Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

How many Chamberlains must we suffer before we get a hint of a Churchill? The Dems are so naive and afflicted with BDS. Let's use talks with Assad to attack Bush. Next, they will be making nice with Chavez and Mugabe. What tools.

Posted by Bill Maron at May 2, 2007 07:28 PM

"Lee Smith says that the Democrats are waging a proxie war against the Bush administration"

Reality is not a proxy, and it's not "at war" with the Bush regime by virtue of their determination to ignore it at all costs.

"many of whom refuse to believe that we're at war (simultaneously while thinking that we aren't at war--talk about cognitive dissonance)"

When I refer to the "war in Iraq" I do so as a concession to common misunderstanding, not as a result of confusion on my own part. Furthermore, nobody is denying that a war is taking place, but simply that it necessarily involves the United States of America.

As usual with the Weekly Standard, the article is a catastrophic train wreck of blatantly selective perception, elementary logical fallacy, and deliberate disingenuousness. Clearly your kind of publication, Rand.

Bill: "How many Chamberlains must we suffer before we get a hint of a Churchill?"

Your politics doesn't "suffer" Chamberlains, it prospers by them, so you should hope your call for Churchill isn't answered.

"The Dems are so naive and afflicted with BDS."

No, Bill. The people crazy enough to still support the lunatics who put us in this situation suffer from BDS--you and they just can't admit you were wrong, no matter the cost to America.

"Let's use talks with Assad to attack Bush. Next, they will be making nice with Chavez and Mugabe. What tools."

You interpret every action Democrats take as an attack on Bush, then accuse THEM of being obsessed with him?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 3, 2007 02:37 AM

Squiddie rants: the article is a catastrophic train wreck of blatantly selective perception, elementary logical fallacy, and deliberate disingenuousness.

Not unlike a certain squid-like poster around here.

Posted by Mac at May 3, 2007 05:20 AM

I'm confused... How is "not believing we're at war" cognitively dissonant with "thinking we're not at war"? Aren't they re-statements of the same thing, just with the negative modifier in a different place?

Posted by John Breen III at May 3, 2007 06:54 AM

Mac: "Not unlike a certain squid-like poster around here."

Who?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 3, 2007 07:08 AM

Sorry, John, I fixed that.

Posted by at May 3, 2007 01:14 PM

Well Brian, the Dems want us to leave and negotiate with fanatical fascists. Sounds like Chamberlain to me and my "politics" DO NOT "prosper" by them. I would rather not have them at all. Churchill was one of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century, maybe for all of civilization. To not want someone of that caliber involved in today’s events shows your intellectual dishonesty and/or ignorance.
Since you were kind enough to explain your reference to war, I will explain who I mean when I write "Dems". I mean the leadership of the party. I mean secular-progressive like you who can't seem to remember what battles were fought to allow you to write the things you do and where you want the country to go is anathema to the visions of the founding fathers. I've read your comments professing an appreciation for communism and socialism, two forms of government that have never worked well or at all anywhere in the world.
Bush wasn't wrong; he didn't do a very good job in keeping the peace after the defeat of the Iraqi army. But make no mistake, AQ writes and says we must be defeated in Iraq so if it is important to them, don't you think winning would be a good idea? You seem to try and combine an isolationist policy for something’s and then want world cooperation and our acquiescence to a world body on other things. We are the best nation in the world even with our faults and leading people to democracy is the greatest goal we can have. You use word like "crazy" and "lunatic". I rest my case on YOUR BDS infection.
Dems attack Bush almost every day. Don't you read or watch TV? It's like the Wizard of OZ. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Oh my! Then Clinton, Edwards, Murtha and on and on...
Rand is too kind to you. You insult him and he still let's you post.

Posted by Bill Maron at May 3, 2007 05:00 PM

"Well Brian, the Dems want us to leave and negotiate with fanatical fascists."

There are a lot of fanatical fascists in this equation, and none of them change the key facts: The occupation is illegal, the Iraqi people oppose it, the American people oppose it, and the world at large opposes it.

"Sounds like Chamberlain to me and my "politics" DO NOT "prosper" by them."

