Count Me As A 9/11 American

What a silly distinction (Abu Ghraib American vs 9/11 American)! Sec. Rumsfeld offered to resign twice over Abu Ghraib - which kind of American is he supposed to be? And when Sen. Obama says he wants to go after terrorists unilaterally in Waziristan, he is hardly being too soft on 9/11 or too apologetic for Abu Ghraib.
The distinction is more than silly - it is worthless. Just go back to "liberal vs conservative" and stop using 9/11 as a wedge issue.

Sec. Rumsfeld offered to resign twice over Abu Ghraib - which kind of American is he supposed to be?

The kind of American who doesn't believe that America should be defined by Abu Ghraib.

Just go back to "liberal vs conservative" and stop using 9/11 as a wedge issue.

It will remain a wedge issue as long as so-called "liberals" continue to refuse to believe that we are at war.

I don't think anyone who holds office at the national level thinks that America should be definied by Abu Ghraib. Only extremists would hold that view, and they are a tiny minority who will never be elected to a position where they can change US policy.

And almost no one refuses to believe that we are at war. After all, people who want to "end the war" clearly believe that we are at war. The question for many people is whether we are at war in Iraq and Afganistan, or whether we are at war with [x] where x has values like "global terrorism", "islamists", and, well, other people have other ideas about what x is. Those who think we can't be at war "with terrorism" and those who think that "war" is the wrong way of looking at the problem, generally favor "police" and intelligence work (including the kind of intelligence work that involves arresting or killing people when necessary) as an alternative. This idea that liberals don't want to stop terrorism is silly, and I don't understand why you are promoting it. Liberals overwhelming favored going into Afganistan to take out Al Queda and the Taliban, and liberals currently favor two candidates (Obama and Clinton) who advocate a strong fight against terrorism.

It seems to me like you are holding up views of a tiny minority and acting as though they represent the mainstream views of the Democratic party. You sound like Kucinich and Gravel were competing for the nomination instead of Obama and Clinton.

Obama is neither a 9/11 American nor an Abu Ghraib American. He's a July 4th American, and so am I and most people who plan to vote for him. That is what Noah Pollak and Lee Smith don't understand. Since they are deaf to his message, they alternately put words in his mouth and perceive that he has nothing to say.

July 4th is the date of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was, among other things, a message King George III of England, who was America's enemy of the time. They expressly sent him a copy. There was no doctrine then that America doesn't talk to its enemies. Such a doctrine would have been self-destructive, childish, and undignified. That is exactly Obama's point about dignity.

I think that it's very fair to say that our government of the past seven years has been run by 9/11 Americans. They have given America the undignified image of a wounded animal. A wounded animal does not negotiate with enemies. Instead it claws at some of its enemies, and coddles other enemies and calls them friends. Sadly, that is what we have today. Bush has repeatedly lashed out at Chavez as an enemy and glad-handed Putin as a friend. In reality Putin and Chavez are on the same plane and it's undignified as all hell to kiss one and kick the other.

The government has also been run by Abu Ghraib Americans who have taken America down a peg by sanctioning torture. Even today, they refuse to prosecute the CIA contractor who tortured a man to death at Abu Ghraib. Instead, Administration lawyers write memos to explain why it isn't wrong.

To his credit, John McCain is not an Abu Ghraib American. He is against torture because he knows that it takes America down a peg. But he is a 9/11 American, or he has acted as one to get the Republican nomination. Others are free to vote for September 11th if they please, but I will vote for July 4th.

The real difference is those that believe the Iraq conflict is part of the war on terror and those that think it was jinned up for no reason (to make Bush money, to avenge the attack on his father, because neocons thought it would be fun).

If you are one of the later, Abu Ghraib becomes much more of a crime as it's a crime upon a crime rather than an abhoration.

I do think there is a third category that does not think we are in a war at all but just complaining about being hit back and if we got out of the ring entirely the world would be a peaceful loving place. Many of these people also saw the cold world only in terms of US actions, not that we were responding to the Soviets or anything.

Obama is neither a 9/11 American nor an Abu Ghraib American. He's a July 4th American

Right.

He's a July 4th American who refuses to wear a flag lapel, lest he look too patriotic, a July 4th American whose wife found absolutely nothing about which to be proud of her country until her husband started to look like he could win the nomination, and a July 4th American who was happy for decades to attend church services by a pastor who proclaimed "God Damn America, the US of KKK A."

He, and you, are completely politically tone deaf to much of America, which is why, even if he manages to keep Hillary! from stealing the nomination from him, he will get blown out as badly as George McGovern did in 1972.

The real difference is those that believe the Iraq conflict is part of the war on terror and those that think it was jinned up for no reason (to make Bush money, to avenge the attack on his father, because neocons thought it would be fun).

If you are one of the later, Abu Ghraib becomes much more of a crime as it's a crime upon a crime rather than an abhoration.

I do think there is a third category that does not think we are in a war at all but just complaining about being hit back and if we got out of the ring entirely the world would be a peaceful loving place. Many of these people also saw the cold world only in terms of US actions, not that we were responding to the Soviets or anything.

