97 Comments

1. Peterike:

BHO continues to reveal his mediocrity. In his stumbling, bumbling verbal tangles when speaking without a teleprompter (tangles that are, dare I say it, Bush like?). In his “I was completely right about Iraq except for the part that actually happened.” In things big and small.

Really, what comments! “I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization…” You didn’t anticipate? Dude, you flat out said it was going to be a disaster. You didn’t “anticipate” because you never had a clue what was going on in Iraq beyond the Democratic Party talking points. You didn’t “anticipate” because you lack — sorry Benj — you lack any imagination in regards to history and events moving foward.

Good Lord. It has become abundantly clear that the Messiah has no robes. Will the MSM and Hollywood and all the usual suspects be able to carry this vapid, vacuous non-entity over the finish line? Sadly, in a country where a huge portion of the population gets its “news” from Jon Stewart and Colbert, I think yes.

Really, just imagine for a minute if Mister “57 States” and Mister “the bomb that dropped on Pearl Harbor” were a Republican. He would be a laughing stock by now.

Jul 22, 2008 - 7:32 pm 2. Alexis:

It looks as though Barack Obama didn’t hedge his bets.

Jul 22, 2008 - 7:41 pm 3. Lifeofthemind:

Obama’s confidence in himself and the adoration of his acolytes is not only impervious to logical refutation but the more reality impedes on his emotional space the more likely he is to lash out. Announcing his plan for Iraq before going on a fact finding trip wasn’t just a slip in a busy schedule. For McCain or others who can or do alter their plans to adjust to changing information a correctable error is possible. For Obama it is much more important to nail down his answers on essential matters before allowing facts to intrude. On the other hand for peripheral items he can be infinitely malleable, because he truly does not care. Why was this subject so important that he had to have the verdict before the trial? One possible reason is that he can obfuscate on domestic issues but on the subject of war and peace and combat operations he is naked in his incompetence. Obama has to get this subject off the table or converted into a series of puff pieces before adoring Euro-fans. A critical debate over policy choices is the last thing he wants.

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:02 pm 4. Richard Fernandez:

Personally I hate the idea that politicians should be expected to get things right the first time. No one ever does that. What’s important is evidence that a politician has the ability to keep his mind open to the relevant facts and think them through.

It’s a little known statistic that the two major capital ship encounters of World War 2 (Hood vs Bismarck and Washington vs Kirishima) were both settled in about 5 minutes. In the USS Washington’s case it came down to the Captain making the snap decision to “take her left” past a US destroyer burning ahead of him. That put the flames of the wreck between Washington and Kirishima, rendering the US battleship invisible. Kirishima never saw Washington until it pumped 9×16″ and 40×5″ into it.

That capacity to take in the facts, understand changed conditions and possess the decisiveness to act is all one can expect of a commander because things can be over in five minutes. Personally I don’t give a hoot whether Obama foresaw the future, though it helps if you can. I do care about whether he can acknowledge the present when it is staring him in the face. Unless he can do that, when the Day comes he might not be able to say ‘take her left’ when everything depends on it.

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:02 pm 5. Fat Man:

The more I see of Obama, the less I like. I think he is a buffoon, a lightweight, a man caught in far deeper water than he knows how to swim in.

If he is elected and the republic survives the experience, it will be proof that the Almighty has a special providence for the USA. If he is not elected, the same point will be proven.

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:10 pm 6. dla:

Will America see the real Obama before the election? November isn’t that far away.

GWB was successful in Iraq despite Obama. Obama’s response to the question shows a characteristic that President Clinton displayed. Now Dick Morris has been all-over Obama’s lies/flip-flops/etc., but I’m not convinced that Obama is a Dark Lord in the league of Clinton. But I could be wrong.

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:13 pm 7. cjm:

obama is far more dangerous than billc (now lady maclinton is another case) because obama wants to take us to year zero. old bill’s ambitions never extended past his zipper.

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:21 pm 8. section9:

The Democratic Party, to the consternation of future historians, have nominated a man who will not admit he was wrong, and who knows above all else that he is the Smartest Guy in the Room.

Congratulations Dems, you have produced a black, hip and with-it version of Donald Rumsfeld!

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:34 pm 9. Lifeofthemind:

section9
1) Even if you disagreed with him, and I did about many things, especially the size of the initial invasion force, Donald Rumsfeld had a serious record of accomplishment that Obama can not even be mentioned next to.

2) Don Rumsfeld can be genuinely funny. Obamas humorlessness is a good reason to wish that Dr Sanity was still blogging to explain him.

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:39 pm 10. Wolf Pangloss:

The surge wasn’t the black swan that won in Iraq. It ain’t the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog. The black swan was the will to win possessed by GW Bush. Though the phenomenon is so well known as to be a cliche, the fact that a strong enough will to win could defeat the enemy and brush aside all the harpy cries of the anti-American leftists was a surprise to the left. Why a surprise? Because they know nothing about war, while posing in the pleasant delusion that they know it all.

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:07 pm 11. Teresita:

People aren’t looking at these odd moments off-teleprompter were BO is boofing his lines, they’re looking at the presidential way he comports himself in Afghanistan and Iraq because McCain dared him to go over there. McCain goaded him on, betting that he would trip himself up, but all he really did was focus America’s attention overseas and set the stage for Obama to totally own the news cycle, to the point where only one reporter and one cameraman covered McCain.. He was so desperate he flirted with picking Bobby Jindal as his VP just to grab a few headlines away from Obama. That would work for about three days maybe, and then McCain would be left with no more ammunition.

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:11 pm 12. Alexis:

Richard Fernandez:

Sometimes the symbolism of a political campaign says more than any speech. On Barack Obama’s official campaign literature, he wears a halo. I’m not sure whether this means he is supposed to be a saint, a messiah, or a god. I would venture to suggest that beatification usually happens after one is dead, not while one is alive.

Using a halo for living people is something one would normally expect for Hassan Nasrallah in a Hezbollah poster, not for an American presidential candidate. As it is, I think it is noteworthy that Napoleon crowned himself Emperor while it is the Obama campaign that crowns Barack Obama with a wreath of light.

When you believe in miracles, you do not need to acknowledge reality when it stares you in the face. Abracadabra, yes we can, and poof, the world changes for the better much as Tinker Bell revives in Peter Pan when the children clap and shout, “I believe in fairies!” When Shabbatai Zevi converted to Islam, there were even some Jews who thought that being a true Jew meant overtly (falsely) converting to a religion other than Judaism.

One interesting aspect of the English language is that it has historically been associated with science, seafaring, commerce, and industry. When modern people think of the amulet incantation, we usually think of archaic languages with rich traditions of religion and magic, languages such as Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Or Sanskrit, Ancient Egyptian, Old Norse, Classical Maya, or Nahuatl. Or, in the case of Java, Arabic. Arabic has been the preferred magical language for the Javanese djimat (an amulet based upon the magic of written script).

It appears as though the English language is coming into its own as the premier language of magical incantation, a circumstance exploited by Barack Obama.

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:13 pm 13. ambisinistral:

I don’t think Obama will ever hesitate in saying ‘take her left’.

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:18 pm 14. Lifeofthemind:

section9
There are issues that I disagreed with Donald Rumsfeld on. Certainly the initial invasion needed a larger footprint. Still there are two key reasons not to mention him as equivalent to B. Obama.

1. Rumsfeld has a record of serious accomplishment that make it hard to imagine Obama trying for any job that could interact with him. Obama would have been hard pressed to qualify as an intern for Rumsfeld. The thought of him being in a position to question Rumsfeld was ludicrous. As I have noted Obama is less qualified for high office than any candidate in a century, including Spiro Agnew. Rumsfeld is qualified for any senior government job you can think of.

2. Don Rumsfeld is really funny. The humorless Obama makes me yearn for Dr Sanity to explain him.

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:49 pm 15. shropshirelad:

Speaking purely of language, I have to confess, the more I listen to Obama, the more amazed I am. I am convinced that the little man inside him (if there is anything inside him) controlling his mouth is Sir Humphrey Appleby.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8keZbZL2ero&feature=related

Educated, well-spoken, aloof, cynical beyond the normal powers of mortals to conceive, he is the platonic ideal of a bureaucrat–a work of government–nay, art–that one can merely marvel at.

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:54 pm 16. oldefogey:

As this election proceeds, my level of terror continues to rise. Consider Barach Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of our country.

I’m with the Fat Man and have been dumping stocks on any upturn which isn’t often these days. On the down days, I just pray.

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:54 pm 17. Wadeusaf:

Leadership is not just knowing what lies ahead, that could be ably done by most any tour guide.

Leadership demands its followers be prepared for whatever lies ahead, by using the lesson of what is now lies behind us in experience.

