The American Spectator online attempted to get some information from its anonymous sources inside multiple agencies and published this:
We've been talking to a few folks inside DOJ, the FBI and Treasury this morning, and things are a bit unclear. But this is what we're being told.
Our Treasury source wouldn't comment on the case. One DOJ source indicated that this case initially took off from monitoring of chat rooms that had been identified as havens for some of the plotters (that monitoring was undertaken in part by the NSA, and some of the monitoring required FISA court filings, something the New York Times doesn't support, either).
BTW: another DOJ source said that in the past year, counter-terrorism officials have noted a marked downturn in the use of cell phone and landline communications. There are a number of reasons for this, but they readily point to the N.Y. Times story on NSA overseas terror-call monitoring as one reason.
Back to this latest case: The chat room activity allowed investigators to target several individuals, and at that stage, the DOJ source believes there is a good chance monitoring of certain bank account activity would have taken place. Without going into too great a detail, the source explained that U.S. investigators have identified a series of "tells" -- some enabled by SWIFT and other monitoring tools -- that help them determine when the time is ripe or necessary to move on plotters.
"People have to understand that sometimes just being able to track these guys for a few weeks not only helps with the specific case, but we pick up on new techniques the bad guys are using. This is particularly true if they don't think we're monitoring them. This case appears to be a good example of this," said our DOJ source. "The way these guys use ubiquitous technology like chat rooms, instant messaging, wireless communications, it's really startling what you pick up when you can lurk undetected. And most important, we're doing it legally and within the boundaries set by Congress and the courts."
It is not clear whether this case was one of several our sources claim they discussed in general terms with the New York Times, and which Treasury and Justice told the Times would be endangered if it went public with the SWIFT program. It appears the arrest of the plotter in Lebanon took place before the SWIFT story was leaked.
But another DOJ source added something interesting to the mix: "If you go back and look at some of our more successful anti-terrorism cases, they have focused on taking down entire networks. How do we do that? From the inside, peeling off a lead actor, turning him and using him to keep the plot moving forward so we can trace everyone else, the money, the accounts, the weapons dealers, everyone. I'll just note that we weren't able to do that with this case and leave it at that. We could have, but we weren't able to. You'll have to do the math for the Times."
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?
art_id=10058
I doubt that the Spectator has the whole story any more than anyone else, but there is much more going on behind the scenes that you will see from an official government mouth piece on CNN.
The current Republican Party has become the party of the Michelle Malkins, Ann Coulters, James Dobsons, and David Horowitzs --
ReplyDeleteRepublicans are getting desperate - their hold on power is beginning to slip - and their true colors are starting to show.
From Bart at 5:27pm:
ReplyDelete"We have not had a Donkey president willing to use military force in a real ground war since JFK/LBJ."
As opposed to Elephant presidents who waste our troops lives in meaningless adventures in Lebanon and Grenada, poorly conceived police actions in Panama and Afghansitan, well-executed but indecisive responses against Iraqi's invasion of its small neighbor, followed by a well-executed invasion of the same that has result in nothing but nationwide destruction and suffering, plus an invigorated jihadist insurgency?
Interesting take on the best use of our troops.
Incidentially, when are you joining up again, I mean given you consider this latest expedition into Iraq is such a worthy effort and all?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBart: This is a perfect example of how you protect the US by taking the war to where these animals live
Well, thanks for clearing that up, Bart. I guess I just imagined all that talk about some flypaper theory.
And that’s why our subways, and London’s subways are completely safe from terrorist attacks – we’re fighting them in Iraq, we’ve brought the fight to where they live, it all makes such perfect sense now.
The attacks in London and Madrid were home grown affairs. The Euros need to police their own countries better.
The fact is that, since we intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda has not been able to launch a single terrorist attack from the ME against a US interest outside of the ME as they did continuously from 1993 to 9/11.
This latest plot was launched from the ME and stopped there.
Bart, "continuously"? By which you mean what, exactly?
ReplyDeleteNice job changing the subject, byw. Why don't you start your own blog for repeating Dick Cheney's talking points?
baldie eagle said...
ReplyDeleteThis is what we grownups call a "lie.":
Bart: When is came to the use of military force, Clinton was an isolationist in line with his post Vietnam party. He cut and ran from Somalia, he only went into Bosnia after the ethnic cleansing was done and he repeatedly declined to attack and kill bin Laden because of fear of civilian casualties.
Clinton was prevented from acting earlier because of, you guessed it, YOUR TEAM in Congress. Liars all.
Clinton is the frigging CiC and runs the military. If he gives the order to go in, the military goes in.
Show us some evidence for your last assertion, because it's new to me.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/
0,,2089-1764035,00.html
Here is one of several articles on the subject of Clinton declining opportunities to kill bin Laden. This all came out in the 9/11 commission investigation.
You might want to check your facts before calling others a liar.
From bart at 5:42pm:
ReplyDelete"I doubt that the Spectator has the whole story any more than anyone else, but there is much more going on behind the scenes that you will see from an official government mouth piece on CNN."
In that case, wouldn't it behoove you to let the subject go until the full story is brought to light? Especially given no reputable news source has linked this pseudo-story to any wider narrative (the Spectator does NOT count as such, btw) and what details have emerged don't paint a terribly potent picture?
Hmmmmm...more terrorist plots being uncovered....any connection to this being an election year?
ReplyDeleteNah, not the uncorruptible Republicans, the staunch defenders of all this good and beautiful in America.
Just as chickenhawks believe in having good Americans fight the terrorists over there so they don’t have to fight them over there, Libertarians believe in fighting for freedoms today even if it causes lost freedoms for tomorrow. (from a caveman conservative website)
ReplyDeleteSome of the right wing Nazis that post here repeatedly use the term 'Donkey' in what, I believe, is an attempt to slur the Democratic party.
ReplyDeleteGiven the vast amounts of corruption riddling the Republican Party, I suggest that their symbolic animal to the Pig.
No insult to pigs, although I understand the comparision is not fair to them.
From Bart at 5:56pm:
ReplyDelete"Clinton is the frigging CiC and runs the military. If he gives the order to go in, the military goes in."