About Wright:

I've been reading your blog for years even though I don't agree with you. My liberal friends ask "what's wrong with you? Why do you read right wing blogs? And did you just say you were watching Fox news? You're some kind of Republican now!" I reply "I just find it interesting to hear views that are different than mine."

My congregation has had three rabbis over the years. One of them had views which I didn't agree with at all & I enjoyed listening to his sermons best of all, for the same resons I enjoy this blog.

It is ok to listen (and to talk) to people you don't agree with.

It is ok to listen (and to talk) to people you don't agree with.

When did I say otherwise? What's your point?

Rand, My point was that Obama could be a patriotic "4th of July" American and still go to attend Rev. Wright's church. I thought you were saying that this couldn't be the case.

Rand, My point was that Obama could be a patriotic "4th of July" American and still go to attend Rev. Wright's church. I thought you were saying that this couldn't be the case.

I'm sorry my last comment posted twice. Since I'm posting yet another comment, I'll say this too:

The links you posted connect Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright to his desire to talk to America's enemies.

My more general point was that it is ok to listen to provocative preachers and it is ok to talk to anti-semitic WMD-desiring terrorist-supporting dictators. Talking and listening don't signify agreement and support.

There is no evidence that if Obama talked to Iran's leaders, he would be "an Abu Ghraib" American, and I don't know why you think he would be one.

My more general point was that it is ok to listen to provocative preachers and it is ok to talk to anti-semitic WMD-desiring terrorist-supporting dictators. Talking and listening don't signify agreement and support.

No, talking and listening doesn't signify agreement and support. No one has claimed that it does. This is called a "straw man."

However, being a member of a church for twenty years, taking your kids to hear the toxic sermons there, having them baptized by the man, claiming that he is is "spiritual advisor," would indicate to me that he has no problem with what the pastor says, regardless of his protestations now. And if that's the case, then I have big problems with Obama.

As for it being "OK to talk to anti-semitic WMD-desiring terrorist-supporting dictators," I have to ask: what would the purpose of such talks be? What would be the purpose of listening to the insane rants, without preconditions?

If Obama imagines that somehow, by the force of his magnetic personality, that "talking" or "listening" to such people is going to somehow get them to hit themselves in the forehead and say, "Of course! They don't want us to fund terrorism against them. They don't want us to destroy Israel. That's what they're so upset about. Well, we'll certainly stop doing it now. It's a good thing we had this talk. We just didn't understand," then I think that he's far too naive to be president. And if that's not what the purpose is, then what is it?

And if he thinks that by "talking" and "listening" he can get the terrorist lion to lie down with the Jewish lamb, why can't he get the support of Hillary's voters? It should be trivially easy, in comparison.

I don't think Obama imagines (and certainly I don't imagine) that he is going to change their minds by talking to them.

One thing the President of the United States can accomplish by talking is that he can establish where the lines in the sand really are. If he tries to communicate with dictators by giving a public speech, the dictators may think that the President is speaking for domestic consumption, or for what they'll think of as propaganda purposes. If he looks them in the eye in private and explains where the red lines are, the dictators might get the message.

Beyond that, national leaders have, over the years, found that summits can be helpful. Yes, summits can be helpful for propaganda purposes. And dictators can get the wrong message too -- I've read that Khrushchev got the impression that Kennedy was weak from their first summit, and this led to the Cuban missile crisis.

Despite these possible drawbacks, tough-minded anti-terrorist national leaders (like the Israelis) still push for summit meetings. Possibly the goal is simply to allow the other party to vent (I think it was Dennis Ross who said the first day of all middle east peace conferences is essentially wasted because both sides feel the need to lecture the other side on their view of not just on recent events but on the last 70 years of middle east history.) And possibly the goal of summits is to simply let each leader take the measure of the other.

Those who think we can't be at war "with terrorism" and those who think that "war" is the wrong way of looking at the problem, generally favor "police" and intelligence work (including the kind of intelligence work that involves arresting or killing people when necessary)

Bob, have you ever been a police officer? Do you know any police officers?

I know several. None of them think the NYPD (or any police department) could have just gone over Afghanistan with a squad car and arrested bin Laden and associates.

That is about the silliest thing you could have written. Perhaps you think FDR should have sent a couple of FBI agents to arrest Tojo after Pearl Harbor because we couldn't be "at war with Japanese Imperialism" or "at war with Nazism" and "war" is just the wrong way of looking at problems...?

If Obama is the nominee he will whip McCain solid.
The economy is tanking, Iraq is unravelling, the Rpubs have totally alientated Hispanics and Blacks. The polls right now are meaningless. Wait till the Dems have Obama as nominee. McCain will be whupped.