The Iraq war authorization resulted from the capitulation of some Democrats to radical fascists in this country, and the unlimited authoritarian power wielded by the regime until this year was a result of similar collaborationism and cowardice. If Democrats had been Churchillian, SuperMax prison would today be nicknamed "the White House," and there would be a debate over whether people in the media who advocated the regime's crimes were culpable propagandists.

"Churchill was one of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century, maybe for all of civilization."

He was a one-note character blessed with grandiloquence, and was only useful to the world exactly when and where he was. Before the Nazis, Churchill was a caricaturish imperialist who wanted to brutally crush any hint of Indian independence, and that's why he was ignored; after the Nazis, he was still scrapping for a fight while his people just wanted to get on with their lives, and that's why he was quickly replaced.

Roosevelt towered above him in all respects, a heroic and moral leader in both war and peace, and it was at the insistence of FDR that the Nuremberg trials took place rather than summary executions as Churchill preferred. The latter undoubtedly saw his colleague as naive in many respects, never realizing that he was witnessing the birth of something far superior to the Victorian values he'd assumed were the pinnacle of mankind. Churchill was right about Germany by pure coincidence, and would have said exactly the same things even if the Weimar Republic had simply turned nationalistic rather than belligerent.

"I mean secular-progressive like you who can't seem to remember what battles were fought to allow you to write the things you do and where you want the country to go is anathema to the visions of the founding fathers."

On the contrary, I think you have forgotten. You would have us become what we fought, and claim to be protecting that which doing so destroys. The crimes and oppressions the Founders railed against in forming this country are laughable compared to what the Bush regime has done with your support. No act of theft or murder by the British Empire ever equalled the seizure of Iraq by this regime in carnage and egregiousness, and that's why historians are forced to look to Hitler and Stalin for analogies.

This regime didn't even bother with the gradual machinations the colonial powers did in building their empires, dividing and conquering tribes and nobles, but simply declared its power to take and TOOK in full defiance of law, making up any excuse or lie they fancied as the horror unfolded. No squalid British penal colony or dungeon ever approached the organized terror and torture of the gulag system this regime has constructed in the name of freedom. Where does someone get the unmitigated gall to stand beside that, and then bring up the Founders in your defense?

Honest supporters of this regime, few though they may be, have been led so far off the reservation that they've come full circle and now face their own country and Constitution as enemies.

"I've read your comments professing an appreciation for communism and socialism, two forms of government that have never worked well or at all anywhere in the world."

Then you've been hallucinating. I've never expressed appreciation of communism, and the degree to which I've done so for socialism has been in response to tangible achievements in places like Sweden and the Netherlands, none of which is mutually exclusive to appreciation for capitalism. Your error is in regarding economic systems ideologically, and insisting that everyone pray at the altar of laissez-faire capitalism without impure thoughts or blasphemies.

"But make no mistake, AQ writes and says we must be defeated in Iraq so if it is important to them"

Let me see if I understand your position correctly:

A group of raving psychotics whose worldview has nothing to do with reality says something delusional, and you want us to adopt the framework of their worldview so that we can go into their little lunatic microcosm and say "yes, it is" whenever they say "no, it isn't" like a Monty Python skit? Personally, I think it's a better idea to deal with reality, recognize that they're insane, and take actions that make sense instead of being dictated one way or another by what they say.

"You seem to try and combine an isolationist policy for something’s and then want world cooperation and our acquiescence to a world body on other things."

You're getting really confused, Bill. Failing to arbitrarily and illegally invade anyone you please is not "isolationism," and leaving decisions about enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions to the UN Security Council is not "acquiescence." What you're saying is just plain bizarre.

"We are the best nation in the world"

Meaning what? How many other leading contenders have you lived in?

"even with our faults"

Which are?

"and leading people to democracy is the greatest goal we can have."

I agree, so please stop voting for people who spread fascism and terror.

"You use word like "crazy" and "lunatic"."

Only to describe crazies and lunatics.

"I rest my case on YOUR BDS infection."

Should I stop talking about America's biggest problem just because you're partly responsible for it?

"Dems attack Bush almost every day."

He publicly flouts justice every day. What he does would be equivalent to OJ Simpson becoming the Goldman family's landlord, camping out in their living room, and garnishing their wages for his knife collection.

