Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Who's suggesting appeasing the mullahs?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 30, 2007 05:56 PM

Given that the mullahs are holding British troops right now...

Even though the EU appears to be showing a backbone and is demanding the release of the prisoners, I'm sure that there are at least a few people who believe that we should give the mullahs whatever they ask for in exchange for the safe return of the hostages. And that's the first step down the slippery slope of appeasement.

Posted by John Breen III at March 30, 2007 06:39 PM

What are your thoughts on the blogger?

Posted by political forum at March 30, 2007 07:03 PM

Isn't the blogger an American? Or is he blogging from Iran?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 30, 2007 07:07 PM

They are expat Iranians living in Europe and North America. ANY negotiating with the mullahs will be regarded by them as appeasement. They are pushing for a fight and one has to wonder why?

Posted by Bill Maron at March 30, 2007 08:00 PM

They are pushing for a fight and one has to wonder why?

Posted by Bill Maron at March 30, 2007 08:00 PM..

because they are as good at overreaching as anyone else...and because they view the West right now, particularly the US as weak.

The favorite tale in the Mideast right now is that the locals talk about how 3 of the planes on 9/11 went to their deaths with the passengers meekly making "good bye" cell phone calls... That is not completly fair of course, the first plane didnt have a clue what was going on...but number 2 and 3 did and they just went like "sheep to the slaughter".

There are doubtless some internal Iranian politics going on, but the reality of it is that all that aside, the folks in the Mideast think that Britian and the "rest" of Europe can be knocked out of any fight rather quickly by actions like this...

and they view the US as a country that doesnt have the stomach or the knowledge for a "long war".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 30, 2007 08:16 PM

Hijacking the topic... check out Wretchard. Apparently, Time is reporting that Iran *did* attempt to kidnap a border patrol last fall. The troops refused to go along quietly, and ran for it, and the Iranians opened fire.

Posted by Big D at March 30, 2007 09:22 PM

I'm sure that there are at least a few people who believe that we should give the mullahs whatever they ask for in exchange for the safe return of the hostages.

You mean, like giving them weapons? I agree, that would be high treason.

Posted by at March 30, 2007 09:28 PM

What are your thoughts on the blogger?

He's apparently a Zoroastrian partisan. Although I have nothing against the Zoroastrians, this is another religious fight that is not worth a huge American involvement.

I wouldn't mind owning a Mazda, though. I'll concede that to the Zoroastrians.

Posted by at March 30, 2007 09:42 PM

Was Zoro a Zoroastrian?

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 30, 2007 10:15 PM

John: "I'm sure that there are at least a few people who believe that we should give the mullahs whatever they ask for in exchange for the safe return of the hostages."

Or even sell arms for hostages, like The Gipper.

Robert: "and they view the US as a country that doesnt have the stomach or the knowledge for a "long war"."

We should take that as a compliment, and an advantage. Truly long wars are known only to people who never change, which makes them ineffective against evolutionary societies.

Bill: "ANY negotiating with the mullahs will be regarded by them as appeasment."

Giving in to demands is appeasement. Merely talking and appearing to listen is a dilatory tactic intended to keep events under control.

Bill: "They are pushing for a fight and one has to wonder why?"

The expats can fight the mullahs whenever they please, but it seems they would rather the United States shoulder the burdens and risks.

Big D: "Apparently, Time is reporting that Iran *did* attempt to kidnap a border patrol last fall."

They're trying to play us like they did Israel, creating a catch-22 with apparent weakness on the one hand and vast overreaction on the other. Needless to say, the Bush regime isn't exactly overflowing with intellect, so the gambit may very well pay off for the Iranians.

Strategically, it's much smarter to appear weak and encourage a dangerous enemy to blunder stupidly into giving you moral and legal carte blanche. But an even easier way to get at the mullahs would be to leave Iraq, which would draw them into a meat grinder trying to crush the Sunnis supported by the Arab governments.

Of course, I hardly expect either approach to be taken by this lot in the White House--they're so terrified of the appearance of weakness, it pervades everything they do and makes them into easily manipulated cartoon characters.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 01:10 AM

Give them whatever they want - and then give them a few of our most powerful weapons. Briefly. (a microsecond or so?)

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 31, 2007 03:03 AM

"...an even easier way to get at the mullahs would be to leave Iraq, which would draw them into a meat grinder..."