Those who think we can't be at war "with terrorism" and those who think that "war" is the wrong way of looking at the problem, generally favor "police" and intelligence work (including the kind of intelligence work that involves arresting or killing people when necessary)

When Bill Clinton (lawyer) and his cabinet of lawyers who "looked like America" were in charge, they looked at everything from a lawyer's perspective. When they were offered bin Laden on a platter, they turned down the offer because they couldn't think of a way around the legal ramifications. The results are a matter of history.

There are simply to many lawyers in American society poking their noses into areas where they're monumentally ignorant - war being the foremost example. Trying to run a war with the lawyers calling the shots is a formula for disaster. The point is that you don't go there with a legalistic mentality and treat terrorist like bank robbers. You need to send soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines over there to hunt them down and capture if possible, kill if not.

And, regarding the Rev. Wright's church- Rand is spewing a bunch of nonsense. Go read the NYT article from yesterday on the church. It's not as if Jerry Wright is making the kind of comments you see on Fox in every sermon. Much too much is being squeezed out of this for Right Wing Profit. That church has done a huge amount of good. Far outweighing Wright's occasional, admittedly idiotic outbursts. The delerium now has infected Fox News and its rabid followers.

By the way, the Hannities and Limbaughs who are all wound up by this now refer with reverence to MLK. MLK had some choice things to say about America, some of them at least as bad as Wright about Vietnam for example. Meanwhile Wright served, unlike five deferment Cheney who is a hero at this blog. Maybe he has earned a right to speak his mind.

When Bill Clinton (lawyer) and his cabinet of lawyers who "looked like America" were in charge, they looked at everything from a lawyer's perspective.

Have you forgotten Clinton bombing aspirin factories? All those glorious little wars in places like Kosovo?

Clinton was perfectly willing to send soldiers, rather than lawyers, when it suited his purposes. He fought a "preemptive" war in Kosovo claiming that if we didn't, Kosovo's army would overrun Western Europe. And the pacifist left said nothing about that, because it was their party doing it.

I have to give Ron Paul some credit here, because he has at least been consistent. (I know because I happened to be in his office when the attack on Kosovo began.)

Edward Wright said:

Bob, have you ever been a police officer? Do you know any police officers?

I know several. None of them think the NYPD (or any police department) could have just gone over Afghanistan with a squad car and arrested bin Laden and associates.

That is about the silliest thing you could have written.

Edward, I would never want to get in a silliness contest with you.

Police officers are capable of bursting into an apartment building in Germany and arresting terrorist conspirators.

As for Afghanistan, as I said, the military intervention in 2001 had widespread liberal support, and giving more military resources to that intervention is one of the key parts of Obama's policy on terrorism.

Edward, why are you spewing nonsense about Kosovo? The intervention in Kosovo, even if came a bit too late, was intended to stop a massacre. I think if Clinton had his presidency to do over again, he would have committed troops to Rwanda as well.

I assume your comment about "Kosovo's army overunning Western Europe" is an amazingly garbled version of the idea that continued unrest in the Balkans could eventually involve Greece, a NATO ally. Just this week, Bush was continuing Clinton's policy of trying to prevent that from happening, by binding FYROM ("the Republic of Macedonia") to Greece via their joint membership in NATO. Unfortunately, this week at the NATO summit, it didn't happen.

It's not as if Jerry Wright is making the kind of comments you see on Fox in every sermon. Much too much is being squeezed out of this for Right Wing Profit. That church has done a huge amount of good.

Sure. I know this guy down the street who does a lot of good for the neighborhood, playing with the kids, helping out with the neighbors' yards, keeping on eye on places and feeding pets when they're gone. The only problem is that once in a while, he axe murders someone. But it only happens a couple times a year. The rest of the time he's great. The good he does far outweighs the occasional brutal homicide. Why, we don't even bother to report him--he probably has his reasons.

Meanwhile Wright served, unlike five deferment Cheney who is a hero at this blog. Maybe he has earned a right to speak his mind.

Cheney is a hero at this blog? Who knew?

Of course he has a right to speak his mind. Who has said otherwise? Yet another idiotic straw man from yet another anonymous idiot.

He didn't even have to earn it by serving (what's this, the idiotic chickenhawk argument? Only those who served have freedom of speech?).

He has a right to speak his mind, and I have a right to judge a presidential candidate that is so apparently unperturbed about the things that he speaks from his mind that he doesn't seem to mind if his daughters are influenced to think that Amerikkka is damnable. I also have a right to not vote for him, and to urge others not to do so. Isn't it a wonderful country?

Well, I guess not, if one were to go by Reverend Wright and Michelle Obama...

Much too much is being squeezed out of this for Right Wing Profit. That church has done a huge amount of good. Far outweighing Wright's occasional, admittedly idiotic outbursts.

Obama opened the door to this, by highlighting Wright's significant role as his spiritual advisor for the past two decades. So it's fair game to question Wright and Obama on the things that have come to light recently.

The views that Rev Wright expresses, repeatedly, are quite clearly coming from someone with deep seated issues with his country and certain groups of people. I don't see the difference if he asks God to "damn America" every week or only on the third Sunday of each month. Rev Wright has also cited particular theologians that support similar views, as being key to his own religious and social philosophy.