"Don't you read or watch TV?"

Which channel? GOP 1, GOP 2, GOP 3,..., or GOP 1012?

"It's like the Wizard of OZ."

Let's see...so Murdoch is the Wizard, Cheney is the Wicked Witch of the West, and Bush and his voters are the witch's monkeys? You know, come to think of it, watching the 2004 GOP convention, I do believe I heard something like "oh-ee-oh, yo ho." But maybe it was just a rap song.

"Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Oh my!"

Well, that would make sense given they're the Senate Majority Leader, Speaker of the House, and wildly popular presidential candidate with the potential to make history, respectively.

"Then Clinton, Edwards, Murtha and on and on..."

Uh, no. They mention Clinton whenever they mention Obama, for obvious reasons. Edwards didn't get much coverage until Hairgate, naturally because a candidate with his message must not be heard, but only lampooned if the Republican editorial caste thinks they've found an excuse. Murtha...? No, Rudy and Romney are getting tons of airplay--the prick people think is great because he wasn't thoroughly incompetent on 9/11 (like Bush) vs. the Mormon pseudo-liberal.

"Rand is too kind to you. You insult him and he still let's you post."

I wonder if you know how sycophantic and ridiculous you sound, praising someone's childish personal slurs and character attacks for not rising to the level of banishment. I give as good as I get, but only more effectively because my comments are backed up with reason and ideas. If Rand ever decides he doesn't want to hear from me, he can ask me to no longer post and I'll stop, my ego intact if not inflated by it; and if he instead simply blocked my posts, I would chuckle at his weakness and be on my way. The funny thing is that such a thorough liberal as myself is more of a rugged individualist than self-described libertarians.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 3, 2007 09:53 PM

The good news is I have 3 grown children who don't think like you and as far as being an individualist; you parrot every far-left talking point I can think of. Your ego far out-strips your intellect. I'm reminded of the phrase, "Don't let your mouth write checks the rest of you can't cash." Just so you know, I am a registered independent and I have voted for candidates from both parties and some from none so I really am an individualist.

The funny thing is you're not a liberal. You're a socialist or a communist but not a liberal and I mean that in the nicest possible way. You did mention a fondness for Karl Marx in at least one comment or I wouldn't have mentioned it. Churchill was right about Stalin and FDR was wrong. Look at the hundreds of millions who suffered under communism.
Don't you think if there was some offense, juicy with Bush or Cheney guilt the press and the Dem leadership would be howling impeachment and trumpeting it across the front page of the NYTimes? The reality is your view is a small minority in this country. What or who are you going to direct all this hate towards when at the end of January 2008 Bush retires to his ranch in Crawford? There will be no coup. The army won't goose-step into Seattle and round up all the far-left fanatics. He will leave in a quiet and dignified manner, unlike his predecessor.
The latest poll I've seen said the majority want us out but not at the expense of turning Iraq over to the Islamists. The Iraqi government doesn't wasn’t us to leave nor does their army and police force.
No one who supports Bush regards the Constitution as the enemy. That's just BS.
As far as the UN Security Council goes, the resolutions for us to do what we did were already in place. Of course Saddam was bribing people in France and Russia to try and prevent his demise. As far as Rand goes; he is kind enough to run a blog, pay for the bandwidth and let people comment here. If being polite about that makes me a sychophant then I plead guilty. You do back up your commnents with ideas, the reason part is a little fuzzy though.

Posted by Bill Maron at May 3, 2007 11:02 PM

Mr. Swiderski,

What is your working definition of "fascism"?

How does it compare and contrast with (say) Mussolini's Italy, or Hitler's Germany?

I ask, because I have encountered a number of people who use "fascist" in a manner unmoored from its historically based meaning. Consequently, I have to ask for clarification.

Regards,

Posted by MG at May 4, 2007 03:46 AM

"you parrot every far-left talking point I can think of."

Your knowledge of the "far left" is sorely lacking if you actually believe that. If we had a nickel for every time a conservative described someone in those terms for merely stating common sense or advocating what, in the rest of the world, would be considered a center-right compromise, we wouldn't even need to propose tax increases. Depending on where you live, your views may simply reflect the distorted politics of an extreme regional culture, and I would suggest seeing more of America and the world.