Easier for whom? Certainly not Iraqi non-combatants. I suspect the video of the carnage that we would see from that might make 1991 pale in comparison.

Probably not as bad as Cambodia in the mid-1970's, though.

Yep, so easy to preach, eh? I am glad this proposal won't happen. At least, not before early 2009.

Posted by at March 31, 2007 03:38 AM

Yes, let's send Gwar to negotiate.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 03:48 AM

Just to be clear, the above was a response to Fletcher.

"Easier for whom? Certainly not Iraqi non-combatants."

Yes, but we can't help anyone if we're bogged down serving as tent-pole for a rotting corpse. Iraqis don't seem to understand how to take control of their destiny, despite years of training and huge sums of money down the drain, and we can't be their keepers forever. If the only two choices are that the fiction that is Iraq dies a long-delayed death, or that we keep absorbing the horror and cost indefinitely out of guilt, then you know our exit and their crucible is unavoidable.

No amount of sacrifice will put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and staying is just a morbid attempt to hide from responsibility. We want to avoid acknowledging that we allowed madmen to seize control of our country, and that there is nothing we can do in the near future to put right what they've done or prevent the horrors it will cause. Our presence does not help those people, it just complicates things, and most of them apparently feel that way, so it's time to go.

"Yep, so easy to preach, eh?"

Individuals get caught up in the gears of civilizations, devoured by organisms they themselves comprise, and leaders have to figure out how to serve both simultaneously. We can save Iraqis, but only if we let Iraq die; and we can redirect Iran from its dangerous course, but only if we let them make their mistakes where they'll be the least damaging to the world.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 04:31 AM

"We can save Iraqis, but only if we let Iraq die"

And that, folks, is why I'm not a liberal: I just don't have it in me to play God like that.

Posted by Andrea Harris at March 31, 2007 04:54 AM

"And that, folks, is why I'm not a liberal: I just don't have it in me to play God like that."

You're joking, right? Bush and the necrocon Inner Circle decide they have a Master Plan to remake the Arab world, shrugging off the incredible horrors they knew would follow, and you think it's hubris to no longer hold America hostage to that agenda?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 05:25 AM

Swideriski has concluded that we have to let the village be destroyed in order to save it.

Posted by McGehee at March 31, 2007 07:04 AM

Mike:

Zorro wasn't a Zoroastrian(!) but Freddie Mercury was. The Indian Parsi are expat Iranians, like the blogger. So next time you hear "Bohemian Rhapsody" visualize Ahmedenijad-mad-bad-man singing this in the shower, right after he has sung "We are the Champions," another Queen hit.

So, at least with a sample of one, we know the Iranians are more than capable of excellent music.

McGehee:
The conclusion I draw is that we are not capable of saving it. Or, if we were capable, the opportunity is long passed, primarily due to the incompetence, wishful thinking and echo chamber analysis of this administration. We can't go back in time to 2003 and re-do it all, which is what the surge is about.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 31, 2007 07:33 AM

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 01:10 AM

Brian...If Radical Islam is evolutionary it is evolutionary in the wrong direction, at least for my taste...

Robert

Posted by at March 31, 2007 08:06 AM

"Mike:

Dude, I know that Freddie was a Zoroastrian. I was just making a play on words.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 31, 2007 08:27 AM

I'm confused by the Reagan reference. Is the author suggesting that we should do as Reagan did or do something very different?

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 31, 2007 09:49 AM

McGehee: "Swideriski has concluded that we have to let the village be destroyed in order to save it."

The Potemkin village was destroyed when we invaded, and there is nothing remaining of the fiction invented by the retreating British Empire. Three stateless nations are left floating in a vacuum, tearing each other to pieces, and we pretend to be in control so George W. Bush doesn't have to face the reality of his awesome stupidity and madness.

Anon: "If Radical Islam is evolutionary it is evolutionary in the wrong direction, at least for my taste..."

Radical Islam isn't evolutionary at all, that's why it may turn out to be a trivial enemy. We can't annihilate it, obviously, but it certainly hasn't come anywhere close to living up to the hype. That it's primarily a law enforcement issue becomes increasingly obvious.

Andy: "Is the author suggesting that we should do as Reagan did or do something very different?"