Good heavens, you're right. He could have ordered the troops in anywhere in the world...without necessary supplies, support, or comprehensive plan of operation.
Sound like anyone we know?
But then, President Clinton actually tried to work with his counterparts in Congress and the international community, and didn't believe troops lives should be spent foolishly.
Oh, and Bart, thanks for providing all those statistics proving that you were absolutely right to come here and gloat about that one day after Bush was in Iraq when there wasn’t a single car bombing.
ReplyDeleteBut you really need to get all those “facts and figures” over to Iraq fast, because according to the central morgue in Baghdad, it had received 1,595 bodies last month which was 16% more than the month before Zarqawi was killed and double the total they had last year.
And you’ve really got to get some e-mails through to the ambassador of Iraq too, because
Zalmay M. Khalilzad told the BBC that killing Zarqawi had not made Iraq safer. "In terms of the level of violence, it has not had any impact at this point," Khalilzad said. "As you know, the level of violence is still quite high."
I’m very impressed that you, defending drunks in Colorado, know a lot more about what’s going on in Baghdad than the people who live there, work in the morgue, and even much more than the ambassador of Iraq himself.
Very impressive.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 5:27pm: "We have not had a Donkey president willing to use military force in a real ground war since JFK/LBJ."
As opposed to Elephant presidents who waste our troops lives in meaningless adventures...
You comment proves my point about the isolationist mindset of the post Vietnam Donkeys and you do not deny my point that" "We have not had a Donkey president willing to use military force in a real ground war since JFK/LBJ."
Interesting take on the best use of our troops.
You have to be willing to use the troops in the first instance before you can offer a "better use" for the troops.
Incidentially, when are you joining up again, I mean given you consider this latest expedition into Iraq is such a worthy effort and all?
I tried after 9/11. For some reason, they don't want 40 year old infantry company commanders when they have all these young whipper snappers to fill the slots.
I pose the same question back to you. When your country was attacked, did you volunteer for service???
ABOUT BART: Nice job changing the subject, byw. Why don't you start your own blog for repeating Dick Cheney's talking points?
ReplyDeleteIf Bart started his own blog and came and spewed this boring empty GOP talking point crap there, how many readers do you think he would have? Exactly.
Thats why, even though he spends more than enough time here which would enable him to start his own blog, he knows the only way he can have someone listen to him is by freeloading off people's blogs who are actually interesting and that theres a market for.
He's a lowly shitty lawyer trying to play with the big boys, and the only way he can get any attention is to come to a big blog where he knows he's hated. Hatred, to losers like him, is better than being ignored, which is his only other alternative.
I recommend giving Mr. Instapundits address out live on the air. Since he clearly does not see a problem with this tactic, he has given implicit permission to do so
ReplyDeleteJT Davis said...
ReplyDeleteWhich ones are "Donkey media" again? I can't keep track.
According to Pew, about 80% of the reporters working in the media.
As for which news outlets are the Donkey media, it is easier to list those who are not - Fox News, Washington Times, WSJ and some smaller local papers. Everyone else carries water for the Donkeys.
I am not counting talking head pundits, who are not supposed to be objective news sources. The Conservatives are more than holding their own in that category.
jt david (quoting RawStory): The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteRemember Tim McVeigh.
Didn't the army raise it's enlistment age to something like 42...so they could make their goals? Bart..how old are you?
ReplyDeleteRolling Stone very plausably suggests that the New York Daily News was handed this as a "fear card" salvo in the Congressional campaign. After all our Lebanese friend has been in custody for a month and the investigation has been ongoing for 8 months.
ReplyDeleteLink
Also from Bloomberg
Disclosure of the bomb plot coincided with the one-year anniversary of a terrorist bomb attack on London subways and a bus that killed 52 and injured about 700. Authorities said they hadn't intended to release details about the plot this early and that whoever leaked the information had compromised the FBI's relationship with some foreign intelligence services.
Rudy Giuliani's libertarian principles really hurt when they were shoved up my anus.
ReplyDeleteI don't visit often, but does bart hijack every thread? Seems to.
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 6:04pm:
ReplyDelete"I tried after 9/11. For some reason, they don't want 40 year old infantry company commanders when they have all these young whipper snappers to fill the slots."
Good on you, friend, although perhaps you should try again. I hear they've significantly loosened the standards...provided you actually have the courage of your claims, that is.
"I pose the same question back to you. When your country was attacked, did you volunteer for service???"
First, you presume I'm an American citizen.
Second, you presume the attacks on 9/11 heralded some new, overwhelming conflict whose sole metric is the volume of military action.
Third, you presume the expedition into Iraq is considered a worthy call to service, and thus all citizens will be eager to sign up for it.
The first isn't any of your business, while the second and the third are by my lights both false premises.
He needs to get his own blog. But as earlier noted, no one would read it.
ReplyDeleteJT Davis said...
ReplyDeleteWe haven't had a "real ground war" (until GWI) since Korea. That was Truman and that "donkey" kicked ass.
Huh?
What are they teaching you kids in the government schools?
Truman was the one who fired McArthur for wanting to take the war with the Chinese into :::gasp::: China. Instead, Truman allowed thousands of our troops to die in a stalemate.
The last Donkey to actually fight to win a war was FDR.
As opposed to thousands dying in the current losing effort?
ReplyDeleteRE: joining the army:
ReplyDeleteLooks like you can still get back in Bart. Hurry up, I'm sure you're as excited about it as this guy:
http://www.dallasobserver.com
Hill says he had nowhere to go but into the Army. At 44 years old, Hill will ship out to Iraq on July 28.
In May 2000, five months after the raid, Hill quit the force. When he couldn't get hired at another department, he started a security consulting company. Linda went back to work, finding a good job at Radio Shack. But in the back of his mind, Hill kept thinking about the Army. He re-enlisted early this spring and will ship out to Iraq with the 36th Infantry Division as a rifleman. Linda knows he may not come back, but the way she sees it, she has always risked losing her husband to a higher cause. Whether as a cop or as a soldier, if he goes, she knows he'll "die doing what he loved."