It's ridiculous to believe Obama never, not once, heard (or heard about) these types of things being said in church. The good deeds done by Wright and TUCC are great, but they have no relevance to the issue of Obama's judgment, beliefs, and the company he keeps.

At Abu Ghraib, American soldiers misbehaved criminally.

They were reported immediately, by another soldier, up the chain of command.

The chain of command reacted with remarkable speed. The soldiers were arrested, and an investigation was put in train to discover precisely what had happened. That investigation reached not only the soldiers themselves, but "up the line" to their commanding officers, all the way to flag rank.

The investigation proceeded with all deliberate speed and with due attention to the civil rights of the accused. As a result of it, courts-martial were held, again paying close attention to the rights of the accused. The soldiers were convicted and punished, and several of their superiors were also punished for dereliction of duty and other infractions.

All that took place in the middle of a blizzard of publicity specifically designed to abrogate the rights of the accused by assuming them guilty. The authorities charged with investigating the crimes, trying the accused, and punishing those judged guilty seem to have paid little or no attention to the media firestorm, instead continuing the process with absolute professionalism and good judgement.

The entire process reveals that Americans are not existentially "better" than anybody else on the planet; we have the same proportions of saints and sinners as any other human population. The only difference is what we do with criminals. What we do is establish for sure that they are criminals and punish them for it, while maintaining protections for civil rights and civilized behavior.

So I'm an Abu Ghraib American, and damned proud of it. The people who distort the events into some kind of all-encompassing claim of self-rectitude, based on which they are privileged to bind and to loose, can FOAD.

Regards,
Ric

Police officers are capable of bursting into an apartment building in Germany and arresting terrorist conspirators.

Bob, you might want to check a world map. Afghanistan and Iraq are not in Germany.

Furthermore, American police officers are not capable of (legally) bursting into apartment buildings in Germany. That is outside their jurisdiction. That's why the NATO Joint Forces Antiterrorist Team exists.

As for Afghanistan, as I said, the military intervention in 2001 had widespread liberal support,

Yes, in 2001, liberals did. In 2008, they're right back to military bashing and making ridiculous suggestions that we should have sent cops instead.

Sorry, Bob. We need leaders who are able to support the military for more than one year.

giving more military resources to that intervention is one of the key parts of Obama's policy on terrorism.

Okay, so Obama wants to send military resources where his political advisors tell him rather than where the military says they are needed. Assuming he realy means it, how does that square with your military bashing? Didn't you say military action was "the wrong way to do things"? Didn't Jim say it "gives America the undignified image of a wounded animal"? Why doesn't Obama just send a cop with an arrest warrant, as you suggested?

Then there's the question of what you would do with those terrorists once T.J. Hooker has arrested them. The left says terrorists should have the same legal rights as Americans. That means a large percentage of them will be sprung on legal technicalities and out of jail in no time. Military action tends to be more final.

Edward,

Read what I wrote again more carefully. I wasn't even talking about my own views. I was explaining a point of view held by many of my fellow liberals. Many people believe there should be increased focus on treating Al Queda as a band of international criminals, but only in cases where they have been denied a region that they control.

Nearly everything else you wrote was silly. Of course German police would be used in Germany.

The distinction between military and police comes down to this: the 19 guys who attacked us on 9/11 could have been stopped by the police if the police had been given good intelligence. Everyone on both sides of the aisle understands this, and everyone supports the idea of getting better intelligence. The country of Afghanistan which gave support to those 19 guys and their co-conspirators and fellow Al Queda members needed to be dealt with using the military. Everyone understands that too, and that's why the war in Afghanistan continues to get bipartisan support (although our efforts there could clearly use more resources).

I wish you had as much confidence as Ric Locke regarding our legal system.

How does someone who

(1) Isn't a Christian,
(2) Does not attend any church,
(3) Does not believe in God, faith, or redemption,

decide they know enough about all the above to act as fit to judge the hearts and minds of the thousands of people who belong to UCC?

Maybe it is Rand Simberg who is misjudging the American people. He expected Obama's campaign to fold when FOX put Wright's worst on infinite replay. Wrong.

Maybe Rand should find a church and understand that Christianity isn't about judgement as much as it is about reconciliation. Which is the reason Obama's favorability is back in the 50's, much to the shock of some people.

Where does Senator Obama stand on Kosovo independence? Does he agree with the bi-partisan consensus that the ethnic Albanian people in Kosovo are our friends and that the ethnic Serbs in Kosovo are kin to bad people who are not our friends? Or does he think the rush to recognize Kosovo needlessly antagonizes Russia, whose help we may need fighting a common terrorist foe?

Where does Senator Obama stand on the recent attempt to include Asian Georgia and Ukraine in NATO? These again are part of the bi-partisan consensus, but there are some in the U.S. who break with that consensus and think we are needlessly alarming the Russians to no good purpose.

Nearly everything else you wrote was silly. Of course German police would be used in Germany.

I'm glad you recognize that, Bob.