Change does not imply readiness, nor is hope enough to cope with change. “Yes we can” does not inspire “we will”, as much as “I have”.

When being there means everything. “OH” has no being.

Jul 22, 2008 - 10:17 pm 18. Elroy Jetson:

Teresita,
I’m glad nobody took your bait in this posting. It was totally off-topic. Nice try.
Obama will have to hold at least three announcements (not press conferences because he will think he’s not getting a fair shake right now) to restate his views when he gets stateside. There will be hardly anyone left to believe his words.
What a beautiful election.

Jul 22, 2008 - 10:55 pm 19. Eggplant:

Fat Man said:

“The more I see of Obama, the less I like. I think he is a buffoon, a lightweight, a man caught in far deeper water than he knows how to swim in.”

I must disagree. B. Hussein is no buffoon. This man is bad, very bad. If he’s elected President, we are screwed!

Fat Man also said:

“If he is elected and the republic survives the experience, it will be proof that the Almighty has a special providence for the USA. If he is not elected, the same point will be proven.”

And what does it mean if Hussein gets elected and we do NOT survive the experience?

I have a better idea, let’s not trust in providence.

Jul 22, 2008 - 11:13 pm 20. The Anti Jihadist:

Sounds suspiciously like another iteration of the famed (or infamous) “fake but accurate” defense. Can we twist our ‘logic’ into a pretzel, Mr. Obama on national television? “Yes, we can!”

I can’t believe that this guy is within reach of the presidency, and our only hope is a 71 year old, trailing in most polls, who thinks that Islam is inherently peaceful and tolerant.

I wish we all just lived in ‘interesting times.’

Jul 22, 2008 - 11:27 pm 21. cjm:

imo this trip has helped mccain by going a long way to neutralizing obama’s media advantage. besides showing clearly that the msm are totally in the bag, this trip has also pissed off a lot of media people. i sense that obama has peaked and will be limping badly by november, just as he was at the finish of the primaries.

Jul 23, 2008 - 5:04 am 22. RWE:

The “I was almost right.” defense has within it the same kind of critical analysis displayed by a child wanting a new toy. This ONE thing will make the world perfect.

When you study failures as much as I have you find that it is never due to just ONE thing. One thing leads to another and another, and frequently it can all be traced back to some basic philosophical error. And the same thing is true of success, only we don’t study it as much.

When you say “I would have been right if THIS ONE THING had not happened.” that ignores that a bunch of other things could have happened, too. Turkey could have allowed us to invade from their side. France and Germany could have replaced their crooked leaders earlier. Large elements of the old Iraq Army could have defected the moment that OIF started. The list is endless, even more endless than the things that went “wrong” for the prophet.

Obama might as well have said that “I knew that the Democrats were going to take over Congress in 2006 and that would both demoralize the Bush Admin and encourage the insurgents in Iraq. It’s not my fault that Bush did not know when he was beaten. It just shows again how stupid the man really is.”

Jul 23, 2008 - 5:16 am 23. programmer:

I have voted Republican for all my voting life. I believe in conservative values. BUT, and you just knew that was coming, I may vote for Obama in the coming election. The Republican party (and the Bush administration) has at the very least (and being as kind as possible) stood by and watched egregious fiduciary malfeasance of a magnitude that may cause more financial and personal ruin than 9/11. Spare me all the “Harumph, Harumph” of “3000 died, have you no concern for that”, etc. We will probably never know how many Americans die or suffer because of the damage done to their financial future.

It is not enough to be a good, skilled warrior to be a leader. You must be an honorable and trustworthy person in all things. I do not believe that the current administration has adhered to that standard. GWB has done much to be honored for. He has not deserved the “death of a thousand cuts” that he has recieved in the press. But the Republican party, of which he is the titular head has participated in a “hog feed” of monumental proportions. It is time for a change. McCain is not that change. Many people are not big enough for a particular job when it is thrust upon them. They grow into that job. Let us hope that Barack Obama is one such. For better or worse, he appears to be the next president of the United States. May God bless America.

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:04 am 24. Shivermetimbers:

I do not like BHO; nor do I like the democratic party as it is today (as opposed to perhaps 40 years ago), and I will be voting Republican as I have done consistently for the last 24 years.

I think the Democratic party, if it wins big this election, will be bad for the country. If you think the Republicans are/were corrupt, the Democrats have them beat by a long shot - they are truly shameless. Just look at Fannie Mae mess and their supporters of Chris Dodd, Chuch Schumer, and Barney Frank.

I am just as concerned about the Senate and Congress winning as I am about the POTUS.

But, as far as BHO’s positioning about the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, what do you expect? He has to try to come back to reality in some form without completely sending his looney ‘deep down we really do hate America’ base. He will say whatever he think he needs to. I really don’t expect much from him on that front.

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:25 am 25. NahnCee:

so we elect the next guy - either McCain or Obama. I’m betting on McCain.

We leave whichever in the White House for four years. THen we *know* Hillary will run again.

My question is when will Petreus be available to run for President? Can he retire when he wants to (in four years) or will he be promised to be involved in America’s wars for many many more years?

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:32 am 26. sirius_sir:

What are these “political factors” of which you speak, Mr. Obama? Surely you do not mean to imply there has been political reconciliation of a kind the Democrats have consistantly until now said has not occurred.

It seems some people believe good things merely happen. Or happen due to the good graces of others, and have little or nothing to do with our own efforts. Nancy Pelosi believes the problem of Sadr and the Shi-ite militias was resolved due to the beneficence of the Iranians. Why not go one farther and say that al Qaeda decided to give us a break as well?

If our troopers are, as we were previously told, simply an irritant and the Surge had so little effect in Iraq why is it then that Senator Obama wants to replicate it in Afghanistan? Why not just trust in the good intentions of our enemies and bring all our fighting men and women home from whatever theatre of operation they may now be engaged in? Isn’t that the logical outcome of current Democratic thinking?

And if there is so little ameliorative effect to be derived from our actions, why not expand the thesis and propose that all social programs be disbanded as well?

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:35 am 27. Doug:

Who could ever guess what change a man whose life has been nurtured in, and surrounded by, Marxist Anti-Americans, might bring for this great, but staggered, nation?

I’ll grant you everything you say about the ‘Pubs,
but I will never vote for a man who has not explicitly rejected his Marxist, Anti-American, past.
—

Clueless Liberal Geeks on 108 year old Aussie Blogger’s demise.

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:36 am 28. Doug:

(responding to Programmer)

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:38 am 29. Shivermetimbers:

It is just simply amazing that the empty suit who has no record of substance just may win. Or that Democratic Senators and Congressman are winning on conservative platforms back home, but push the Pelosi/Reid agenda in D.C. where it really counts.

Are we that stupid?

My favorite line from I Claudius is when Tiberius looks at his successor and tells him - “Rome deserves you.”

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:42 am 30. programmer:

Doug,

I like your question, “Who can guess…”. In a sense that is my point.

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:56 am 31. Jay:

The financial problems in the US began around 25 years ago. The major culprits are the Wall Street funds, the banks that loaned them money printed by the Fed, and the academic economists who concocted false models for the leveraging of bundled assets. The accounting changes made around 2000 also played a role. If Bush had paid attention and had vetoed the pork bills we would be in better shape. But BHO and the Dems will push us into a depression.
By the way even some prominent academic economists are attacking the theories of the Nobel winning macroeconomists.

Jul 23, 2008 - 7:27 am 32. Old Blue:

“There is a principle which alone can keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation.” — Herbert Spencer

Jul 23, 2008 - 7:54 am 33. exhelodrvr:

programmer,
“But the Republican party, of which he is the titular head has participated in a “hog feed” of monumental proportions. It is time for a change”

A change? You make it sound as if the Democrats have been fighting the good fight against REpbulican pork. The Democrats are just as guilty, probably more so, in that area. Plus with them you get the added benefits of even more government involvement, and a general lack of understanding/caring about the security of the country.

Jul 23, 2008 - 7:58 am 34. Shivermetimbers:

Jay

“The major culprits are the Wall Street funds, the banks that loaned them money printed by the Fed, and the academic economists who concocted false models for the leveraging of bundled assets.”

Indeed. I work very closely with structured products in the financial industry - I agree about the usage of bad models, especially for trying to value CDO’s. I think the CDS problem is also a major problem that needs to be flushed through the system (JP Morgan/Chase having $10 Billion o CDS in Bear, $55 Billion in CDS overall - yikes).