Which ones are "Donkey media" again? I can't keep track.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Pew, about 80% of the reporters working in the media.
You mean the 2004 Pew study that found the majority of journalists were self-described "moderates", with only 24 percent self-described liberal?
So 80=24 in wingnut land. And you wonder why so many liberals think conservatives are stupid.
Glen,
ReplyDeleteMake sure you force Horowitz to defend Anne's rampant and constant plagerism.
These guys are cultists and as a good panelist you need to be in the Edward R Murrow role the whole time.
Best wishes.
From Bart at 6:04pm:
ReplyDelete"You comment proves my point about the isolationist mindset of the post Vietnam Donkeys and you do not deny my point that" "We have not had a Donkey president willing to use military force in a real ground war since JFK/LBJ." "
My comment illustrates that reckless military adventurism seems to be more of an Elephant trait than a Donkey one.
The fact the Carter and Clinton Administrations decided to work through diplomacy and economic engagement rather than useless military posturing and action doesn't make the any more "isolationist" than the Iraq debacle makes George W Bush a "democracy promoter".
And lets not forget neither president hesitated to use military assets to at least attempt to achieve positive results to crises in Iran (the attempted rescue op "Desert Claw", which fell apart due to overplanning, not political interference), Iraq ("Desert Fox", which pretty much shut down Hussein's WMD programs), and the peacekeeping operations in Kosovo (which stands as one of the most successful joint operations between NATO and Russia).
Again, you have a very interesting take on the relative worth of the lives of US troops.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDidn't the army raise it's enlistment age to something like 42...so they could make their goals? Bart..how old are you?
45.
How old are you?
I have served 7 years already.
How many have you?
Is there a single combat veteran here?
Any vets of any kind?
From Bart at 6:23pm:
ReplyDelete"Truman was the one who fired McArthur for wanting to take the war with the Chinese into :::gasp::: China."
So a wider war, against one (likely two, given how aggressive Stalin was back then) of the largest armies on Earth at the time, with NO clear objective in mind was preferable to Truman actually acting as Command-in-Chief and firing an insubordinate general officer?
You really have an odd take on things, I must say.
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 6:04pm: "I tried after 9/11. For some reason, they don't want 40 year old infantry company commanders when they have all these young whipper snappers to fill the slots."
Good on you, friend, although perhaps you should try again. I hear they've significantly loosened the standards...provided you actually have the courage of your claims, that is.
Age is the issue, not standards.
I believe that I am the only one here who has ever fought the Iraqis in real shooting combat, so courage is not the issue...for me at least. I can't speak for the others here.
Bart: "I pose the same question back to you. When your country was attacked, did you volunteer for service???"
First, you presume I'm an American citizen.
Second, you presume the attacks on 9/11 heralded some new, overwhelming conflict whose sole metric is the volume of military action.
Third, you presume the expedition into Iraq is considered a worthy call to service, and thus all citizens will be eager to sign up for it.
The first isn't any of your business, while the second and the third are by my lights both false premises.
1) You made my eligibility for service an issue. Why can't you answer your own question?
BTW, non-Americans can and do serve in the military. I served with a man from the Azores of all places in the 82d Airborne.
2) If you can come up with a viable alternative to military action to either kill or force the surrender of the enemy, I sure would like to hear it. Ignoring the enemy didn't work too well during 9/11 and earlier.
3) Who says you need to serve in Iraq? If I was 21 and single again, I would join the SF and serve around the world.
JT Davis said...
ReplyDeleteBart is upset because a CinC fired an insolent subordinate. You are an elephantsized moron, Bart. Go to Iraq.
Truman had every right to fire his subordinate generals. He is the CiC.
However, the reason Truman did so was that McArthur wanted to take the war to the enemy as he had done under a competent CiC in FDR during WWII. Truman disagreed and fired his general.
Tresy said...
ReplyDeleteWhich ones are "Donkey media" again? I can't keep track.
Bart: According to Pew, about 80% of the reporters working in the media.
You mean the 2004 Pew study that found the majority of journalists were self-described "moderates", with only 24 percent self-described liberal?
It matters not what a respondent to a poll self identifies as.
Many people think they are the center of the universe and self identify "moderate" just as most people in the US think they are "middle class."
What is revealing about those polls is (1) how many reporters vote for Donkeys and (2) how they are far to the left of the population at large when polled about positions on the issues.
Why exactly are you afraid to admit that libs like to work as reporters just as conservatives like to work in the military?
So you're saying the majority of reporters don't vote for Pigs?
ReplyDeleteGreat Post Mr. Greenwald.
ReplyDeleteI've come to the conclusion that the national Republican Party has morphed into an Organized Crime Syndicate. Their ideology is not liberal, libertarian, conservative, marxist, socialist or any identifiable political label. It's all about making lots of illbegotten money. War-profiteering, no-bid contracts, K-Street, legislation-for-sale....at the end of the day, it's not about principle, but principal....and lots of it.
Those that defend the Republican Syndicate do it solely because it is in their financial interests to do so.
I've been a voting Democrat since the early 70's. In all my years, I've always felt that I could agree to disagree with Republicans on any and all issues. Today, those same Republicans who value the proposition of "agreeing to disagree" are shedding their Party affiliation. Those defenders that are left are merely mouthpieces and enablers of The Syndicate. They cannot argue their case from a position of moral/intellectual superiority....so the only thing left in their bag of tricks is to threaten and scream "treason".
This desperation signals the start of the endgame. While their rhetoric advances, their numbers dwindle. There are way too many of us who understand the true nature of our current political adversaries and we will persevere.
It's people like you who are wielding the words of truth and those are potent weapons in this battle against the water-carriers for Bush Republicanism.
From Bart at 6:44pm:
ReplyDelete"2) If you can come up with a viable alternative to military action to either kill or force the surrender of the enemy, I sure would like to hear it. Ignoring the enemy didn't work too well during 9/11 and earlier."
You presuppose there is a single "enemy" to be defeated here that will lead to a final "victory"; a laughably naive assumption in the context of 'international terrorism'...or this 'Islamofascism' you're so fond of designating.