I'm obviously not suggesting we sell arms for hostages like Reagan, I was just rubbing in the fact of what he did so any unrepentent Reaganites might see and hopefully be ashamed. My suggestion for how to respond depends on the intended outcome--if the goal is war, then feign weakness so the Iranians will be emboldened and overreach. If the goal is a smackdown short of war, feign assertive but receptive negotiations while intensively applying intelligence resources to locate the prisoners, then rescue them and stroll off into the sunset until the next attempted provocation.

Personally, I really don't care--the British have no more right to be in Iraq than we do, and both have no more right than the Iranians, so I look on it with the dispassion of a gang fight. Since the deployment isn't legitimate in the first place, everyone who's there is kind of acting as a private mercenary for the regime, and quite literally stealing public resources by following orders. But neither US nor British national security has any real stake in Iraq, it's all politicians covering their asses at this point, and it's a damn shame if anyone was stupid enough to willingly risk themselves for that.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 11:05 AM

Mike: I knew you were kidding.

I couldn't resist the fantasy of Ahmedenijad-bad-man singing Queen hits at his next rally. In fact imagine the entire band of Mullahs with bad teeth like Freddie taking out their frustrations on a bunch of musical instruments and foreswearing Nukes, ripping off their turbans to the wails of electric guitars.

Maybe we should try converting the Iranaians back to Zoroastrianism; after all it's their history and unlike the Taliban they (Mullahs included) seem to genuinely revel in their (glorious Persian) past, as evinced by their response to 300, which according to several reviews and the opinions of historians is apparently a PO gory S.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 31, 2007 11:41 AM

"as evinced by their response to 300, which according to several reviews and the opinions of historians is apparently a PO gory S."

The vast majority of Iranians never saw it, but supposedly they denounce it anyway--true to form of such a conservative culture. It is in fact a horrendous reaming of history, even making allowances for visual style and storytelling. Sparta, the North Korea of its era, is portrayed as a free republic with open debates, and the script contains a transparently defensive quip mocking Athenians as "boy-lovers" despite the fact that Spartan boys were subject to serial pederasty as part of their standard training. It was in fact Athenians who mocked Spartans for this fact, and referred to buggery as "Spartanizing." They also left out that Spartan training culminates in the stalking and murder of unarmed slaves. As for the Persian army, they're basically depicted as demonic hordes with effectively no human qualities, and Xerxes...forget about it. Giant, hairless, barely clothed monkey full of golden piercings.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 12:40 PM

The Potemkin village was destroyed when we invaded

Swideriski, your definition of "Potemkin village" appears to be non-standard.

The conclusion I draw is that we are not capable of saving it.

Toast, you're entitled to your opinion, but please remember that's exactly what it is.

Posted by McGehee at April 1, 2007 06:16 AM

McGehee,
By "Potemkin Village," I refer to the wildly delusional, fantastic, and completely psychotic claims of those responsible for the invasion. The public was led to believe that Iraqis were fawningly pro-American and eager to be invaded, like an Arab La Resistance, and that the occupation would be characterized by marriage proposals and cultural cross-pollenation.

We would roll in like cowboys, knock out the evil dictator, Iraqi women would toss off their head scarves, put on bikinis, and fall wildly in love with strapping young GIs; McDonald's franchises and barbecues would pop up all over the place, and Bush would show up in Baghdad to cheering throngs and say "Ich Bin Ein Iraqi." A whole generation of free Arabs would be inspired to name their children after him and convert to Stupidity, making pilgrimages to Texas to visit the home of the Great Leader; and from there Iraq would be a shining beacon of freedom unto others, spreading the Gospel of W unto the wretched masses of the Earth.

Through him, O Great Bush, they would find salvation, and on the boulevard where Saddam once reviewed military parades, grateful processions waving US flags would celebrate the 4th of July in appreciation, and erect busts and statues of the great figures of the Liberation. A statue of a smiling, paternalistic Dick Cheney would greet visitors to the Museum of Freedom that was once Saddam's infamous Abu Ghraib torture prison, which free Iraqis accustomed to human rights would visit and marvel that anyone was ever tortured in Iraq.

OOPS. We seem to have stepped in something along the way, and it smells like...reality. When I remember the things the principal cheerleaders of the war said, the completely mad fantasies they churned out on the pages of National Review and even MSM sources, deliriously pirouetting around anything resembling fact or reason to bring about mass murder, I have to sincerely wish that there's a hell.