"Your ego far out-strips your intellect."

Bill, you've never seen my intellect.

"I'm reminded of the phrase, "Don't let your mouth write checks the rest of you can't cash.""

And I'm reminded of the phrase, I think by de Tocqueville, "What are you babbling about?"

"Just so you know, I am a registered independent and I have voted for candidates from both parties and some from none so I really am an individualist."

Then I take it your idea of "individualism" is to avoid group membership or considering its consequences in the actions of others? That would seem more a flavor of neutrality between groups rather than transcendence of them.

"The funny thing is you're not a liberal."

That is indeed quite a funny statement.

"You're a socialist or a communist but not a liberal and I mean that in the nicest possible way."

And I mean this in the nicest possible way: A non sequitur of this caliber makes you seem utterly delusional, if not just behaving petulantly out of bitter impotence to form effective responses.

"You did mention a fondness for Karl Marx in at least one comment or I wouldn't have mentioned it."

Apparently you're mistaken, since I've never discussed Karl Marx or his theories here. The mind of the right-winger is indeed a fluid engine of self-deception, is it not? Whether you read someone else's comments about Marx or the memory is entirely false, it's likely to have become associated with me the moment you became aware of my being to your political left. Facts and historical events are as transposable in the right-wing remembrance as letters in a Gutenberg printing press.

"Churchill was right about Stalin and FDR was wrong."

I don't recall FDR contradicting Churchill's conclusions about Stalin, and Roosevelt was dead well before the Iron Curtain speech. Again, Churchill was right by coincidence, being hostile and suspicious by nature--in an earlier era, he would have spoken in the same tones of American independence as Indian, and French ambition rather than Soviet communism.

"Look at the hundreds of millions who suffered under communism."

What does that have to do with FDR or Churchill?

"Don't you think if there was some offense, juicy with Bush or Cheney guilt the press and the Dem leadership would be howling impeachment and trumpeting it across the front page of the NYTimes?"

That's what I assumed, but it isn't how things have shaped up over the past few years. When the torture and illegal surveillance became public, and Bush's people as much as admitted and defended them, one would assume the opposition party would call for impeachment. Unfortunately, with a few honorable exceptions (e.g., John Conyers), the Democratic leadership simply doesn't have the backbone for confrontation on that level, and even today fear the Republican propaganda machine that would be put into overdrive by such a "nuclear" conflict.

When it really counts, as in the lead-up to the Iraq war, the GOP has proven it can seize editorial control of the media through corporate HQ and spread coordinated lies, and that it has the potential to build up grassroots domestic terrorism through its talk radio spectrum. This scares the living hell out of your average DLC bunny rabbit.

"The reality is your view is a small minority in this country."

What view are you referring to?

"What or who are you going to direct all this hate towards when at the end of January 2008 Bush retires to his ranch in Crawford?"

I don't recall there being a statute of limitations on murder, treason, or war crimes, let alone one granting an automatic pardon upon retirement.

"There will be no coup."

Certainly not with George W. Bush fronting it--he's damaged goods, and no longer useful. But the GOP has done it before, and having prospered as a result, they will surely do it again. That doesn't rule out the possibility of a legitimate win, given the relatively good crop of candidates being lined up, but Republicans don't take no for an answer if they can help it.

"He will leave in a quiet and dignified manner, unlike his predecessor."

Bush's predecessor did leave in a quiet and dignified manner, unlike every single moment of his own behavior in power, and frankly it wouldn't surprise me if his last act before leaving was to pardon Dick Cheney and ignominiously attempt to pardon himself. His appointees on the bench, after all, would most likely sustain it.

"The latest poll I've seen said the majority want us out but not at the expense of turning Iraq over to the Islamists."

Iraq isn't ours to "turn over" to anyone, so that would be a false premise even if you're characterizing the question properly.

"The Iraqi government doesn't wasn’t us to leave nor does their army and police force."

In other words, the people whose salaries we pay. Unfortunately, regime propagandists keep talking about "democracy," so it ought to matter that the vast majority of Iraqis want an immediate end to the occupation.

"No one who supports Bush regards the Constitution as the enemy."