But as you're asking for alternatives to expeditions into distant lands in the noble tradition of Charles 'Chinese' Gordon, I direct you to
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200501/fallows
Alternately, if you want to see where our current course might well lead
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200501/clarke
I'd also commend you to read "Forewarned" by Michael Cherkasky and "The Next Attack" by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon.
As to whether you serve again or not, I honestly couldn't care less. Just be aware it paints you poorly to claim the invasion of Iraq is such a vital cause, yet not serve over there.
cynic:
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I see little in the geek/libertarian or "Hayekian/I'm unlike everyone else because I can't be classified into one party" and those like Kwiatkowski.
Cynic, I think you might not stick with this statement if you look at things a little differently. Let me collect some facts to offer for your consideration, and then, if you have time to respond, I'll love to hear your thoughts. I'll do that later.
The moral significance of an act depends on its consequences. The publication of someone’s contact information, whether or not it’s already publicly known, has one moral coloring when it’s for a benign purpose & quite another when it’s done vindictively at a Ku Klux Klan lynching party.
ReplyDeleteThe moral significance of inviting one’s readers to contact a third party depends in part on whether one’s readers’ moral character. Encouraging Jeff Goldstein’s readers to contact someone is morally different from asking the faculty or students of a junior college English Dept to do the same thing.
Encouraging rational, spirited debate & the rectification of error is different from bringing a thuggish torrent of vile invective, threats, or worse, down on the heads of one’s enemies. Different parties also have different legitimate expectations of privacy, but event public figures shouldn’t be subjected to vicious abuse.
This isn’t complicated. But in a morally vacant political culture nobody cares.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteIf you get a chance before debating Mr. Horowitz tonight, you might want to read his screed “Full Contact Politics” where he explains The Art of Political War:
"You can do it only by following Lenin's injunction: 'In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.'"
It’s full of Mr. Horowitz’s wisdom on this subject with lots of little juicy little quotes:
But fear is a powerful and indispensable weapon.
If you know you are going to be framed as mean-spirited and intolerant, it’s a good idea to put on a smile and lead with symbols that project generosity and inclusion.
Bottom line: If you are a white male in a culture whose symbols have been defined by liberals, be careful when you go on the offensive. And surround yourself with allies who are neither male nor white. (Michelle Malkin courtesy call on the red phone, paging Michelle Malkin.)
And don’t forget about the time Horowitz published a a white supremacist on his web page.
Oh, it sounds like all fun and games tonight, Glenn.
Good luck – not that you need it.
Glenn, if/when you debate Horowitz, please ask him about his recantation before the Pennsylvania legislature:
ReplyDeleteThe Chronicle of Higher Education reports:
... the dark and dysfunctional picture of the academy painted by David Horowitz and his Center for the Study of Popular Culture. If Horowitz were simply a disaffected political crank, as many have hitherto regarded him, then his views on the academy could be easily dismissed. Such dismissal would seem to be all the more in order following his disastrous testimony before the legislative subcommittee in Pennsylvania in which he was forced to recant as unsubstantiated several of the cases that he had been widely circulating as documentation of alleged malfeasance in the academy.
Oddly, however, his campaign goes on. Horowitz, with assistance from Karl Rove and the former House majority whip, Tom DeLay, has briefed Republican members of Congress on his Academic Bill of Rights campaign and DeLay has even distributed copies of Horowitz’s political primer The Art of Political Warfare: How Republicans Can Fight to Win to all Republican members of Congress. Rove refers to Horowitz’s pamphlet as “a perfect pocket guide to winning on the political battlefield.”
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteFrom Bart at 6:44pm: "2) If you can come up with a viable alternative to military action to either kill or force the surrender of the enemy, I sure would like to hear it. Ignoring the enemy didn't work too well during 9/11 and earlier."
You presuppose there is a single "enemy" to be defeated here that will lead to a final "victory"; a laughably naive assumption in the context of 'international terrorism'...or this 'Islamofascism' you're so fond of designating.
I believe we are fighting a single movement which I have labeled as Islamic Fascism. Call it what you want, but the basis is a virulent and expansionist version of Islam.
We have to deal with this as a movement. Military intervention will deal with the short term threat. I believe that democratization is necessary to eliminate the attraction of the movement in the future just like we dealt with fascism and communism.
But as you're asking for alternatives to expeditions into distant lands in the noble tradition of Charles 'Chinese' Gordon, I direct you to
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200501/fallows
Some on the left like Peter Beinart are now recognizing that we are actually facing a real enemy and are offering containment as a viable strategy for addressing terror.
(It is interesting how both the right and left are borrowing from their Cold War quivers to address terror.)
Fallows claims he is offering a "containment" strategy, but he admits that you cannot contain terrorism. What he is really offering is a hearts and minds strategy under the theory that if the Muslims like us, they will abandon the terrorists. However, the Muslims mainly live under authoritarian regimes which support the Islamic fascists and have no say in the matter.
For this hearts and minds strategy to work, you need to give Muslims democratic choice. Most polls of the ME showed that support for al Qaeda plunged when it started killing muslims In Iraq to stop them from exercising democracy.
HWSNBN us easily impressed by bullsh*te:
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the FBI busted an al Qaeda plot to blow up the Holland Tunnel in NYC which Zarqawi had pledged to finance.
How "convenient".... I laughed out lload when I heard this this morning; the news report said they were going to flood lower Manhattan ... guess none of these dodo-heads ever heard of gravity.
OBTW, I thought I heard that this (supposedly) happpened over a month ago. The maladministration just keeps doling out these little nuggets as needed (just like that insidious Florida gang, who were set up by the FBI) to keep the peeple properly skeered ... and it seems to have found one mark at least: HWSNBN.
Cheers,
Bart,it pains me to think of you sitting this one out at home,feeling old and unwanted(but be forwarned,this ain't the turkey shoot that Iraq 1.0 was).And I really respect that IF you were 21 instead of 45 you'd be special forces(if only you'd have run faster longer and shot straighter the first time around you might not have all those uncooked kernals left-on the other hand,someone had to cook).But I've got two words for you,Rambo-private contractors.