You should also recognize that the German police are not under the command of the President of the United States.

Therefore, any arguments that Bush should have sent the German police instead of the US Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines are silly. Even if they were capable of doing the job, they are not under his command.

the 19 guys who attacked us on 9/11 could have been stopped by the police if the police had been given good intelligence

And if Grandma had wheels she'd be a Buick.

We didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq to stop the 19 guys who attacked us on 9/11. There was no way to stop them at that point and no need to; they were already dead and could not attack us again.

We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to stop their their allies who were still alive, numbered a lot more than 19, and required a lot more force than any police department is able to muster.

If you want to blame Bush for not inventing a time machine to go back and ask the German police to stop those 19 guys before they attacked us on 9/11, okay, but that is not an option in the real world.

Everyone understands that too, and that's why the war in Afghanistan continues to get bipartisan support

No, the war is not just in Afghanistan, and it does not have bipartisan support. The people marching with signs saying "End the War" are not supporting the war.

You seem to be arguing for a strategy of fighting Al Queda only in Afghanistan and letting them have safe haven in Iraq. That makes as little sense as your previous suggestion of just calling the local cops.

Maybe it is Rand Simberg who is misjudging the American people.

Maybe, but it seems quite unlikely to me. As I said, be prepared for a very unpleasant surprise in November if you nominate this year's George McGovern, charisma or not.

And I never fail to be amused at anonymous idiots who self-righteously tell me that I shouldn't be judgmental, or that I don't know enough to judge. You're right. I'm not a Christian. I'm just a voter. But that's all I need to be.

One more time. The pastor is free to say whatever loony things he wants, and I'm free to judge him and his congregant who is running for president. As are many other people. It's a free country.

I wish you had as much confidence as Ric Locke regarding our legal system.

Now, this is another bizarre statement. Why does it matter how much confidence I have in the legal system? Do you think it's black magic? It will only work if I believe in it?

Also, in case you missed it, Ric was talking about the *military* legal system. You know, the one the left is always saying is no damn good because it doesn't give enemy combatants the same chance O.J. had?

Edward, thanks for providing so much amusement tonight. I just got home from a dinner party. I happily told everyone that I was back at those (forgive me Rand) "right wing blogs" again.

I said that a guy on one of them had explained to me why law enforcement wasn't the right way to fight terrorism. I paused. Everyone waited expectantly. I said "the guy explained to me that law enforcement wouldn't work, because, well, you know, a cop couldn't just drive his squad car over to Afghanistan!" Everyone burst out laughing. I'm still smiling just remembering it. Thanks again!

He's a July 4th American who refuses to wear a flag lapel

He didn't "refuse" to wear a flag lapel, he simply chose not to, and there is nothing unpatriotic about that. After all, where is your flag lapel? Where was Reagan's?

No, the real issue is the difference the appearance of patriotism and the real thing. In particular, it is entirely unpatriotic to demand that other people wear flag lapels. If you're going to demand that people wear national symbols, why stop at flag lapels; why not armbands?

a July 4th American who was happy for decades to attend church services by a pastor who proclaimed "God Damn America, the US of KKK A."

Sure, Jeremiah Wright has said some crazy things from time to time, some of them unpatriotic, but he isn't the one running for president. The idea that if some of your friends are sometimes unpatriotic, then you're unpatriotic too is called guilt by association. It's also called McCarthyism, and it is itself un-American and unpatriotic.

After all, there is little less patriotic than to deny your American citizenship, falsely claim citizenship of another country, and hide your money in island banks in order to massively evade taxes. That is what Walt Anderson did. This is much more flagrantly unpatriotic than to just spout some overheated sermons from time to time. But I'm not going to call Walt Anderson's friends unpatriotic, just because Walt himself is criminally unpatriotic.

A July 4th American whose wife found absolutely nothing about which to be proud of her country

Okay you have a point there. Michelle Obama may protest that this paraphrase bends the truth and that she meant that she was especially proud then rather than she had never otherwise been proud, but it won't wash. If she is to be first lady, she had better be fit for the job. Damaging sound bites like this one are a black mark for her and her husband.

So Obama would do well to follow Fred Thompson's and John McCain's example. He should dump Michelle for another woman. A man ought to know when to rotate his staff. Would we have wanted Carol Shepp McCain or Sarah Lindsey Thompson in the White House? McCain and Thompson didn't want them in their hair, presumably for good reasons. Although Cindy Hensley McCain also a problem section in her resume, the time that she stole drugs from her non-profit foundation. So maybe McCain should consider another trade-in.

Wright only had to say "God da** America" ONCE. That's all.

Wright only had to say ...AIDS was a government invention... ONCE. That's all.

If he didn't MEAN it, he shouldn't have SAID it.

It's too late, the guy SAID it. Got that? The words escaped his mouth.

Take responsibility for what you say. "God da** America" CAN'T be taken out of context.

And what PASTOR has a God-given right to swear on the pulpit? Blasphemy, anyone?

Geez. It's so simple.