Personally, I'd be VERY curious to know what Rand was posting at the time.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 1, 2007 07:46 AM

> I'm obviously not suggesting we sell arms for hostages like Reagan, I was just rubbing in the fact of what he did so any unrepentent Reaganites might see and hopefully be ashamed.

In other words, it's not intended to be a substantive contribution, a rational arguement, but is merely coup-counting.

Perhaps the feces-slinging should be presented separately.

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 1, 2007 11:02 AM

Andy: "In other words, it's not intended to be a substantive contribution"

History is always substantive.

"a rational arguement"

Call it a public service reminder.

"but is merely coup-counting."

Interesting terminology.

"Perhaps the feces-slinging should be presented separately."

I trust your ability to distinguish it.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 1, 2007 03:00 PM

Does Swiderski really believe that whether Reagan sold guns to Iran is useful in determining what we should do now?

I doubt it. He's merely trying for guilt by association, hoping that it will help his boys get their shot. Note that he doesn't bother to argue how they'd do better.

Then again, he has admitted that he can't distiguish feces-slinging from relevant argument. It's hard to see how that's much of a qualification though.

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 1, 2007 03:35 PM

"Does Swiderski really believe that whether Reagan sold guns to Iran is useful in determining what we should do now?"

Yes, it helps illustrate the cardinal rule of governance: Don't listen to Republicans.

"He's merely trying for guilt by association"

Guilt by fawning adulation would be more like it.

"hoping that it will help his boys get their shot."

Should it not?

"Note that he doesn't bother to argue how they'd do better."

Yes, actually I did.

"Then again, he has admitted that he can't distiguish feces-slinging from relevant argument."

No, I merely said you could. Was I wrong?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 2, 2007 04:20 AM

Squidward says: The public was led to believe that Iraqis were fawningly pro-American and eager to be invaded, like an Arab La Resistance.

A lot were. A lot are happy we're there. Once again, you've shown that you are completely black and white, no shades of grey. You are always right and your planning is without flaw and once a battle starts, your plans actually happen the way they were drawn up.

And now, you and yours are leading the public to believe that ABSOLUTELY everything is Bush's fault and Cheney's of course. You are leading the public to believe that NOTHING is going right. Either way, the public is being misinformed. Therefore, you are as guilty as those you impale on your "Cannot ever be wrong" logic. So, arrest yourself and throw yourself in prison already.

Posted by Mac at April 2, 2007 11:24 AM

Why do I keep agreeing with Mac today?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 2, 2007 07:05 PM

Why do I keep agreeing with Mac today?

Frightening, ain't it?

Posted by Mac at April 2, 2007 09:23 PM

Mac: "A lot were."

The vast majority were not. They understood that the toll of the Gulf War and subsequent sanctions were Saddam's fault, and apparently relished the idea of his ouster as much as they feared what would come with it, but they certainly had no illusions about Bush's intentions.

Mac: "A lot are happy we're there."

Again, the vast majority are not. If that were not the case, and poll after poll has been horribly inaccurate, then all the Iraqi "government" and its Bush "advisors" would have to do is call the question in a plebiscite and have all the moral authority they needed. In fact, I recommend this step as a prelude to withdrawal, since it would at least give the Iraqi people some sense of having control of their own affairs.

Mac: "Once again, you've shown that you are completely black and white, no shades of grey."

I recognize shades of grey among the Iraqi people, not in the vile propaganda used by the regime to terrorize and deceive Americans and the Congress. Do you remember Bush's campaign ad trying to take credit for the Iraqi Olympic team, all but calling himself a "liberator" and Iraq "free"? As soon as they heard about it, members of the team called the press and denounced Bush as a lying murderer. Here is the beginning narration of the ad:

"Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics, there will be two more free nations -- and two fewer terrorist regimes. With strength, resolve and courage, democracy will triumph over terror -- and hope will defeat hatred."

This was a few months after Abu Ghraib broke.

"You are always right and your planning is without flaw and once a battle starts, your plans actually happen the way they were drawn up."

No, but my plans would be based on facts, reason, logistics, laws, morals, and ethics, and my failures would be the result of things I did not and possibly could not have known. But even before they had invaded, these "people" were deliberately ignoring facts, shutting up those who wouldn't toe the line, hiding any piece of information that contradicted them, releasing any information (no matter how disreputable) that supported their case, and once they got really confident, just making up any damn lie in the certainty that Fox News and the talk radio bobbleheads would repeat it as a fact.