Anything that limits their power, be it the Constitution, statutory laws, morality, ethics, or the truth, is an enemy. As a mere cultural abstraction, they regard it as a set of quaint, occasionally useful guidelines that shouldn't get in the way of warped right-wing conceptions of national security, but they are in open insurrection against it as a set of laws.

"As far as the UN Security Council goes, the resolutions for us to do what we did were already in place."

Show me the UN Security Council resolution, or indeed any UN rule, giving individual member states the authority to militarily enforce previous UN resolutions on others as they see fit without UNSC consensus to endorse the action. IF you can do that, THEN your interpretation effectively would give all other states on the Council that same authority, including to invade and conquer whomever they please if a flimsy case could be built on UN rules or findings. Is that what you're saying, or are you making just another right-wing "isolated moral universe" argument that applies only to you and yours?

"Of course Saddam was bribing people in France and Russia to try and prevent his demise."

Where do you get the unmitigated gall to mention bribery when discussing the invasion of Iraq--the single most profitable development in the history of dozens of loyal, extremely wealthy donor firms with intimate ties to the Bush regime? France is a democracy, and its government's position reflected that of its people, unlike the actions of your Glorious Leader.

Furthermore, the fact that the UNSC expressly failed to endorse the action when the question was called, makes clear that it was not the consensus of the body under its rules to invade Iraq on behalf of its resolutions. Any attempt to cite those resolutions as an excuse is therefore a lie.

"As far as Rand goes; he is kind enough to run a blog, pay for the bandwidth and let people comment here."

He does that for his own reasons, not as a benevolent service to others. If he didn't enjoy blogging on these subjects enough to spend the time and money doing so, he wouldn't, and nobody would bother coming if he tried to charge for entry. Also, if he didn't enjoy reading the discussions, he wouldn't enable comments, so you can ditch the idea that he's somehow sacrificing himself for his readers. We're all here because we enjoy it, nothing more, nothing less--this is not an audience chamber, it's a comments section where people comment on Rand's posts. If he didn't want comments, he wouldn't enable them.

"If being polite about that makes me a sychophant then I plead guilty."

But you're not being polite about it, you're shoving it in my face because I don't share your piety in approaching power relationships. People with self-respect don't set their tone by the power gradient between themselves and others. This is an idea fundamental to individualism, and something you should already know if you're familiar with it.

"You do back up your commnents with ideas, the reason part is a little fuzzy though."

Try not to confuse reason with the appearance of reasonableness, they're totally unrelated. Churchill at least understood that.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 4, 2007 06:37 AM

Squiddie says: France is a democracy, and its government's position reflected that of its people, unlike the actions of your Glorious Leader.

Oh, so the people approved of the weapons dealing the French government was doing with Saddam? I suppose they voted on it and approved it? I suppose they also voted to not mention the weapons dealing to the UN? The government of France had illegal dealings with numerous governments around the world in recent times (like every other country it seems) is this governmental tactic reflected by their populace?

Posted by Mac at May 4, 2007 07:43 AM

Squiddie said: Show me the UN Security Council resolution, or indeed any UN rule, giving individual member states the authority to militarily enforce previous UN resolutions on others as they see fit without UNSC consensus to endorse the action.

There is none. However, can you show a UN resolution that was enforced militarily when the resolution was blatantly disregarded several times? Its the same thing as telling a child that he will get put in time out for doing a certain action. When the child does the action, then suddenly you're saying don't do it again, instead of enforcing the rules with the punishment that was cited. Saddam played the UN for fools, because he knew they would never enforce their numerous resolutions. Once they failed to enforce the first, Saddam knew NONE would be. Enter the US and there declaration that Saddam must follow the next resolution or the US led coalition WOULD enforce. He failed to follow the rules and the US led coalition spanked him for it.

Posted by Mac at May 4, 2007 07:50 AM

Churchill formed aunity government during WW2, and
did not campaign as a Labour Leader or actively undermine
the Liberal Party during the war.

George Bush has flown to washington to act upon only
2 pieces of legislation. !) was to veto the Iraq Supplemental of
2007 the other was to sign the Terry Schiavo Bill.

I suspect his priorities are confused if he wants to be a
wartime president.

Posted by anonymous at May 5, 2007 11:09 PM

Post a comment