If you're going to demand that people wear national symbols, why stop at flag lapels; why not armbands?

I never made any such demand. I simply commented on Obama's response when someone asked him why he didn't.

I'm not going to call Walt Anderson's friends unpatriotic, just because Walt himself is criminally unpatriotic.

Well, isn't that generous of you. I didn't know that I was one of Walt's "friends." I've certainly never claimed that he was my spiritual mentor, as Obama did about Wright. Nice try, though. Well, actually, it was a stupid try.

And the notion that he can solve the problem by divorcing his wife is even more stupid. Any one of these things, by itself, is no big deal. But I can recognize a pattern when I see one.

I never made any such demand.

I never said that you did. But you imagined that someone demanded that Obama wear the flag, because otherwise there wouldn't have been any demand for him to "refuse". If someone merely politely asked, then he politely answered.

Again, where is your flag pin?

I didn't know that I was one of Walt's "friends."

I never said that you were. But let's say that Anderson were your friend, or your "space access mentor", or your friend's friend or his space access mentor. That still wouldn't make anyone around Walt Anderson unpatriotic, just because Anderson himself is criminally unpatriotic.

If Anderson were your patriotism mentor or your tax mentor, then possibly you'd be unpatriotic too. Maybe or maybe not, depending on what you learned from his example. But then, Obama didn't say that Wright was his patriotism mentor, or his political mentor, or his security mentor. A spiritual mentor is something else.

And the notion that he can solve the problem by divorcing his wife is even more stupid.

WARNING FOR THE IRONY-IMPAIRED: That suggestion may have carried some.

Jim, why do you waste your time (and my disk space and bandwidth) polluting my blog with all this unconvincing sophistry? Surely you don't fantasize that you're changing any minds? Don't you have a life?

He, and you, are completely politically tone deaf to much of America

This remark deserves a separate answer. When you vote --- which by the way is a patriotic act that you said you have been skipping lately --- you should tune out from opinion polls. Your vote should be your independent answer as to which is the better candidate. Political viability is a valid consideration for third-party candidates, but that is not what Obama is. The idea that you are a loser if you don't vote with everyone else is a herd mentality and a misinterpration of democracy. I'd still vote for Obama if I thought he was the better candidate, even if he only got 1% of the vote.

Sure, Obama himself should listen to the voters if he expects to win. Is he "tone deaf" and will he be "blown out"? I you really knew what you're talking about, you could make a 150% profit on Intrade in seven months. You were saying that you are short of money, so if you really were the expert, you should jump at the chance.

I personally don't care to predict. I will vote for Obama (or possibly Clinton) because the election will be a referendum between September 11th Americans, as this post says, and July 4th Americans. Is America a wounded nation that attacks its enemies without negotiation? Or is America an enlightened nation that speaks to both friend and foe, as it did on July 4th, 1776? I will vote for the latter.

Ric Locke: At Abu Ghraib, American soldiers misbehaved criminally.

Yes, and so did a CIA contractor. He tortured a detainee to death. The death was ruled a homicide, but unlike the soldiers, he was never arrested.

Back in Washington, an Administration lawyer issued a legal opinion that said that it isn't wrong if death is not intended.

Obama has given at least two similarly worded explanations about the flag pin. I included two short quotes below. What is objectionable here? How is this part of a bigger pattern?

--

October 3rd, 2007: "The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin,” Mr. Obama replied. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

“I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest,” he added. “Instead I’m gonna’ try to tell the American people what I believe what will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

--

October 4th, 2007: "“Somebody noticed I wasn’t wearing a flag lapel pin and I told folks, well you know what? I haven’t probably worn that pin in a very long time. I wore it right after 9/11. But after a while, you start noticing people wearing a lapel pin, but not acting very patriotic. Not voting to provide veterans with resources that they need. Not voting to make sure that disability payments were coming out on time.

“My attitude is that I’m less concerned about what you’re wearing on your lapel than what’s in your heart. And you show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who served. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and our ideals and that’s what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.”

Source: thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/obamas-lapels/

I wasn't telling you how to vote, Jim. I was just telling you and the other Obamaphiles not to be shocked when your candidate gets blown out this fall.

But then, reading comprehension has apparently never been your strong suit, based on the number of straw men in this thread alone.

I just finished reading a section in a recent (perhaps a week old now) Economist on foreign policy after Bush. In the course of the section they note polls showing a very large edge for the Democratic Party over the Republican Party in terms of voters. They predict larger majorities in both the House and Senate for Democrats next year. That seems reasonable.

Who is going to be President a year from now could be harder to call. All three survivors have significant negatives. Some polls suggest that some Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton and vice versa. I personally don't like the way the Clintons have made money in the past 7 years, some things about Obama -- especially the Reverend Wright -- and have read and heard some things about McCain that give pause. He has a reputation of being nasty personally. Some of his economic advisers -- especially Carly Fiorina -- more than give me pause.

The race for President could be quite narrowly decided. House and Senate will most likely be more strongly Democratic.