However, outside of Bush not using his veto, what about the democratic congress? They have been shameful in their destructive policies. They need to be held accountable; but, most Americans are not informed. Thus, Schumer can leak a letter claiming that a “run on Indymac bank’ was highly likely, causing a run on indymac bank (someone should check to see if he had short positions). If a Republican did this…

Your point about BHO and the Democrats pushing us into depression. Perhaps it will be good to see what a Democratic president, senate and congress would actually be like.

Except for the fact that we live in dangerous times.

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:13 am 35. Cannoneer No. 4:

wretchard:

TIME: The War Cannot Be Lost!

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:28 am 36. programmer:

exhelodrvr,

If I may paraphrase your comment, “they are all politicians. The Republicans are better at foreign policy”.

For me, it is a complicated issue. My current view is that with the Democrats, what you see is what you get. They don’t hide much. They are pretty upfront with their plans for America.

With the current batch of Republicans, they say all the “right” things and keep shoveling feed to the porcine part of their constituency (which, by the way, is a limited set). Meanwhile, they continue to say, “Just trust in me, simply trust in me”.

I guess it easier for me to trust someone who I know I diagree with than someone who says all the things I want to hear and then does what they darn please.

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:48 am 37. programmer:

diagree=disagree

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:49 am 38. exhelodrvr:

programmer,
No, I said that they were equally guilty in the pork area. You didn’t respond on the increased government involvement that will come with the Democrats. ANd I didn’t even mention the potential issue of picking new Supreme Court judges

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:51 am 39. Peterike:

The Republican party, of which he is the titular head has participated in a “hog feed” of monumental proportions. It is time for a change.

There is no question that Republican behavior has been shameful on many things, esp earmarks and wasteful spending. They threw away an opportunity they may never have again when they had the votes to pass pretty much anything they wanted and have Bush sign off on it. It could have been a real Conservative remaking of the government, but the bulk of Republicans proved to be feckless sellouts and whores to money and status.

The saddest part is that as much as the Republicans need to be taken out to the woodshed, replacing them with Democrats is like saying, “The foxes have been eating my chickens. I’ll solve that problem by inviting in some wolves.”

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:55 am 40. programmer:

exhelodrvr

Increased government involvement is not always a bad thing. There is much fraud being perpetrated in the name of business (Medicare swindling, etc.), and the only agency in a position to do much about it is the federal government. A great deal of the business fraud is directed at federal government programs, agencies, et al. Hence, the requirement for additional government policing of this break down in the system. Government can (and should) be used to do those things that individual citizens cannot do for themselves.

As for Supreme court appointments, I said it is a complicated issue for me. You have me there. I do not want to see activist judges appointed to the Supreme Court. But can McCain be trusted to deal in a manner consistent with conservative principles in judicial appointments?

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:04 am 41. Zenster:

programmer: It is not enough to be a good, skilled warrior to be a leader. You must be an honorable and trustworthy person in all things.

Trustworthy? TRUSTWORTHY? The closest Obama gets to the “truth” is truthiness.

The man wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him on the neck. I’m no fan of George Bush but Onbama is the penultimate Empty Suit™. Is there one single important issue that Obama has remained steadfast on without ever reversing his position? The man pivots like a jeweled Swiss movement.

Never in my entire life have I seen a presidential candidate of any stripe so completely WITHOUT an averred platform or policy.

sirius_sir: It seems some people believe good things merely happen. Or happen due to the good graces of others, and have little or nothing to do with our own efforts. Nancy Pelosi believes the problem of Sadr and the Shi-ite militias was resolved due to the beneficence of the Iranians. Why not go one farther and say that al Qaeda decided to give us a break as well? [emphasis added]

I have seen few better descriptions than the foregoing of Liberal-style “magical thinking”. Obama and other democrats’ willingness to negotiate with our Islamic enemies demonstrates exactly how dangerous their brand of wishful thinking is.

Even the most cursory examination of Islam’s central tenets like zakat, jihad, the global caliphate and shari’a law lays bare the fact that, for Muslims, these issues are non-negotiable.

So, how do you negotiate with an enemy whose basic goals are non-negotiable?

As sirius_sir noted, “good things” don’t just magically happen. They are the result of intention, will and determined effort. In the case of Islam, the only “good things” that are going to happen WILL NOT occur simply because Muslims are going to play nice or “al Qaeda decided to give us a break”.

Any progress in the battle against Islam’s terrorism will happen because we have the will to BREAK al Qaeda and all other forms of Islamic theocracy.

Obama and the democratic party are so drunk on Multicultural Kool-Aid that they would sooner break America on the altar of moral relativism than ever admit how force of arms must be used to defend our nation against the biggest threat since Nazism and communism COMBINED.

In light of how Iran is seeking to manufacture a nuclear truck bomb for delivery against The United States, even four short years of Islamic appeasement could well be FATAL. There will be no “peace in our time” until Islam’s spine is snapped like a dry twig.

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:13 am 42. chachapoya:

I would remind programmer, in considering your vote in November, that as many as 3 Supreme Court seats could be at stake. The Ginsbergs of the country wait with bated breath.

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:22 am 43. sirius_sir:

Cannoneer No. 4, re: the article to which you refer @ 8:28 A.M.

Two ‘truths’ have become apparent in recent days.

1) Suddenly, “anybody knows” the war “cannot be lost.”

2) And suddenly “nobody knows” what would have happened had we, as BHO wanted, pulled out by March of this year. According to him, everything might have turned out well either way.

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

If only it were so simple.

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:32 am 44. Peterike:

programmer: There is much fraud being perpetrated in the name of business (Medicare swindling, etc.), and the only agency in a position to do much about it is the federal government.

To me, this is a government problem, not a “business” problem. Government will always be easier to swindle than private business because nobody has a stake in the money being stolen. Could you steal from BlueCross as easily as criminal doctors streal from Medicare? Would welfare fraud be so simple if welfare were privately run? Would school systems waste countless billions while screaming “poverty” if there were shareholders to report to?

Government should stick to the very few things only it can do, and as much as possible that should be state and local (yes, I am dreaming, I know: Leviathan will continue to grow unabated).

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:42 am 45. ridgerunner:

There is a need for a phrase to crystallize the meme that Obama, over and above his committment to historically discredited Marxism, is a shallow narcissist. Might this work: The Audacity of Hype. If this phrase is not in the blogosphere, it should be. I hope that many will see fit to extend, expand and export the phrase with its associated meme. A suggestion for a bumper sticker: “The Audacity of Hype. Obama wrote the book on it.”

Most voters who have lived more than two decades have encountered a malignant narcissist. The phrase I’m suggesting may help them connect that experience to Obama’s persona. The smile, a signal evolved to promote cohesion in small bands, is honest in most contexts, but hype when flashed by the salesman on the used car lot. If the USA is to avoid an Obama presidency, then by November many folks must come to see Obama’s ready simile as hype. The Rock Star style of campaigning is hype. Narcissisn locomotes on hype and marks itself by vicious responses to legitimate criticism (”attacks on my wife are infuriating”).

Hitler, Allende, Chavez, Mugabe attest that democracy can be a suicide. This is serious business.

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:46 am 46. Benj:

I wish O admitted he’d been wrong re- (and that guy is right re Rummy’s sense of humor -and Johnny Mac had some humor too… ) Problem is - not too many people in American political culture - on the left or right - are real easy about allowing they haven’t been all right…I think O’s instincts are better than most pols on this front - he actually has a pretty good public record of allowing that somebody on the “other” side might have a point - see most recently his distancing himself from the Betrayus ads…- But he’s not distinguishing himself right now on that front. Instead, as per Teresita, he’s proving (once again) that he’s a pretty smart pol who understands forture favors the brave - Maliki (and W.) are enabling him to brazen it out…Since I’m talking up those who allow they made mistakes on Iraq - here’s how I did it myself in the intro to the section of pieces on Iraq in the new book FIRST OF THE YEAR: 2008.

FIRST DRAFT OF HISTORY

The Iraq war is the subject of this section.

“So far everyone has been wrong about something,” wrote British journalist David Aaronovitch soon after the fall of Baghdad. I’ll come clean about one of my failings on this front since evidence of it isn’t in this set of pieces and I wouldn’t want readers to suspect a cover-up.

On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, citing a Times report about how the Saddam Fedayeen had just cut someone’s tongue out as a gift for Qusay Hussein, I argued in First the choice now came down to “War or Torture.” If only it had been a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib who turned that into a false opposition. But the shaming had just begun. It would get worse when I read Tony Lagouranis’s Fear Up Harsh: An Army Interrogator’s Dark Journey Through Iraq, which describes how U.S. army interrogators found it impossible keep luxuriant releases of rage in check once Defense Department officials gave them license to go wilding.