The disaster that has been the last four years of US foreign policy was not a "mistake," they went into it with their eyes wide open and not giving a single shit what would happen to the Iraqi people or American moral authority. Within months of arriving they were using Abu Ghraib as a torture facility, dragging thousands of Iraqis off in the night from their terrified, screaming families to be tortured in Saddam's old chambers of horrors for years, possibly to death, and meanwhile putting out ads like the one above.

They didn't merely "cross the line," they denied that any lines even existed, and there is the origin of the comparison to Nazism. Apologists can pretend it's some kind of irrational straw man all they please, but the analogy is not only called for, but unavoidable. To err is human, to lie is immoral, but to reject even the concept of moral boundaries and act for power with no limitations whatsoever is the definion of evil. Every crime they decided they could get away with, they invariably committed, and I don't think anybody doubts they would do it all again or worse if given the chance.

"And now, you and yours are leading the public to believe that ABSOLUTELY everything is Bush's fault and Cheney's of course."

Mob bosses are held to a stricter legal standard of accountability than these monsters have enjoyed for six years running, but they're not content merely being beyond the law. Rather, their loyal supporters are out there every day portraying them as victims, rewriting all of history from one moment to the next so that justice is denied even a rhetorical victory.

I hold them responsible for nothing more or less than their actions, the worst crimes ever committed by Americans, and their continued arrogance and impunity magnify the affront beyond all description.

"You are leading the public to believe that NOTHING is going right."

We're leading them to believe the overall situation isn't going right, because it isn't. Unfortunately, the reason it isn't is that the entire concept was insane from the beginning, and now Humpty Dumpty is splattered all over the pavement.

Not one more American life, and not one more American dollar should be thrown away so the lunatics who deliberately inflicted this catastrophe can make a "graceful exit" and be comfortably retired when reality comes calling. There is no "mission" other than to stay and not admit failure until the next administration can either be blamed for "cutting and running" or credited with "moving the country forward," depending on which Party they are.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 2, 2007 09:58 PM

Squidward says: The vast majority were not.

Doesn't matter. Therein lies support that you implied did not exist.

He does it again: Again, the vast majority are not.

Again, doesn't matter. Some are happy we're there, defeating your implied message that no Iraqi is happy we're there.

Next: I recognize shades of grey among the Iraqi people

I haven't seen it in your comments. You treat them as a near non-entity. If you want them to have complete control of their country, you need to recognize them as a people and not as a loose group do define your argument.

Next: No, but my plans would be based on facts, reason, logistics, laws, morals, and ethics

And when Saddam defied UN resolution after UN resolution, morals dictate that they should be stopped. We did it, the UN didn't. That was a moral step.

Mob bosses are held to a stricter legal standard of accountability than these monsters have enjoyed for six years running...

Mob bosses don't answer to the slavering press either. The liberal media will find, or make up anything they can to lash out at the administration. I have no doubt that some part of all the things against Bush have to do with twisted words from the press.

This is a gem: I hold them responsible for nothing more or less than their actions

BS. You hold them accountable for everything that's wrong with our country. Bush is not responsible for the education deficit in this country, yet you hold him accountable.

We're leading them to believe the overall situation isn't going right, because it isn't.

Not right to YOUR definition, which may not be correct. In that case, you are misleading the public by painting broad strokes with your own brush. Do you work for the media?

Not one more American life, and not one more American dollar should be thrown away...

Absolutely Spot on correct. No more lives or money should be thrown away...no more attacks against our country's shores since we took action. Not a bad start in my opinion. Not one more incident where over 3000 Americans are killed on our own soil by madmen who care nothing for our lives. Think what you want, but if GW is as dumb as you say he is, how could he ever pull the wool over eveyone's eyes?

Posted by Mac at April 3, 2007 08:05 AM

"Therein lies support that you implied did not exist."

No such implication was made. Regime propaganda portrayed the small minority of supporters as representing general sentiment, portrayed Iraqis as ecstatic and immensely grateful to have Americans patrolling their streets and invading their homes, insisted as late as 2005 that the insurgency was in its "death throes," and that the opposition to our presence was limited to a handful of Baathists and foreign terrorists. In short, they lied through their fangs.

"Some are happy we're there, defeating your implied message that no Iraqi is happy we're there."