But after a while, you start noticing people wearing a lapel pin, but not acting very patriotic. Not voting to provide veterans with resources that they need. Not voting to make sure that disability payments were coming out on time.

Bob, just because Daddy bought you a Ford instead of a Ferrari doesn't mean he's unpatriotic. It may just mean he thinks you should buy your own car. Or at least your own gas.

The left loves to invoke the name of veterans when calling for increased welfare benefits but the vast majority of benefits go to non-veterans.

If you think veterans are getting a raw deal, why don't you offer to give up some of your civilian benefits to help pay for them? Cut HHS by just 12% and you could double Veterans benefits. Even "tiny" NASA could add 25% to Veterans benefits.

More to the point, if you love military veterans so much, why do you trash them when they're trying to do their job in places like Vietnam and Iraq?

Edward, I have never trashed the US military. Ever.

I didn't understand the rest of your comment. For example, when you say that Daddy's offspring should buy their own gas or car, are you trying to say that veterans shouldn't get disability benefits or shouldn't get as many benefits?

Heh.

If McCain chooses a conservative running mate watch his numbers fall off a cliff.

McCains only hope to keep his current popularity is to choose someonne like him, who considered, at least twice in his career, switching parties and becoming a Democrat.

If he chooses say a Mitt Romney or a Fred Thompson, watch waht happens to his Indie numbers.

Meanwhile, if he somehow wins the Presidency, it's not a bad thing to have an almost Democrat in office.

So, is Rand Simberg going to vote for McCain? Or does he simply detest all three possible candidates? I think he does, which makes his comments all the more amusing.

It should be enough to consider counselling from a friendly spiritual mentor or pastor.

Everyone waited expectantly. I said "the guy explained to me that law enforcement wouldn't work, because, well, you know, a cop couldn't just drive his squad car over to Afghanistan!" Everyone burst out laughing. I'm still smiling just remembering it.

While the image of a bunch of self-satisfied ignorant goobers revelling in their own perceived superiority is spot-on, I do wonder at your choice of anecdote, other than as illustrative of how free of the ability to think you and your dinner party friends are. You seem to believe military action was necessary in, for instance, Afghanistan, and claim it has great bi-partisan support. The point of the statement which made your oh-so-clever friends burst out laughing was that law enforcement cannot on its own be successful when nation-states provide terrorist havens. So either your brilliant friends were laughing at the idea you agree with, or, if they agree that routing the Taliban from Afghanistan, and keeping them out, is necessary, they are laughing at themselves. I can see the stupid smirks already.

"Anonymous wrote:
Heh.

If McCain chooses a conservative running mate watch his numbers fall off a cliff."

McCain will choose Elizabeth Dole, acceptable to conservatves and disgruntled Hillary voters ensuring a 42 state landslide.

My, that would be quite a geriatric ticket. They would certainly get the hospice vote.

Crispytoast,

Nah, it was nothing like that. Look upthread. I said that many liberals believe that, sometimes but not always, the West should use intelligence agencies and law enforcement instead of the military to stop terrorism. This is utterly uncontroversial. I thought it was funny when Edward ignored the intelligence agency portion of the comment, and explained that the cops he knew couldn't go to Afganistan with their squad car. He topped it off by calling me silly. I told my friends about, they laughed. That's it. The real question of when it makes sense to use the military and when it makes sense to use law enforcement and intelligence assets went unanswered ( although obviously the military is probably going to be needed if whole regions are serving as terrorist havens, as they were in Afghanistan, and it may also be needed against terrorists in other circumstances such as when pin-point strikes were used in Yemen and Somalia.)

There is no need to turn this into some kind of culture-war, particularly when, since we don't know each other, the cultural divide might only be in your head. I'm only laughing at Edward Wright's comment.
I think Edward himself has made lots of interesting comments about space policy over the years, and I wouldn't have mocked him at all if he hadn't called me silly while simultaneously being so silly himself.

obviously the military is probably going to be needed if whole regions are serving as terrorist havens, as they were in Afghanistan, and it may also be needed against terrorists in other circumstances such as when pin-point strikes were used in Yemen and Somalia.

And as would have been the case in Anbar province and other places if we hadn't chased them out of there in the last year, and will be again if we leave, per Obama and Clinton's prescription.

"Anonymous wrote:
My, that would be quite a geriatric ticket. They would certainly get the hospice vote."

She is younger than Hillary.

Yes, the choice of Dole will fit the geriatric profile perfectly. It would make voting for the Republicans a near death experience, if not downright necrophilic.

Well, who da thunk she was older than the 3am lady. So why does she look so aged ? Would the American public want to watch a woman age like Elizabeth Dole as Veep?

Then again, why does she look so old? Being on the receiving end of so much Viagra can't be easy.

Mabey some people don't want to vote for baby bottom-burp.

> Talking and listening don't signify agreement and support.

Does giving money count as support? If the answer depends on how much money one gives, what is the threshold.

I ask because Obama gave Wright lots of money.