That was all supposed to be on the down-low but the Iraqi government went public with its derelictions of duty when they allowed Moqutar Sadr’s militia to turn Saddam’s execution into a sectarian hate-fest. It was a humiliating moment for most of us who had spoken up for the justice of removing Saddam from power. In the days following Saddam’s hanging, Jalal Talabani – the famously gregarious tribune of the Kurds (and a man who had been in the struggle against Saddam for generations) – reportedly locked himself in a hotel room and refused to see anyone.

Talabani acts his way out of guilt. (He recently caused a crisis in the Iraq’s governing coalition by refusing to sign death warrants for lower-level Baathists.) But the Iraq War has produced some suspect self-laceration. The narrative of George Packer’s “definitive” book on the invasion and occupation, The Assassins’ Gate (2005), slid around set-pieces of disillusionment that felt contrived. While it was easy to identify with Packer’s disdain for the Bush Administration’s “criminal incompetence,” there was something off about his aggrieved tone and the new journalistic animus he directed toward Kanan Makiya. Packer blamed Makiya (though he claimed to “love” him) for providing rationales that caused his own heart to rise as he contemplated the invasion of Iraq. Yet, “sweets and flowers” notwithstanding, Makiya was much more realistic about the prospects for democracy in Iraq than Packer lets on. At the end of chapter called “Exiles,” Packer quoted lines from a pre-invasion email that Makiya wrote from Kurdistan, finding in them his friend’s true voice – “the fearless voice of his books” – rather than the compromised sound of Makiya banging drums for war. But the email by Makiya that Packer cited was addressed not (as The Assassins’ Gate suggests) “to a few friends” but to “every Iraqi democrat in the world.” Makiya distributed it through various e-mail listservs and then published it in The New Republic. The email wasn’t a sign the pure Makiya had momentarily re-surfaced; it was another political act. And a pretty prophetic one.

Makiya began by telling how a fellow member of the Iraqi opposition had threatened to “wipe him off the face of the earth” after fantasizing a slight. This was a genuine threat from a deeply disturbed man. But Makiya wasn’t out to make himself appear heroically embattled. He invoked the threat because it came from someone who was an ally – a person “who had suffered as much as any human being at the hands of the Baath party…at one point he weighed 30 kilos.” Makiya asked his readers to see this man feelingly – “try to imagine the worst and you will not come close to what this man has suffered in his life” – and then recognize – “this is the human raw material that you want to build democracy for…”

“Every day for the last five weeks, I have come across such damaged and wounded people, people who breathe nationalism, sectarianism, without knowing that they are doing so, and people who are deeply suspicious towards their fellow Iraqis. These are the facts of life for the next generation in this poor, unhappy, and ravaged land.”

Makiya had developed the impression:

“Some of you think you can lift your noses and ride into Iraq on American tanks, above the stink of it all, without having to wade knee-high in the shit that the Baath party has made of your country. You cannot. That is a pipe dream.”

Makiya elaborated on his warning and as he came to the end of his note he anticipated a future of disillusion.

“The United States…is bound to let you down if you think you can ask her for too much. Actually, if you think about it hard enough, it is not the U.S. that is letting you down, nor is it President Bush or even his CIA and his State Department…it is you, who by coming face to face with your own illusions, will end up letting yourselves down the most, and it is you and all those Iraqis who have put their faith in you, who will end up paying the biggest price of all.”

Packer left this passage from Makiya’s pre-war message out of The Assasins’ Gate. The timing of Makiya’s prediction about what lay ahead for his side (and himself!) didn’t quite fit the arc of Packer’s story. What counts now is not that Makiya was right on, (He wasn’t done being wrong yet.) What matters is that he was thinking hard, offering Iraqis who had put their faith in him not certainties but a chance to join his search for moral precision.

Millions of Iraqis came along on that search on January 30, 2005. Makiya celebrated Iraq’s first election with them:

“Millions of people actually made choices, and placed claims on those who will lead them in the future. To act upon one’s own world like this, and on such a scale, is what politics in the purest sense is all about. It is why we all, once upon a time, became activists. And it is infectious. The taste of freedom is a hard memory to rub out.”

That memory soon seemed like a lie to many Iraqis. (Though Makiya underscored there were no guarantees in his post-election analysis: “the nature of great historical turning points, and the source of the wonder and beauty they bring into the world, is that we can’t predict their outcome.”) The country’s democratic momentum stalled as sectarian violence ruled. But there is still “no final word on Iraq.” To borrow a phrase that jumped out at me at the end of a long piece last summer in Der Spiegel by two German reporters who allowed they’d been surprised to find evidence the Surge was working. Their report – and others like it – go against the narrative of the war preferred by WE WERE RIGHT leftists such as the Nation’s Katha Pollitt. Pollitt et. al. should call it as they see it but she needs to get her own story straight. Responding to Michael Ignatieff’s recent mea-culpa – “Getting Iraq Wrong: What the War Has Taught Me about Political Judgment” – Pollitt recently insisted “Bush’s stated reason for war was not the liberation of the Iraqi people.” But she’s shading the truth there. A few weeks before the invasion, Pollitt pointed out in her own column that Makiya and Iraqi democrats had rejected a State Department blueprint for an authoritarian regime in post-war Iraq:

“In a remarkable cry of despair published in the February16 London Observer Makiya rages that U.S. plans for post-invasion Iraq include the betrayal of the Kurds, the sidelining of the Iraqi National Congress and, beneath a top layer of U.S. military brass, the continued hegemony of the Baath party – Baathism without Saddam.”

Yet later that February, Pollitt went missing when Bush publicly committed himself to establishing democracy in Iraq, reassured Kurds by speaking of a future “federation” and even State Department officials began talking up de-Baathification. Pollitt failed to alert her readers the Administration seemed to have heard Makiya’s No in Thunder (after it was amplified by the Turkish parliament’s refusal to facilitate the U.S. Military’s invasion plans). She left Nationists with the impression Iraqi democrats had bought out of “Bush’s War.” And she’s still dissembling. The next section includes a transcript of a pre-invasion speech by Barham Saleh, the former Prime Minister of Kurdistan (who has gone on to become a major figure in Iraq’s governments since the handover of sovereignty) that calls attention to democratic political forces Pollitt was content to marginalize.

Take the following set of writings as a First draft of recent history – a sketch of public movements of mind on the left about the Iraq War. While I’m wary of associating our tiny writers’ collective with world historical events, the uniqueness of First’s politics of culture was underscored during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. I can’t think of another American publication on the left that would have printed in the same issue (as First did) Makiya’s pro-war, NYU talk (see p. ) and Tim Shorrock’s detailed critique of Paul Wolfowitz’s reactionary diplomatic record in Asia, which leads off this section. Makiya’s and Shorrock’s voices and the others in this mix implicitly call each other out. As I hear them in my head now, I’m struck (again) by how First has tried to be a “device” that would let argument breathe.

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:53 am 47. Zenster:

Benj: I wish O admitted he’d been wrong …

And people in Hell want ice water. What’s your point? Both events have equal chances of happening.

Jul 23, 2008 - 10:09 am 48. Eggplant:

Ridgerunner said:

“Hitler, Allende, Chavez, Mugabe attest that democracy can be a suicide. This is serious business.”

I agree! B. Hussein is incredibly dangerous.
We’re sleep walking off a cliff.

Jul 23, 2008 - 10:32 am 49. sirius_sir:

Zenster, give Benj some slack. Better to applaud the recognition of error than boo the wish it could be undone.

Jul 23, 2008 - 10:32 am 50. Zenster:

sirius_sir: Zenster, give Benj some slack. Better to applaud the recognition of error than boo the wish it could be undone.

Any “recognition of error” on Benj’s part is dwarfed into subatomic insignificance by his continued support for Obama.

I’m still waiting for someone to provide an answer regarding one single issue of substance that Obama has not waffled on. The man is nothing but a weathervane and the EXACT WRONG choice for America as we sail into the storm of war with Islam.

Whether or not Obama is a stealth Muslim is totally irrelevant. By his very nature of negotiation and appeasement, Obama IS a stealth Muslim and thus a supreme danger to America.

Let there be no doubt that Mc Cain is a stinker. His support of the Z Visa proved that for all time. But Mc Cain is a kitten fart compared to Obama’s hyper-flatulent polecat.

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:11 am 51. programmer:

Zenster,

As I watch political discussions, I see the term waffling and flip-flop all the time. Are politicians not allowed EVER to change their minds? Obama is currently being criticized for holding to his views about getting quickly out of Iraq AND being criticized for flip-flopping on issues. Hmm, seems like he can’t win. It would seem to me that it is important for an elected leader to be generally responsive to changing views of his electorate. In addition, with the constantly changing landscape of scientific knowledge, it is good to be able to change one’s opinion when given new facts and findings.

Just a thought.