Yet again, no such implication was made, and your remark is pointless. Some Iraqis would be happy to have Iran invade, and some are happy to have al Qaeda blowing up marketplaces and Shiite shrines, but we're discussing the general state of things. Iraqis do not want us there, and a plebiscite calling for our withdrawal would pass overwhelmingly.

"If you want them to have complete control of their country, you need to recognize them as a people and not as a loose group"

They are a loose group. At the very least, give them a choice about fissioning or clinging to the fiction of Iraq--in the latter case, the civilian cost of futility would at least be their choice and not George W. Bush's.

"And when Saddam defied UN resolution after UN resolution, morals dictate that they should be stopped."

The UN Security Council decides how and when its resolutions are enforced, not Spurious George.

"Mob bosses don't answer to the slavering press either."

Indeed, neither the Mafia nor the Bush regime answers to the press, the law, or the people.

"The liberal media will find, or make up anything they can to lash out at the administration."

The "liberal media" is a fiction worthy of Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, cited by conservatives in direct proportion to how far from reality it becomes. The more they purge, the more convinced they are that the Enemy is everywhere, and the more effort must be devoted to purifying the spectrum.

To wit, the "liberal media" never seems to tire of talking about how liberal the media is, and yet the liberal content that supposedly defines this Goldstein straw man always seems to be one step ahead of the horizon. NBC refused to show ads criticizing Bush during the 2004 Super Bowl, even though it allowed regime ads; ABC sacrificed its own profits like a corporate suicide bomber just to show Path to 9/11 and the fringe-funded historical fabrications it contained; and most of the supposedly "liberal" print publications were revealed to have killed potentially damaging stories about Bush at the regime's request until they leaked up to two years later. Not one major American newspaper has released the names of the CIA agents charged in Germany and Italy with kidnapping and conspiracy, even though the names were publicized in those countries. Whatever minor criticisms the corporate owners permit, the media is a Republican wasteland when push comes to shove.

"You hold them accountable for everything that's wrong with our country."

What they've done has nothing to do with our country.

"Bush is not responsible for the education deficit in this country, yet you hold him accountable."

The indictment against Bush is too awesome and extensive to profitably explore, so I limit my discussions of the regime to its most egregious crimes and disasters.

"Do you work for the media?"

No.

"No more lives or money should be thrown away...no more attacks against our country's shores since we took action."

The last one before 9/11 was in 1993. I said it before and I'll say it again: al Qaeda got lucky. The magnitude of the disaster blew the actual nature of the threat out of proportion. We are not involved in a global war of any kind; it is a marketing gimmick like "war on drugs" to keep the contracts flowing on the gravy train.

"Not one more incident where over 3000 Americans are killed on our own soil by madmen who care nothing for our lives."

It was a fluke, Mac. Modest precautions would have prevented it, and any group of maniacs foreign or domestic could have pulled off something similar if they'd have thought of it before al Qaeda did. Some people needed to believe in a pervasive global shadow enemy to rationalize the magnitude of the horror, but the universe doesn't have to make emotional sense.

"Think what you want, but if GW is as dumb as you say he is, how could he ever pull the wool over eveyone's eyes?"

He didn't. Not even Rove did. The rest of the world saw them with the clarity of distance, and aside from giving them the benefit of the doubt in the months following the attack, roughly half the American people remained wary at best. Now the cat is out of the bag, and Bush's support is limited to his natural constituents on the far-right fringe. You can fool some of the people, some of the time...and so on.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 4, 2007 02:13 AM

Brian said: The public was led to believe that Iraqis were fawningly pro-American and eager to be invaded, like an Arab La Resistance.

Yes, but we recognize that not everybody was. Just as there are those that the right can lead blindly, there are those the left leads blindly too.

Squiddie: They are a loose group. At the very least, give them a choice about fissioning or clinging to the fiction of Iraq...

Okay, They have government and their police forces are being well-trained. That's an excellent start.

Squidward: The UN Security Council decides how and when its resolutions are enforced...

Of course...never is a long time to surmise a solution.

Brian: The "liberal media" is a fiction

I think the leaning to the left of the media is pretty well documented.

Brian: the media is a Republican wasteland when push comes to shove.

Really? Then from the coverage of Gary Condit's problems, I would have to assume he was conservative. At some time during the coverage, every major outlet had his name labelled as Rep Cal....representative of course, but whenever the story is good, it was D-Cal so one must wonder.

Brian: The indictment against Bush is too awesome and extensive to profitably explore, so I limit my discussions of the regime to its most egregious crimes and disasters.