There are other black churches in Chicago.

"Bob wrote:

the West should use intelligence agencies and law enforcement instead of the military to stop terrorism......it may also be needed against terrorists in other circumstances such as when pin-point strikes were used in Yemen and Somalia"

As no doubt they already are. But to only rely upon that aspect of our capability would represent a serious flaw in asset allocation. In fact your whole point stinks of needlessly tying one hand behind our back just so we can play nice and fair with the bad guys. In fact, Somalia served more so as an example to current military doctrine of what happens when you purposely mire one's forces in complex rules of engagement. When you drop small forces into a combat zone without proper force protection then people get killed and choppers get shot down. Ask any boxer and they will tell you, to them a perfect match is one where they knock the guy out in the first punch. Sure it ain't pretty nor fun for those on pay per view, but it gets the job done.

It strikes me as odd that during Korea and Vietnam people always snidely referred to the fact that the current gov't referred to them as, "A police action, not a war". Now it seems that this administration has learned the lesson not to mince words and that a war, is a war, is a war. However, the left wants to roll there eyes and say, "No to war, yes to police action".

Josh,

My reference to Somalia was much more recent. Recently (in 2006, I believe), a Taliban-like group started taking power in Somalia. They had an kind of a cool name, "the Islamic Courts Union" - to my ear, the "Courts Union" part sounds like something out of a science fiction novel - but they weren't cool at all - they were evil-doers, and were suspected of harboring Al Queda, which triggered intense US interst. Ethiopia invaded to rout the Somalian Taliban (ICU) with support from the U.S. Ethiopia chased a bunch of ICU and suspected Al Queda members to the border with Kenya, but failed to kill or apprehend them (I don't know the story on this, but I believe it wasn't for lack of desire.) The United States flew gunships over border area and killed a bunch of Al Queda suspects. The US also apparently killed some civilians.

This sort of strike illustrates an excellent use of the US military. Civilians were harmed, and I don't think that should be shrugged off, but orders of magnitude fewer civilians were harmed than would have been harmed if we had invaded the Somalian border region. On the other hand, I think there is another hand, the US strikes may only have been possible because the Ethiopians invaded. But maybe not. I think everyone can agree that smaller pin-point strikes should be considered when situation is right for it.

Finally: being nice guys and not killing tons of civilians was only good side effect. No US president wants to get bogged down in Somalia again if it could be avoided. The ultimate question is whether the same good was achieved without an invasion.

I have a question which might seem both political and rude, but I'm asking it sincerely, as I want to be polite, and I'm more passionate about logic than politics. I'm NOT taking a shot at Rand here.

Rand argued that there were many strawman arguments presented in this thread. He is probably right about that, and I'm probably guilty.

Was he guilty of one as well? I honestly can't decide. When presented with the argument that Wright's church did a lot of good, Rand said Sure. I know this guy down the street who does a lot of good for the neighborhood, playing with the kids, helping out with the neighbors' yards, keeping on eye on places and feeding pets when they're gone. The only problem is that once in a while, he axe murders someone. But it only happens a couple times a year. The rest of the time he's great. The good he does far outweighs the occasional brutal homicide. Why, we don't even bother to report him--he probably has his reasons.

Is this a strawman argument? My first thought was no, it isn't, because it is an analogy, to illustrate the point that even if someone is good most of the time, their bad actions can't be excused. But I kept thinking about it all weekend. Isn't the analogy of an axe murderer an strawman? No one can argue for the tradeoffs provided by an axe murderer, but one can argue for the tradeoffs provided by someone who says sometimes says controversial things. The analogy was clear because Rand used an extreme example, but did it recast the argument as one that could only resist an attack as well as a man made of straw?

I use analogies a lot when I argue, and I'm genuinely disappointed with myself when someone can rightly refute my arguments by saying "strawman!", so I'd be especially interested in an analysis that ignored the merits of Wright and just focused on when extreme analogies are or are not just straw men.

Thanks!

Isn't the analogy of an axe murderer an strawman?

No. It might be a bad analogy (though I don't think so), but it's not a straw man. A straw man is when someone knocks down an argument that wasn't actually made (e.g., people accusing me of telling them not to vote for Obama because he's going to lose--something that I never did).

I made the analogy because I got tired of people telling me about all the supposed good works that Wright did, as though that should excuse his occasional bouts of lunacy (assuming for the sake of argument that that's all they are). Sorry, but for me, it does not, and I'm not going to vote for a presidential candidate for whom it apparently does.

"Is this a strawman argument? My first thought was no, it isn't, because it is an analogy, to illustrate the point that even if someone is good most of the time, their bad actions can't be excused. But I kept thinking about it all weekend. Isn't the analogy of an axe murderer an strawman? "

No, the technique Rand employed is called: "Reducito ad Absurdum".

It is an analogy that takes an example to an extreme to point up fundamental flaws in that line of reasoning.

Rand, thanks, and Mike, I agree, it is that.

I was considering whether Rand's analogy met this definition: "To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position)."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man