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:41 am 52. exhelodrvr:

programmer,
The problem with Obama is that, very obviously, his flip-flops are due to either:

Poorly thought out initial positions (the surge)

Outright lies (not being aware of Rev Wright’s preachings)

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:46 am 53. programmer:

exhelodrvr,

Good points. So I (and others) are faced with voting for McCain (and by default, the continuance of Republicans, who to use a current phrase, are not the Republicans that I knew), voting for Obama as scorpion (the old frog and scorpion parable), or not voting. I love America (corny stuff, I know) too much not to vote.

Oh well, I said it is complicated.

Thanks guys for the opportunity to vent in an extremely informative environment and in a calm, well reasoned discussion. I have a class to prepare for and can no longer hold up my end of this conversation. For those fellow believers, God Bless. For those who aren’t, Peace be with you, brothers in thought.

Jul 23, 2008 - 11:58 am 54. Peterike:

Benj, I asked this once before and you never answered, probably because it was the end of a long thread and you didn’t notice.

I’m genuinely curious about something. You support O, obviously, and you praise him in very theoretical ways (his “imagination,” his “instincts,” etc). But I can’t recall you ever saying what you’d like him to DO if and when he gets a real Presidential seal. Can you name a few things — actual, concrete POLICIES — you want from an Obama administration? Don’t give me fluff like “building coalitions” or whatever. I want specifics, like “eliminate the Dept of Education” or “close the borders and stop all immigration for ten years.”

Yeah, those are two of my fantasy policies, I admit. But that’s the level of concreteness I’m wondering about.

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:19 pm 55. wretchard:

Cannoneer,

TIME: The War Cannot Be Lost!

People will just help themselves to the credit. If it’s convenient to take, they’ll take it because they can. What’s really disturbing is the spectacle of politicians of all stripes — including their claques in the media — operating according to the principle “what are we in power for?” This is where the mask drops and all pretense of reason vanishes.

The only way to set things straight is by applying the licit sanctions. Voting the offenders out of office; jailing the criminal; and bankrupting their mouthpieces. Some of that is already happening, though in the nature of things, dealing with bad politicians is like playing Space Invaders. The more you zap the more they come. Still, everyone plays simply because they have to and in the vague hope that maybe, just maybe, they can beat the game.

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:21 pm 56. sirius_sir:

Re “Anybody knows” the war “cannot be lost.”

This will still come as a surprise to some. Has anyone informed Harry Reid?

Now if ever there was a time and fitting opportunity to admit one was wrong… but that’s on his conscience, not mine.

It’s good to hear this admission of victory, though I still can’t help but view such a sudden turnabout a little suspiciously. I’m wondering if rather than a backhanded compliment to somebody’s steadfastness if this isn’t instead a way of saying, “You know, regarding Iraq it doesn’t really matter who we elect. That is already yesterday’s news and a fait accompli.”

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:24 pm 57. Benj:

Peterike- You’ve called me out a couple times - didn’t mean to seem like I’m above-it-all - Just a quick response to your latest - “You didn’t “anticipate” because you lack — sorry Benj — you lack any imagination in regards to history and events moving foward.” - Good to pick up on O’s weasely word - but might think again on your last point - …Doesn’t O’s campaign indicate he has a pretty extraodinary sense of history’s trajectory? - Course maybe I’m all wet and he’s just a member (for 15 minutues) of the fucking lucky club. After all, as Shelby Steele (and other brothers beloved by neo-cons) have assured us - He Can’t Win.

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:41 pm 58. Zenster:

programmer: As I watch political discussions, I see the term waffling and flip-flop all the time. Are politicians not allowed EVER to change their minds?

As exhelodrvr pointed out, there’s already been too many cases of Obama’s position being based on poorly thought out circumstances, but even more glaring are the endless and OUTRIGHT lies he tells. Click on the link in my first comment for a catalog of them.

Between his weathervane posturing, blatant anti-Americanism and neo-Marxist ideology, the man is a walking political disaster area. As I noted before, even four short years of having this rank ward-heeler at America’s helm could prove catastrophic for our nation.

I love America (corny stuff, I know) too much not to vote.

No, it’s not “corny”, not even in the least. America is well worth loving and keeping an Empty Suit™ like Obama the Hell away from the Oval Office is one damn fine way of showing it. I’ve never voted republican in my entire life but I’m about to this fall. America’s democratic party has crossed over to the dark side.

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:44 pm 59. Peterike:

It’s good to hear this admission of victory, though I still can’t help but view such a sudden turnabout a little suspiciously.

It’s an obvious feint, by O and the entire Defeatocrat party. Iraq? Nothing to see here, folks, let’s move it along. It was never important anyway. Anybody coulda done it. No, no, the “real war” is in Afghanistan, and O is a mighty warrior ready to lead the intrepid Democrat fighting team into those forsaken hillsides and start blasting bad guys with his eye beams.

How can Iraq be a “victory” if it never really mattered? How can O get flak for being wrong about a non-event?

Of course, as I recall, the Left was adamantly opposed to Afghanistan (still waiting on that “brutal Afghan winter” to wipe out the entire US Army…) up until we went into Iraq. Then suddenly Afghanistan became the “real war” where “the people who attacked us” lived and Bush was nothing more than a Hitlerian war monger making up stories about WMDs and eating children for oil, or whatever it was, “invading” a country that was a veritable Peaceable Kingdom of kite flying children. (Didn’t Michael Moore show us that? It hadda be true.)

The entire Left narrative flipped on a dime. And if Bush turned around and abandoned Iraq for Afghanistan, the Left would flip again. The bottom line is simple: they are opposed to anything that might help America. Their frenzied opposition to Iraq, more than anything else, told me it was probably a good idea.

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:45 pm 60. Zenster:

Benj: Doesn’t O’s campaign indicate he has a pretty extraodinary sense of history’s trajectory?

If Obama had any “sense of history’s trajectory”, he’d understand the futility of trying to negotiate with Islam. He clearly does not and threatens to betray America on a heretofore unknown scale. A major American metropolis (along with a chunk of the Middle East), may well perish at the hands of his willful political naivety.

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:53 pm 61. NahnCee:

programmer wants to vote for Obama because he’s pissed off that his airline and newspaper stocks aren’t worth as much now as they were 8 years ago. and his house is in foreclosure.

so it’s all Bush’s fault.

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:54 pm 62. Roderick Reilly:

Even Katie Couric was having problems with Obama’s logic about the surge when she interviewed him last.

Even so, Obama’s ghastly stupidities mean nothing unless McCain and the Republicans can find effective ways to exploit it. I don’t have much confidence in them being able to do so. Enough voters lacking critical thinking skills can push Obama over the top. All such people care about in regards to Iraq is that the MSM is putting up headlines that imply that Obama’s pullout time-table is hunky-dory with the Iraqis.

The modern American voter can (not always is but can) be a paradoxically dumb creature. More than ever, they expect much of a President, while at the same time showing a striking disinterest in the details of a given candidate’s world-view and pronouncements.

The reactions of most of us in this thread may not be typical of enough actual voters to make a difference unless the points brought up here can be made to other likely voters. While “Teresita” may be a frequent irritant to more typical Belmont posters, she may have the most important point about the news-cycle issue and how it will play to a general audience that’s paying any attention.

Jul 23, 2008 - 1:05 pm 63. Jay:

Thirty years of research in the fields of formal theory in political science and political economy have shown that democracies are inherently unstable, especially simple democracies. Our republic is more stable than most but the center of US politics has cracked.
Lump a free deficit spending Congress with the financial problems and the goofy greenies and we can become bankrupt in a hurry.
I do not expect my defined contribution pension will be worth much in five years. Since my wife has not worked since we were married 42 years ago I have to keep working if the dollar keeps going down.
A presicent Obama will be a disaster for at least me and my family.

Jul 23, 2008 - 1:19 pm 64. Benj:

Z - Can’t “Negotiate with Islam”! Tell that to Bush - He’s negotiating with the Islamist pres of Iraq all the time, no? And that’s part of our victory - As per that New Yorker peice from last month (and that recent Strat Page summary) Even the crazier Islamists are rethinking the meaning of Jihad. At the risk of seeming too beamish/Sullivanish - consider that O will likely be infinitely more adept than Bush as promoting the soft power of the American idea(s) - Understand that may be hard to swallow since (as someone put it here) Bush did the heavy lifting - but I doubt even W. feels that hard done by - Time Moves On…It will discredit the anti-AMericanism of the left AND the right. And, trust me, Zenster - the folks here who persistently equate O with Hitler (or the antichrist or the hound of hell or…) are no different/better than cats on the left suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome… PS Peterike - just realized I owe you one!! Some one of these days! But for this moment - I HEAR you re the memory of Afghan - only prob wth your analysis is that O wasn’t one of wack-offs on that front…Distinctions matter - He’s not Jesse or Sharpton. He’s not Chomsky or Moore either…If you’re into Research check how he gently distanced himself from Daily Kos types - Not AFTER he became the presumed nominee (and began the hot rush to the Center!?) Nope - Two years back. Before he announced his cannidacy. From the beginning he’s been out to create a space for a genuinely New Left. One that was less snarky and self-righteous and class-bound…

Jul 23, 2008 - 1:25 pm 65. programmer:

Nahncee,

I would not like to have you on my fire team. You missed the mark completely.