So education's not that bad? Or GW's administration's not to blame?

Brian: It was a fluke, Mac.

Doesn't matter. It happened. And your "pervasive global shadow enemy" is interesting. Since 9/11 did happen, are you saying that terrorists are not our enemy? Oh, that's right, Bush is the enemy. I'm sorry I forgot that.

Posted by Mac at April 4, 2007 11:56 AM

"Yes, but we recognize that not everybody was."

The overwhelming majority were not, and that fact was never in conflict with conventional understanding of the region. I appreciate that some people are willing to admit they were wrong, but there must also be some level of acknowledgement that it was (at least partly) deliberate ignorance.

"Just as there are those that the right can lead blindly, there are those the left leads blindly too."

While this idea has symmetry and the "flavor" of fairness to it, there are fundamental qualitative flaws. Leftists (as distinct from liberals) are not actually "led" by anyone in the right-wing sense of receiving their ideas and values, they self-organize into subgroups with similar ways of thinking and comment in parallel. Every left-wing "leader" is the subject of endless criticism from others on the left, although the arguments are typically more arcane than those between the spectrum extremes.

On the right, however, ideas move one-dimensionally from leadership to followers with precious little innovation along the way, and what criticism does exist is largely limited to Too Much, Not Enough, or Not Conservative.

"Okay, They have government and their police forces are being well-trained. That's an excellent start."

Their "government" is nominal, and the "police forces" have apparently not stood up to the plate despite years of intensive training. None of that, however, affects the question at hand: Iraq should have a plebiscite on the US presence, and then whatever happens either way would have been by their choice rather than the dictatorship of a foreign empire.

"Of course...never is a long time to surmise a solution."

If never, then never. Being unsatisfied with the UN Security Council doesn't allow a member state to dictate how its resolutions are enforced. Pro-war arguments on the basis of the resolutions are therefore nonsense, and might even be a counter-argument since far more basic international laws were violated in the process.

"I think the leaning to the left of the media is pretty well documented."

By whom, the "liberal media" itself? I read and watch a pretty broad spectrum of the MSM, and I can say confidently that investigative journalism into the Bush regime, Republican party, and its allied industries is rare and kept within strict boundaries.

"Then from the coverage of Gary Condit's problems, I would have to assume he was conservative."

I'm not sure I get your meaning, but Gary Condit is in fact conservative.

"At some time during the coverage, every major outlet had his name labelled as Rep Cal....representative of course, but whenever the story is good, it was D-Cal so one must wonder."

This is a bit of a stretch, Mac. I watched the MSM across the board turn into unremittingly pro-Bush, pro-war yellow journalism as Bush began his propaganda campaign in early 2003, reporting White House press releases as facts without so much as investigating whether they were true. Then, during the war and occupation, potentially damaging stories were routinely killed or delayed for long periods at White House request, including the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Virtually all investigative journalism into the regime, the Republican Party, or the conduct of the war was preemptively ruled out as inherently "biased" by the editorial staffs, and journalists were therefore limited to commenting on Press Office statements. Even today, with Bush's popularity in the toilet and Democrats in control of Congress, no less than ALL nationally circulated US sources refused to print the names of CIA agents charged in Germany and Italy with kidnapping and conspiracy, even though their names were publicized in the indictments. I understand that different perspectives exist, but there's no rational way to call this the "liberal media."

"So education's not that bad? Or GW's administration's not to blame?"

He's less to blame than Reagan, who inherited the world's best school system and left behind a junk yard, but if we could somehow block out the awesome flux of catstrophes and crimes he's committed elsewise and focus on education I'd say he still bears a lot of responsibility. However, being the drop in the ocean of disaster that it is, I can't say I want to bother on this one. One doesn't waste breath lamenting that cancer interferes with croquet.

"Doesn't matter. It happened."

Yes, and the nature of the enemy, not our emotions, should determine the best strategy.

"Since 9/11 did happen, are you saying that terrorists are not our enemy?"

I'm saying the terrorists who attacked us were few, relatively weak, and now largely dead. Now our strategy must become phenomenological, examining and seeking to counter the ideas and assumptions that led to the attacks.

"Oh, that's right, Bush is the enemy."

One of them, at any rate. Why are conservatives so incapable of thinking outside the 1st dimension?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 5, 2007 03:55 AM

Post a comment