ReplyDeleteAnyone notice how all popular progressive blogs seem to have at least 1 highly visible and combative Bush apologist on board? They all share attributes-
ReplyDelete1) Are good at redirecting the subject at hand to what they want to discuss.
2) Have such a presistant presence, that it takes on a job-like quality.
3) Have all served in the armed forces...although there's no way of really checking.
It's probably just a matter of time before the RNC outsources their blog posting to a call center in India. The quality of the posts won't suffer much...
HWSNBN said:
ReplyDeleteI am libertarian in most things apart from foreign policy and am a fair example of these tradeoffs.
He misspelled "farkin' eedjit and am an example of the consummate Dubya butt-sucker."
His intended meaning should of course be obvious to all that have followed his commentary here defending the "unitary executive" to the Nth degree. "Libertarian"? Feh.
Cheers,
From Bart at 7:47pm:
ReplyDelete"I believe we are fighting a single movement which I have labeled as Islamic Fascism. Call it what you want, but the basis is a virulent and expansionist version of Islam."
There is that, and yes, that's the most immediate threat to our national and economic security. There of course are also a host of neo-Nazi, ethnocentric, pseudo-socialist, separatist, Christian Reconstructionist, Jewish 'Zionist', Dispensationalist, and pseudo-religious groups out there that likewise use terrorism as a tactic to attack anyone they designate an 'enemy'. You seem to be suffering a bit of tunnel vision there, or are you expressly anti-Islam?
Keep in mind the single worst terrorist incident prior to 9/11 to hit the US mainland was the OK City bombing, planned and committed expressly by American citizens.
I agree Fallows strategy is limited in what it might accomplish. What you fail consistently to grasp is that *imposing* democracy upon other countries neither works nor is likely to make us any safer.
Iraq is a case in point: three elections (all with irregularities that leave their legitimacy in question) have installed a government too weak to effectively govern the country, its main power-brokers increasingly and closely aligned with Tehran rather than Washington, and the Constitution written for it rejected a full third of the population. Atop this, the economy is little more than a cryptonomy, the infrastructure is still a barely-functioning wreck, and the quality of life has fallen by all substantive indicators.
As to your assertion people in the ME don't have a choice but to support these supposed 'Islamofascists' due to their living under autocratic regimes, fair comment. Guess that explains why Bin Laden's primary target was originally the House of Saud. Could it be the US artificially propping up regimes that torture, murder, and otherwise repress their populations might be a source of many of our enemies these days?
Bart concludes with
"For this hearts and minds strategy to work, you need to give Muslims democratic choice."
Or we could try honestly supporting reform movements in the ME and them develop as they will, rather than trying to dictate how the rest of the world should run itself. But that's just me.
yankeependragon:
ReplyDelete[HWSNBN]: I doubt that the Spectator has the whole story any more than anyone else, but there is much more going on behind the scenes that you will see from an official government mouth piece on CNN.
In that case, wouldn't it behoove you to let the subject go until the full story is brought to light? Especially given no reputable news source has linked this pseudo-story to any wider narrative (the Spectator does NOT count as such, btw) and what details have emerged don't paint a terribly potent picture?
Ummm, HWSNBN just couldn't wait to pass the news on these new methods of spying to any of his al Qaeda buddies who happen to pass by Glenn's blog. Dontcha see?
Or, to put it slightly differently, "IOKIYAR".
Cheers,
Bart... I believe we are fighting a single movement which I have labeled as Islamic Fascism. Call it what you want, but the basis is a virulent and expansionist version of Islam.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea the North Koreans were Islamic fascists!
Bart, we are lucky to have you. The comedy gold you provide is a bargain at twice the price. Luckily for us, it's free. Unless you are getting a stipend from our tax dollars.
previously Bart has said he gave up on libertarianism because it was "too utopian".
ReplyDeleteShooter... In the end who is greedier, the man that wants to keep more of his own earnings, or the man that wants those earnings for himself?
ReplyDeleteThe man who keeps more than he needs, or so almost all of the important founders felt, from Paine, Franklin and Jefferon on down.
The symbiotic relationship betwen the extreme vitriol of Malkin, Coulter, STACLU on the one hand and the polite-company Republicans on the other is a pressure point we should be hammering on every chance we get. That was what I was trying to do with my "Ann Coulter Republicans" piece at Raw Story. Coulter and her ilk are the bridges between the mouth breathers and the elite. Reynolds performs a very similar function, though the target population is slightly different.
ReplyDeleteAnything we can do to help force him to confront the contradictions and acknowledge the incompatibility between his alleged principles and the practices he condones helps to reduce his effectiveness as glue holding the chimeric Republican machine together.
Hello, right-wingers. For your review, a definition of false causality:
ReplyDeletehttp://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/cause.html
The fact is that, since we intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda has not been able to launch a single terrorist attack from the ME against a US interest outside of the ME as they did continuously from 1993 to 9/11.
As spurious as saying that because I put my right shoe on first, I don't get attacked by tigers. The only evidence applicable to preventing attacks on the US is...preventing attacks on the US. Busting terrorist cells with the means (or intent) with stated and direct goals against the US (they attack other places too you know) and their funding has prevented attacks. So even stating that the Afganistan intervention isn't enough. One has to state that disrupting the terrorist cells with proven history and intent in Afganistan has prevented attacks against the US.
Bart's response relates to a survey of what journalists actually did, that is to say who they actually voted for. This book "The Media Elite" surveyed 240 "journalists" and got the 80% voted left figure.
Again, without causality. Suppose for a moment that we have a Democrat friendly to the press and a Republican who won't even stand to be addressed by the media. Would a reporting voting for the Democrat e a liberal? Perhaps they want to keep working. Perhaps a lower tax rate is trumped by having money to tax. Does working make one a liberal? For the above quote to be true one would have to have the journalists agree that they voted because their politics are aligned with the candidate's.
And so as not to threadjack, I'll address Libertarians. In my experience I tend to see Libertarians side with property rights over personal rights. It goes without saying that the things I am most proud of in this country are triumphs of personal rights (end to slavery, suffrage, civil rights, Bill of Rights). So, I'm at odds with Libertarians for the most part. The proposition of small government is appealing but where there is government, I want them to protect my personal rights.
bluememe said...