As my grandson would say, paraphrasing an old Joan Baez folk song, “I work for a living, my money’s my own, And if you don’t like me, then Nanny Nanny Boo Boo”, or some such.

Jul 23, 2008 - 1:50 pm 66. fred:

With that above statement Obonga just insulted General Petraeus, our troops, and the evolving concepts of counterinsurgency. He has no grasp of military matters. That is fairly typical of those on the Left, from my experience of being a Leftist many years ago in college after I had done my Army time. The very few military veterans on the Left I met were, in my judgment, liars about their experience and some I really doubt had served at all. None of them really had any grasp of history, strategy, and tactics. Obonga is a man who fancies himself POTUS and giving orders to the military, thinking himself having greater wisdom than commanders in the field.

How can anyone take this man seriously? I think that’s more than just a rhetorical question. Take it from a former neo-Marxist: I know a neo-Marxist when I see one and he is one of them. Too bad this cannot be said more publicly and given its due, because if you do the research into his background that is an ironclad conclusion to make about him.

Jul 23, 2008 - 2:10 pm 67. Old Blue:

I think this is the epic struggle of the Hamilton/Jefferson debate.

The scary part is that people really do look like idiots. They really really do. I saw some scary scary stuff today on that Time magazine site. Rabid stuff.

That’s the MSM. Wow.

Here’s the thing to keep in mind: We only hear from the noisy ones, and the left is particularly noisy. Four out five ex-cheerleaders are left-leaning… including Couric. They make a lot of noise and therefore appear to be a much larger group than they really are.

I think even the polls are skewed. People on the right often don’t answer their phones for pollsters. This tendency has become more pronounced in the past several years. The lefties, on the other hand, want the pollster’s phone number so they can call and vote multiple times like on American Idol.

It’s really hard to read, and I’m astounded that someone could actually consider that a junior senator two years out of state legislation who has never held an executive post in his life is equipped to make decisions like he is making without so much as asking a serving general what he thinks.

Who was right? I’ve always leaned towards Jefferson. Sometimes it’s hard to have faith.

Canoneer, you scared the living hell out of me with that, thanks. It was like going to a horror movie.

Jul 23, 2008 - 2:16 pm 68. exhelodrvr:

programmer,
“and by default, the continuance of Republicans”

When you say that, you ignore the fact that the Democrats are in control of both Senate and House. And thus are much more responsible than the Republicans for the current problems.

Jul 23, 2008 - 2:53 pm 69. whiskey:

Benj — Soft power is a fantasy of Liberals. It does nothing. Clinton wielded Soft Power and got terrorist atrocity after terrorist atrocity. Had the 1993 plotters been a bit better at placing their bombs they would have killed 50,000 people by toppling one tower onto another, their stated goal.

FEAR, and the fear specifically of the US destroying the base of power economically of tribe, most of it’s young men, and it’s tribal leaders (killing them) leaving them weak, poor, and at the dubious mercy of tribal enemies is the ONLY way for the US in a nuclear proliferating world to keep our cities intact.

Ask yourself, who is the most likely to instill RAW FEAR in the hearts and minds of tribal leaders in Pakistan, in Iran, and other Muslim nations? It is not Obama.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:16 pm 70. NahnCee:

programmer - then what *is* your beef, when you keep referring repeatedly to Republican spending and the state of the economy? I really can’t see the Democrats doing a better job pork-wise AND they tend to build stuff like bridges to no-where in Alaska rather than fences along our Mexican border.

At least with Republican spending we’ve got thousands of dead terrorists to show for it, and a Middle East that’s teetering on the edge of mass rioting and decline which has got to be good for something.

It took the hugely escalating price of gas to get me concerned about America’s economy because I figured it would all sort itself out in the capitalist market like it always does — that we really haven’t been in a recession and world-wide compared to Europe and Japan and even CHina, we’re not doing that badly. Now I think that someone has been deliberately manipulating the upward spiral of gas prices and I’m wondering who that is … and why. I think OPEC could do it and I think the American government could do it. I don’t think any one single gazillionaire like Soros could do it, so again, why? What has been accomplished? Is it as simple as getting Americans pissed off at the Arabs again, and ready to nuke Iran if it means bringing the cost of gas down?

But for you, programmer, to repeatedly say that you’re going to vote for the Messiah and then list economics as the only reason makes me think it must be personal. And if I’m wrong, then how?

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:38 pm 71. NahnCee:

Benj, dear - remember: paragraphs are your friend.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:39 pm 72. NahnCee:

Folks might want to go take a look at Tarantino’s post for yesterday’s WSJ Opinion page. He relates a story about being in the hospital recently and what happened when he tried the same sort of chit-chat we enjoy here at Belmont Club with his roommate. It’s eyebrow-raising.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121674582611274013.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:43 pm 73. philw1776:

Speaking of Tetlock, in the last question on his video Jan 2007, he said that the “Foxes” didn’t think The Surge would work. Not exactly affirming his main point.

Jul 23, 2008 - 4:57 pm 74. Zenster:

Roderick Reilly: Even so, Obama’s ghastly stupidities mean nothing unless McCain and the Republicans can find effective ways to exploit it.

If Mc Main can’t find some way of capitalizing upon Obama’s laundry list of character flaws, he doesn’t deserve to win. Between his phony birth certificate, ties to American terrorists, corrupt Chicago connection and neo-Marxist ideology, Obama has more soft spots than a bag of marshmallows.

Benj: Can’t “Negotiate with Islam”! Tell that to Bush - He’s negotiating with the Islamist pres of Iraq all the time, no?

Yes, and Bush is a complete and total idiot for it. Consider some quotes by Sami Moubayed as he recounts discussions with Kahudayr “Deport All Muslims Including Me” Taher about Nour al Maliki:

The only contradictory statement, which shatters much of the flattering talk revolving around Maliki, was made by Khudayr Taher, a US-based Shi’ite writer who has known Maliki since their days in exile in Syria in the 1980s.

Taher wrote an editorial in Arabic saying that he used to meet Maliki at the local library in Syria, where he would be doing research for his master’s degree in Arabic literature, pointing out: “I do not claim that we were friends.” Taher said Maliki had “modest general knowledge … he will be a puppet in the hands of Jaafari, Hakim, the Kurds and Sunnis”. He added that Maliki “does not believe in democracy because of his ideological commitments” in al-Da’wa Party, claiming that political Islam and democracy do not meet for someone like Maliki.

In a private discussion held when both men were in Syria, Maliki told Taher: “We declare our acceptance of democracy, but in reality, we are tricking them [the Americans] in order to topple Saddam and come to power.” Taher writes: “I swear to God that this is exactly what he said!”

Taher adds that Maliki does not believe in the equality of women and will refuse to give any cabinet posts to Iraqi women, unless those imposed by the Kurds. He wraps up by saying that Maliki is anti-American, and has expressed his anti-American views to friends and in private discourse. [emphasis added]

It’s pretty clear that you lack any comprehension of how Islam and democracy simply DO NOT intersect.

At the risk of seeming too beamish/Sullivanish - consider that O will likely be infinitely more adept than Bush as promoting the soft power of the American idea(s)

Where do “American ideal(s)” and Islam have anything to do with each other? The two are polar opposites and share no common ground. The only way to negotiate with Islam is by using the business end of a large bore gun.

To make this clear, I invite you to read up on how American democracy is regarded by the adherents of Islam. Consider this article about the now-dead but once close associate of Osama bin Laden, Yussuf al-Ayyeri :

What Al-Ayyeri sees now is a ”clean battlefield” in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief. This, he labels ‘’secularist democracy.” This threat is ”far more dangerous to Islam” than all its predecessors combined. The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracy’s ‘’seductive capacities.”

This form of ”unbelief” persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. That leads them into ignoring the ”unalterable laws” promulgated by God for the whole of mankind, and codified in the Islamic shariah (jurisprudence) until the end of time.

The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to ”make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad.” If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims ”reluctant to die in martyrdom” in defense of their faith.

He says that it is vital to prevent any normalization and stabilization in Iraq. Muslim militants should make sure that the United States does not succeed in holding elections in Iraq and creating a democratic government. ”If democracy comes to Iraq, the next target [for democratization] would be the whole of the Muslim world,” Al-Ayyeri writes.[emphasis added]

The greatest benisons of American democracy, peace and prosperity, are at direct odds with Islam’s mind control and quest for global jihad. So, once again, please tell the studio audience and all the folks at home exactly how the West is supposed to negotiate any meaningful agreements with Islam?

the folks here who persistently equate O with Hitler (or the antichrist or the hound of hell or…) are no different/better than cats on the left suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome

Either you provide some User Names with Direct Quotes and URLs to link them or consider such preposterous horseradish to be dismissed out of hand. I’ve NEVER seen anyone at Belmont Club equate Obama with Hitler, or the antichrist, for that matter.

He’s not Jesse or Sharpton. He’s not Chomsky or Moore either

Obama’s carrying their industrial strength Kool-Aid just the same. He’s as delusional as Moore and just as race baiting as Sharpton.

fred: How can anyone take this man seriously? I think that’s more than just a rhetorical question. Take it from a former neo-Marxist: I know a neo-Marxist when I see one and he is one of them. Too bad this cannot be said more publicly and given its due, because if you do the research into his background that is an ironclad conclusion to make about him.

Anyone capable of ignoring this should be kept far away from a ballot box.

Old Blue: I’m astounded that someone could actually consider that a junior senator two years out of state legislation who has never held an executive post in his life is equipped to make decisions like he is making without so much as asking a serving general what he thinks.

American voters had damn well better ask themselves about this before entering the polling booth.

whiskey: FEAR, and the fear specifically of the US destroying the base of power economically of [a] tribe, most of it’s young men, and it’s tribal leaders (killing them) leaving them weak, poor, and at the dubious mercy of tribal enemies is the ONLY way for the US in a nuclear proliferating world to keep our cities intact.
Ask yourself, who is the most likely to instill RAW FEAR in the hearts and minds of tribal leaders in Pakistan, in Iran, and other Muslim nations? It is not Obama.

Le Bingo! Bottom line and end of story.

If the Iraqi campaign served even one good purpose, it was this:

Consider how Iran and Iraq spent EIGHT LONG YEARS killing almost ONE MILLION MUSLIMS only to reach a bloody standstill.

Then remember how America rolled up Iraq’s sidewalks in three short weeks with only a few dozen casualties.

Anyone with decent ears probably could have heard the odd squeaking sound of Islamic anuses tightening from a hundred miles away.

Jul 23, 2008 - 7:54 pm 75. programmer:

Nahncee,

In your 3:38 comment, you ask fair questions and deserve fair answers, however, I have been answering questions most of the evening for my students, so rather than answering in the spirit that your questions deserve, I am going to sit, have a cup of tea and gather my resources. However, to address your first comment, Ted Stevens (Alaska) of bridge to nowhere fame is Republican as is Don Young (Alaska), of the “Don Young Way” for example.

As far as the cost of gas and oil is concerned, to the best of my ability to reason, I truly believe it is market forces at work. Ten years ago, I spent a great deal of time developing software to predict economic feasibility for drilling test holes and predicting economic feasibility in the fracturing and/or recovery of older producing wells. There is much financial risk in drilling a dry hole. There is much financial risk in buying leases to fields that have unstable rock structure that collapses as oil is pumped or forced out and stops production prematurely. I do not claim to be a petroleum engineer, I’m just a programmer, but I developed a great deal of respect for oil executives and engineers that would risk their careers and the companies bottom line again and again in the pursuit of profitable wells. When the wells came in and produced as predicted, money flows in. When they don’t produce money hemmorhages out. A petroleum engineer could probably tell us what the percentage of good wells to dry holes is, but it seemed to me that even with the best seismic gear and smartest software, the hit rate was pretty low. I worked for some of the smartest geophysicists in the world. They traveled around the world giving lectures and consulting with many foreign governments. And they constantly stressed how “iffy” the whole proposition was. The days of drilling into a dome and “slurping” the oil up with a “straw” are over. In almost all cases now, oil is in rock structures of varying porosity, oil sands, and/or oil shale. Getting oil out of porous rock, oil sands and oil shale is an expensive proposition in the very best situation, but with the environmental laws and regulations in the US, it is down right time consuming and almost cost prohibitive, hence the increase in the cost at the pump. I am actually somewhat happy at the increase in cost of gas, since it will make the initial development of shale oil, for example, less of a gamble for the major oils. As an aside, I have read that Shell has developed an experimental process (at great cost, I might add) that meets environmental requirements and is cost effective (relatively speaking) for extracting shale oil in the west. However, again, because of environmental concerns getting approval for this process drives the time line a long ways out.

As for your last comment that my tendency to vote for Obama is the result of some personal economic issues with the Republican party, it is indeed. A man is known by the company (or in this case, the party) he keeps. And I need to choose. McCain or Obama. And I have not made up my mind. I am trying to rationally make a good decision, for as I said earlier, I will not choose to not vote. That is a true cop out and makes me angry when I hear members of the chattering class advocate not voting to “teach a lesson” to whichever party they are tearing up for that particular day. You and others are helping me make that decision. I love America, if for no other reason than, where else can an unsophisticated nerdy programmer participate in a discussion with well read, well educated and far more knowledgeable people than he who provide a grinding wheel of logic and experience against which he hones his thinking, and at no cost except for the time spent typing. What a country.

Jul 23, 2008 - 8:15 pm 76. Cascajun » Space Invaders:

[...] Richard Fernandez [...]

Jul 23, 2008 - 10:08 pm 77. Zenster:

programmer: I am trying to rationally make a good decision, for as I said earlier, I will not choose to not vote. That is a true cop out and makes me angry when I hear members of the chattering class advocate not voting to “teach a lesson” to whichever party they are tearing up for that particular day. You and others are helping me make that decision. I love America

Pal, you already said it well enough by stating:

Thanks guys for the opportunity to vent in an extremely informative environment and in a calm, well reasoned discussion.

Again, there is NOTHING corny about your love of country. Would that more people felt the way you do. If I may be so bold: That you are intent upon being an informed voter is some of the highest praise that our beloved country can earn.

At all times, when closing a discussion with strangers wherein I expose them to the typically unknown dangers of democratic party strategies, I NEVER ask them to vote one way or the other. All I ever ask them to do is be an informed voter.

Changing our world one mind at a time.

Jul 24, 2008 - 12:32 am 78. DWMF:

Singalong with Buddha Obama:

“Don’t sit under the Bodhi tree, with anyone else but me…”

Jul 24, 2008 - 5:19 am 79. Wadeusaf:

The war that cannot be lost is not the campaign in Iraq, but the larger effort on terror. Any office gained at the expense of victory in the GWOT is rendered worthless by definition. While it is a relatively easy mental bridge to cross, I don’t know that “OH” has crossed it, I know McCain has.

1) Our major goal in Iraq was to take out a terror supporting, WMD wielding, genocide touting, Human rights stomping, corrupt to the bone government and replace it with one that was not. McCain supported it, “OH” did not.

2) When challenged by an insurgency that was larger than anything anticipated by our side, McCain pointed to the path we are now on. “OH” said run away.

3) The “central theater” of the war on terror by Obama’s reckoning is Pakistan. Having condemned the doctrine of preemption, Obama is promoting exactly that action against Pakistan. McCain embraces a policy which suits the situation along the border of Afghanistan and the Pak NW Territories, just as he supported a policy that suited the conditions in Iraq.

4) McCain’s position has been clear and consistent, agree or not. “OH” has taken a position that is complicated and ambiguous, and has been consistent in being ambiguous. I think Benj believes this ambiguity demonstrates “OH”s fluidity of thought. It appears that Benj suggests “OH”s complex answers are movements along the trajectory of history, and Benj strives to provide passages about “OH” that illuminate that notion. You have to work to understand “OH” and even then we’re not sure where he stands, or what he said, especially when he prefaces his statement with “Let me be Clear” or “I’ve said all along” or “I am going to say”.

Stating the surge was successful because of the political gains made, saying the political gains made were as a result of the pressure of time lines for benchmarks, after stating that no political progress could be made because of the happy hapenstance that X must occur before Y or Z or “OH” could spout the nonsense and willful deceit about a policy that purposefully and by design sought out and took advantage of situations like the Awakening Movement are just as scurrilous as the lies about our troops abilities and culpabilities that have been paraded in the MSM this long seven years of war.

I’ll give “OH” his due, he has walked the tightrope well, with his words. But I will not advocate the transmission of words into somehow something more than the stating of ideas, the results of which implementation “OH” has not, will not, or cannot take responsibility or credit.