ReplyDeleteThe symbiotic relationship betwen the extreme vitriol of Malkin, Coulter, STACLU on the one hand and the polite-company Republicans on the other is a pressure point we should be hammering on every chance we get. That was what I was trying to do with my "Ann Coulter Republicans" piece at Raw Story. Coulter and her ilk are the bridges between the mouth breathers and the elite. Reynolds performs a very similar function, though the target population is slightly different.
Anything we can do to help force him to confront the contradictions and acknowledge the incompatibility between his alleged principles and the practices he condones helps to reduce his effectiveness as glue holding the chimeric Republican machine together.
I completely agree with your strategy but I am not convinced that Insty is actually a polite Republican. He does have those kinds of readers, however. I think he is actually a Republican by default and a dedicated Glibertarian.
What is the exit strategy of taking the fight over there so we don't have to fight them here? Are we doomed to an endless war where we have 100,000+ troops, and about 60-90 of them dying every month?
ReplyDeleteDoes the UK and Spain believe that if we fight them over there, they aren't coming here? If the claims about the terror attacks on the Sears Tower and the Holland Tunnel are correct, it would also seem to make that argument moot.
Greenwald: "For this reason, intellectually honest believers in liberty and restrained government have chosen to abandon the Republican Party because it is devoted to an endlessly intrusive, unrestrained and even lawless government, precepts which could not be any more antithetical to core libertarian principles. But there is a sizeable group of individuals, empitomized by Reynolds, who claimed adherence to libertarianism but who have now fully embraced the most extremist elements of the Bush movement and the Republican Party."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but is this a joke? Maybe I'm obtuse, but would you please explain to me how Instapundit has "now fully embraced the most extremist elements of the Bush movement and the Republican Party." I *generally* agree with Instapundit but sometimes I read powerful critiques of his writing. Your mindless, vitriolic comments do not, however, amount to much. If you have SPECIFIC points you wish to make, fine, make them, but your ridiculous attempt to lump Instapundit in with "the most extremist elements of the Bush movement" is more amusing than credible. Not to put too fine a point on it, but why should anyone take you seriously? Lame.
Sorry, but is this a joke?
ReplyDeleteIs that a statement or a question?
Maybe I'm obtuse
I'd say that's definitely your problem, and the answer you need.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but why should anyone take you seriously? Lame.
ReplyDeleteHow's insty's book doing?
Insta --- quick, short, shallow superficial, crap.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with English grammar, but the question mark ("?") indicates that it's a question. As for the remainder of your comment, wow, I'm overwhelmed by its persuasiveness. Thanks for taking the time to craft a coherent, thoughtful answer. Guess I shouldn't have expected more.
ReplyDelete"How's insty's book doing?
ReplyDeleteInsta --- quick, short, shallow superficial, crap."
Wow, I am once again overpowered by the intellectual response of the commenters here. Is this what passes as reasoned debate in some leftist quarters? I know for a fact that there are serious, intellectual leftists out there, so I'll write this off as an abberation.
MD said...
ReplyDeleteDude, you don't need to go to the John Birch society. I mean, if that's your thing, fine. But if you cite that crap around here, you will get laughed off the blog.
They didn't think of that stuff anyway. The wiser people who have been counseling restraint have no connection to extremist organizations and conspiracy theory peddlers like the JBS.
Try General William Odom.
Genius, perhaps you have heard of rhetorical questions. They are statements in the form of a question. Like, "Do you really think your comments here aren't completely laughable?" I say in far less words what you can't seem to coherently state in 5 times as many.
ReplyDeleteSomebody is reading Greenwald's book. Nobody is reading Reynolds.
Facts leave you cross-eyed and in pain. Poor baby.
"aberration" -- my bad.
ReplyDelete"Facts leave you cross-eyed and in pain. Poor baby."
ReplyDeleteHow old are you? Let me know if and when you actually wish to address the points I raised in my first post. Seriouslly, do you think your response is remotely persuasive (note that this is not a rhetorical question)?
Greenwald: Glenn Reynolds has "now fully embraced the most extremist elements of the Bush movement and the Republican Party."
ReplyDeleteOf course, no one at this website will bother to ask for an explanation or, indeed, any support for this statement -- hell, it smears someone who doesn't share Greenwald's world view -- but that doesn't mean that people don't notice the partisan BS.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteExcellent job tonight on Alan Colmes.
David Horowitz is a piece of work, to say the least. He wants to launch over-the-top rhetoric at political opponents, and then deny that's what he's doing. I love how Horowitz claims that his writings have "subtlety" that his critics are simply missing.
Also, does Horowitz think that Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot? He must, because Horowitz sees grave security breaches (photos of the Rumsfeld vacation home) where Rumsfeld and the Secret Service see none. What a conspiracy nut!!
Does anyone other than hard-core lefties seriously care what Greenwald believes? He's clearly mastered the art of the smear (as this post makes clear), but why should anyone view him as anything other than a left-leaning Bill O'Reilly/Sean Hannity?
ReplyDeleteMD said...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
"Dude, you don't need to go to the John Birch society. I mean, if that's your thing, fine. But if you cite that crap around here, you will get laughed off the blog."
Dude, your assertion is what philosphers call the genetic fallacy. Look it up. The source of an idea is irrelevant to its validity. If you remember that, you won't get laughed off blogs.
That's what they said about Ahmed Chalabi and his WMDs. I love philosophers. So full of shit and no place to keep it. But they can keep us in stitches. If you read Birch Blog, you should be laughed off this blog.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Facts leave you cross-eyed and in pain. Poor baby."
How old are you? Let me know if and when you actually wish to address the points I raised in my first post. Seriouslly, do you think your response is remotely persuasive (note that this is not a rhetorical question)?
11:16 PM
Which first anonymous post is you, you anonymous moron?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone other than hard-core lefties seriously care what Greenwald believes? He's clearly mastered the art of the smear (as this post makes clear), but why should anyone view him as anything other than a left-leaning Bill O'Reilly/Sean Hannity?
Most of you anonymous cretins do not deserve a serious response. This one I should like to respond to. John Dean is a stone cold conservative, you cretin. He takes Glenn quite seriously. why don't you little busboys and dishwashers go back to LGF and get some more recipes for lobster from Iron Fist. You are out of you depth... anywhere but there, or maybe the Birch blog...
Bwahahahaha!
Active Citizen 2006 said...
ReplyDeleteI was a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party for about three months or so, but I quickly left the party and became a Progressive Liberal Democrat. Before joining the Libertarian Party, I was a Conservative Republican. My shift from the Radical Right to a more populist Green Liberal didn't happen all by itself. It happened because I went to college, I started reading, and I got involved in politics based on my belief that the government can be utilized as a conduit through which true positive gains for the future can be acheived. And I have found a place on the political spectrum that I am proud to be a part of. I am a Progressive Liberal Democrat and I am proud of it!
Finally someone who actually uses his brain. You'd be surprised how many people there are like you. Whatever they say about the left, take it from a guy like you used to be on the right, it's all projection on their part. They wear the black hats. We wear the white hats, (if you actually think that life is that simple and there are only black and white hats). It's more complicated than that, of course, with lots of grey areas, but at this time, in our political milieu, it's a stark contrast. Glad you finally saw the light.
Oh brother, are you unable to construct even one coherent argument? You mindlessly complain that facts leave me "cross eyed and in pain" while you scrupulously avoid citing any facts. Facts, when did you start noticing facts? Of course, neither you nor anyone else at this intellectually-dishonest blog will explain why Greenwald believes that Glenn Reynolds has "now fully embraced the most extremist elements of the Bush movement and the Republican Party." Smear and move on -- ignore any request that the allegation be defended. Standard practice, and one for which I have no respect.
ReplyDeleteCare to make an honest argument?
-- Michael Hall
An anonymous poster writes that "anonymous cretins do not deserve a serious response." I can only assume that this poster has a knack for irony. Needless to say, this anonymous poster addresses none of my points; he's content to call me a "cretin" (not to mention disparaging "little busboys and dishwashers"). Yep, the brainpower on display here is truly overwhelming.
ReplyDelete-- Michael Hall
Anonymous... How old are you? Let me know if and when you actually wish to address the points I raised in my first post. Seriouslly, do you think your response is remotely persuasive (note that this is not a rhetorical question)?
ReplyDeleteWell, if this anonymous is you...
I *generally* agree with Instapundit
...that statement renders anything else you might say not worth responding to. I think that may have been the other fellow's point. I'd have to agree. WRT to the John Birch reader...
Why not link to this? I'm assuming you know how to google.
This is outlined in “The Management of Savagery,” a 268-page manifesto written in 2004 by al-Qaeda insider Abu Bakr Naji and recently published in English translation by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.
Then again, perhaps you want these people doing your thinking and analysis for you... That would be sad indeed. You are both extremists and you aren't even aware of it.
Few libertarians or Bush supporters have the presence of mind to figure this out. You might spend less time reading philosophy and the fundamentals of critical thinking and applies those skills, if in fact you have them, to reading the 2004 Libertarian party platform. Then come back and explain to us why The 2004 platform is still as ridiculously extreme as its predecessors in calling for legalization of baby selling, polygamy, secession, child prostitution, all drugs, insider trading, abolition of public schools, medicaid, and Social Security, patents, and copyrights. It even suggests the privatization of air. All that and lots more, cloaked in vague statements of "liberty", and now carefully sanitized so that non-libertarians, and most weekend keyboard warrior libertarians like yourselves and that putz Reynolds don't realize how truly extreme it is.
Care to make an honest argument?
ReplyDeleteI think he was saying you wouldn't recognize one if it bit you on your ass. If you could, you'd never be a libertarian or generally agree with anything instaputz says. Unless you are as I say, an extremist. Have a nice "libertarian" life.
Sorry, didn't catch your name anonymous poster. You complain about anonymous posters but don't post your name -- sorry, but why should I give a damn about a hypocrite such as yourself?
ReplyDeleteYou also write, "Then again, perhaps you want these people doing your thinking and analysis for you... That would be sad indeed. You are both extremists and you aren't even aware of it." Huh, I've never heard of these people and yet I'm an extremist? Interesting. Guess you don't give a shit that I'm agnostic and pro-choice.
But of course, your comment didn't even attempt to make an argument. You cited some people (whom I've never heard of) and labeled me an "extremist." Do you think I would have any trouble citing some far-leftists and lumping you in with them? Would you find that valid?
You also write "You might spend less time reading philosophy and the fundamentals of critical thinking and applies [sic] those skills, if in fact you have them, to reading the 2004 Libertarian party platform. Then come back and explain to us why The 2004 platform is still as ridiculously extreme as its predecessors in calling for legalization of baby selling, polygamy, secession, child prostitution, all drugs, insider trading, abolition of public schools, medicaid, and Social Security, patents, and copyrights."
Uh, why don't you go read David Duke's writings and come back and explain to us why you're not a dyed-in-the-wool white supremacist? That's a nice strawman argument you have there -- ask me to defend something I don't believe in. Classic.
Oh, and why haven't you defended Greenwald's claim that Glenn Reynolds has "now fully embraced the most extremist elements of the Bush movement and the Republican Party." Could it be that you know it's a dirty smear and you can't bring yourself to defend it? Do you have any argument, ANY ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER, in support of this statement?
" think he was saying you wouldn't recognize one if it bit you on your ass. If you could, you'd never be a libertarian or generally agree with anything instaputz says. Unless you are as I say, an extremist. Have a nice 'libertarian' life."
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed funny how the people here cannot bring themselves to articulate any type of coherent argument. Smear, smear, smear. Yeah, whatever.
Reynolds makes it very clear on his blog that he supports the Online Integrity principles. Apparantly Greenwald is a selective reader.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSorry, didn't catch your name anonymous poster. You complain about anonymous posters but don't post your name -- sorry, but why should I give a damn about a hypocrite such as yourself?
And then you go on a long rant that indicates you give something, even if it isn't a "damn".
Huh, I've never heard of these people and yet I'm an extremist? Interesting. Guess you don't give a shit that I'm agnostic and pro-choice.
Then you are not well-informed. As to being an extremist... a frequent reader of the birch blog is an extremist by definition, unless you are monitoring them for some group that tracks extemists groups. I didn't get that impression, so we are back to ill-informed and unsure about your extremism. Most libertarians are agnostic and pro-choice. Although most self-described libertarians don't realize it, they are in fact, extremists, as I have pointed out.
But of course, your comment didn't even attempt to make an argument. You cited some people (whom I've never heard of) and labeled me an "extremist." Do you think I would have any trouble citing some far-leftists and lumping you in with them? Would you find that valid?
No problem, but I have a better grasp than most on what is far left or far right. I am pretty far left. You might think Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore are far leftists, but as I have been trying to explain to you, you don't seem to be too well informed. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. The rest of your rant is incoherent raving. What David Duke has to do with it is mystery. If I am leftist who is a David Duke fan, I'd be as politcally confused as you.
Oh, and why haven't you defended Greenwald's claim that Glenn Reynolds has "now fully embraced the most extremist elements of the Bush movement and the Republican Party."
As I said, if you had the ability and presence of mind to know where you are politically, Glenn's post speaks for itself. I do not see that it needs a defense from me or anyone else. I guess you could say the ball is in Instaputz court. Let him respond. You are just here jerking off because... well I doubt you even know. But I will say this so you understand: Anyone who does not condemn the unethical behavior involved in the attack against the NYTimes and other citizens of this country "has embraced the most extremist elements of the Bush movement and the Republican party". Putz has not done that. He would lose too many of the semi-literate mouth-breathers that sop up his sophomoric dribblings. It's purely an economic decision. Traffic means ad money.
If that's a smear, you guys are in trouble, because it's true, whereas your smears are based on lies.
As Adlai Stevenson once said:
"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them."
Life's a bitch when the bill comes due. Learn it, pupster.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteReynolds makes it very clear on his blog that he supports the Online Integrity principles. Apparantly Greenwald is a selective reader.
Hahaha! Moron.
Wait, let me save you the trouble.
Smear, smear, smear!
You have no arguments! You don't respond to my points!
Hahaha! Moron.
ReplyDeleteWait, let me save you the trouble.
Smear, smear, smear!
You have no arguments! You don't respond to my points!
I think the moronic thing is someone who assumes that all posts in a given timeframe by "anonymous" must be from the same person.
Which of course they're not.
Oh, oops, sorry for thinking you were some type of serious thinker who could correspond intelligently. You can wake a sleeping man, but you can't wake a man pretending to be asleep. You obviously don't give a damn about meaningful discussion, so sweet dreams -- you're the guy in the white hat and all others are bastards wearing black hats.
ReplyDelete-- Michael Hall
Not Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteDon't waste your time.
-- Michael Hall
There are too many inconsistencies to point out with this partisan clown. S/he says that we are "unsure about [my] extremism" but that Glenn Reynolds and myself "are both extremists and you aren't even aware of it." S/he clearly doesn't care about making a serious argument. Witness the bobbing and weaving.
ReplyDeleteYou guys (guy?) are doing fine without me. You seem to be talking to yourselves or...
ReplyDeleteClear out your cache or come in through the archives. We are all upstairs...
=:0
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThere are too many inconsistencies to point out with this partisan clown
Smear! Smear! Smear! You won't address the alleged inconsistencies because there are none, or if there were, you can't. You don't have any coherent arguments! you don't address my points!
Hey! This is fun. I can do it in my sleep! Just like you!
"he has long ago dispensed with his libertarianism beyond the most cursory and /decorative/ uses"
ReplyDeleteBrilliant word choice!
It applies equally to most of the right-wing's self description of their values: good to look at, but that's all it is.
Why do you descend to the Faux News Channel circle of hell?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWhy do you descend to the Faux News Channel circle of hell?
We have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here.
Um, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteWhat should be do about AT&T's anywho.com website?
They post literally millions of people's home addresses.
And they're capitalists too...I smell a boycott!!!!
I firmly believe that you can judge a person by the company they keep. Reynolds keeps company with too many jack-booted types to claim that he's a "libertarian". Maybe he's still a libertarian in the "Fuck the poor and the weak. Why should I have to contribute to society when I can brew my own beer" sense, but he's no believer in personal liberties.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Greenwald,
ReplyDeleteI'm a student at Ohio State University who, before picking up your book, was feeling very alienated. I am an Eagle Scout and come from a long line of military men and women, all of whom, I might add, from my WWII vet grandfather to my Lt. Col. USAR mom (ret.), are sick over the misuse of our armed forces. I love America, but whenever I tried formulating any kind of coherent argument in debates with young republicans or "conservatives for christ" they would simply call me a traitor or un-American or some such other thing.
Thank you for giving me and a group of friends new drive, and for helping us to see that the country is NOT the government. Since reading your book, I've been elected president of the Libertarian Studies Organization at Ohio State, and we're starting to push back the tide of fanatical worship of the neoconservatives in control of our government.
Thank you again, and don't give up hope-there's a whole generation of Americans coming of age who are fed up with the lies, the wars, and the endless parade of moral legislators. We wish you the best.
some twaddlepate said:
ReplyDeleteWhat is revealing about those polls is (1) how many reporters vote for Donkeys and (2) how they are far to the left of the population at large when polled about positions on the issues.
Of course, as reporters are professionally required to have a far broader information base than the typical citizen, it would be more reasonable to conclude that they are generally reporting what they see, according to their informed understanding then to presume that they are operating according to the dictates of some overriding "liberal conspiracy." Indeed, given the nature of media ownership, one would expect a far greater number of reporters to adhere to more neoconservative values, if, of course, those values could be expected to survive a moment of skeptical inquiry.
Regarding Republican Senator Arlen Specter's performance this week, I am reminded of his prior fiction foisted upon the nation years ago after John F. Kennedy's assassination. Mr. Specter authored the outrageous bit of American lore known as "the single bullet theory." The Senator has come full cycle with this latest fiction foisted upon the American public once again.
ReplyDelete