Jul 24, 2008 - 5:43 am 80. Roderick Reilly:

Obama’s starting to remind me of Frank Abagnale, the impostor and con-artist played by Leo di Caprio in “Catch Me If You Can.”

His evasions, obfuscations, and dancing away from past contradictory statements so as to try to keep one step ahead of being caught and unmasked are — to me — remarkably like a metaphorical version of Abagnale’s escapades.

Jul 24, 2008 - 11:51 am 81. Zenster:

Paging Benj to the white courtesy telephone:

“Is there one single important issue that Obama has remained steadfast on without ever reversing his position?”

Since you’re BHO’s big fan, I’m still waiting for you answer that one question. Others here are probably interested too. See if you can keep your reply to only one or two paragraphs. You do know what paragraphs are, right?

ridgerunner: There is a need for a phrase to crystallize the meme that Obama, over and above his committment to historically discredited Marxism, is a shallow narcissist. Might this work: The Audacity of Hype. If this phrase is not in the blogosphere, it should be. I hope that many will see fit to extend, expand and export the phrase with its associated meme. A suggestion for a bumper sticker: “The Audacity of Hype. Obama wrote the book on it.”

I this Sound Bite Age, your suggestion merits more response than it got in this thread. The Internet is the ne plus ultra conduit for memes. “The Audacity of Hype” is one of the finest retorts to Obama’s vapid and hollow-core style of politics.

My own contribution to the Internet’s meme inventory is also begining to get some traction at other anti-jihad sites. I refer to perpetually aggrieved Muslims as:

SKINLESS PEOPLE LIVING IN A SANDPAPER WORLD

I’ll be spreading your “The Audacity of Hype” wherever I go.

Jul 24, 2008 - 12:16 pm 82. Benj:

Z - Thanks for the dope on Maliki (though I don’t think it’s entirely reliable). Definitely matches up with what’s been reported re his prejudices against women. But I’m still betting (along with Khalizad, the Kurds and W. etc.) that there are real distinctions between M. and other Shia partiers in Iraq (not to mention Iran)… I wouldn’t deny, though, that’s a pretty iffy wager (especially a couple years back). As you may know, O went to Iraq round the time M. was coming into power - O was ambivalent - “fluid” to use Wade’s term - about the War’s consequences at that point. But the one thing he was SURE of (as per his account of his visit in “Audacity of Hope” ) was that the future of Iraq would depend on the “hard-eyed” Iraqi pols he met. None of em gave him a Mandela-like glow. (Though I’d like to know if he was ever in a room with Barham Saleh). By 2006 we were definitely past what might be called the heroic stage of Iraqi democracy - on to something a lot more prosaic (more like Chicago?) Though in MY mind maybe even more important. Yet I wouldn’t fault O for being skeptical given the originary beamish visions of neo-cons. Funny though, he’s never been as cynical as you are about our Iraq project. Are you aware that your utter contempt for Maliki and Muslims tends to back up O’s basic stance toward the Iraq War?

Re democracy and Islam - Senegal is 90% Muslim - Wahabis making some inroads but sufi sects more important - A few years back the Sens pulled off their first real electoral transfer of power. It was as unpredicted and out of time as Kenya’s little democratic revo a few years back. Kenya, of course, just had a horrible stretch - but I doubt the Kenyan people have given up on demos in that country - Muslim population notwithstanding. You shouldn’t either. Nor should you give into the idea that the Mass of Muslims are irredeemable. Bush has been RIGHT to bet on them! OBama will up that ante in his own way. (Oh yes - Zenster - I’d urge you to go back and look at the history of Iran - the Iranian people - all on their own - made a democratic revolution which America then trashed (w/ help from the heirs of the Mullahs who now rule them). If you check Stephen Kinzer’s book about the CIA’s coup against Mossadegh - maybe you’ll be a little less sure about the eternal perfidy of Muslims and the absoute moral perfection of our own country…

Whiskey - RAW FEAR - not conducive to the Reformation that Muslims must carry out…BTW - Whisk - your own posts are often marked by, raw…defensiveness. Go back and look at your own stuff over the past few months and I think you’ll be struck by how many times you express your contempt for folks (black Americans, “elites” etc.) whom (you believe) look down on you. You get your shoulder up almost as often as Fred mentions he’s an ex-leftist…IS is possible the fear you want to instill seems to be in you. Projection is a powerful prob all over the world…PS Zenster re Hiter=OBama - guess you missed the post with this line from this thread re Obama = “Hitler, Allende, Chavez, Mugabe attest that democracy can be a suicide. This is serious business.” I SHOULD’ve objected to the insane equation of Hit and Allende as well. BTW - another Clubber (was it Roderick? who does not share my positivity re Obama) - citing a recent post by Peterike - recently counseled your “side” to chill out on the Hitler=Obama comparisons…No time to go back and find that post - but I’m not inventing this stuff - as for the anti-Christ - sorry if that was over-the-top - but the stealth Muslim meme is just as mad…Stealth secularist? Now you might have some grist there…O’s “faith” allows for a LOT of doubt!!

Jul 24, 2008 - 2:54 pm 83. ridgerunner:

Benj - I SHOULD’ve objected to the insane equation of Hit and Allende as well.

For you true believers, the difference between an equation (complete equivalence) and a correspondence (similarity in some aspect) is just too subtle. Hitler, Allende, Chavez and Mugabe were each elected democratically (Allende with 36%) and then proceeded to destroy the democracy and the society that trusted them with power.

Jul 24, 2008 - 3:39 pm 84. Wadeusaf:

Zenster, what are your thoughts on Josh Landis POV?

Personally having read much of what Sami Moubayed has written on the political and military situation in Lebanon and Syria. I would no more give him credibility than I would Baghdad Bob, or Professor Joshua Landis. Nowhere in the Media does Hezbolla have a truer friend, nor Lebanon an enemy.

No where in the vast Syrian desert is free speech or free thought less welcome than in the newspaper for which Sami writes. Ask any of a number of members of the Syrian government’s peaceful opposition, oh wait, you can’t they are in jail or dead.

Jul 24, 2008 - 5:32 pm 85. Wadeusaf:

Funny, along with the I was almost right defence, is the knowledge that predictions even among experts “turn out to be more like Andy Warhol. Even the hedgehogs have their day in the sun.”

The implication is that “OH” is basing his policy predictions on the basis of his idology–a long term hedgehog trait. Which means short term he is going to have a higher rate of failed predictions. But “OH” acts like a fox, with a high calibration index, so that chances of his being caught at being definitively wrong are statistically nil.

Based on the predictive models out lined by Tetlock , we cannot say that “OH” is a fox, until we can rule out that he is not a hedgehog. Or we can agree to a third style, the Tasmanian Devil, which may be more like the charlatan or the hybrid depending on the need of the moment or even a fourth, the chameleon whose changes are not as speedy as taz but are gradual and nearly unnoticed.

So fluidity such as is there smells of gin.

Jul 24, 2008 - 7:14 pm 86. Zenster:

Wadeusaf: Zenster, what are your thoughts on Josh Landis POV?

I’m unacquainted with the chap. Please post some links and I’ll peruse them.

Personally having read much of what Sami Moubayed has written on the political and military situation in Lebanon and Syria. I would no more give him credibility than I would Baghdad Bob, or Professor Joshua Landis. Nowhere in the Media does Hezbolla have a truer friend, nor Lebanon an enemy.

My use of Moubayed’s article is based strictly upon the respectable work of Kahudayr Taher, whom the bulk of those quotes originated with.

Jul 24, 2008 - 8:24 pm 87. Wadeusaf:

Zenster,

Check out Landis at SyriaComment.com.

I hold Mr. Landis in a special contempt reserved for mouthpieces of tyranny and terror. Mr Moubayed is less contemptable only in that he is Syrian, so I suppose carrying water for an oppressive government can be excused so long as it does not knowingly lead to the death of people who are politically opposed to that government.

Okay, I think they are both lower than snakes.

Jul 24, 2008 - 10:16 pm 88. Wadeusaf:

Syria Comment since 2006 is located here

http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/

have fun!!

Jul 24, 2008 - 10:28 pm 89. Benj:

Ridge - Not a true believer - Allende is not a hero of mine - but - as I think Hitchens once pointed out - Allende deserves credit (not unlike Mossadegh) for never calling out for armed struggle to defend the “revolution” - His own morality did not correspond to Hit/Mugab/Chavez - Being friends with Fidel in 1970 was a little diff from choosing to be tight w/ him after dictatorship had gone on for 40 more years…- BTW - Allende supported both Chezck and Hungarian revos (Castro took the straight party line……

FYI -Here’s the Wiki entry on the “US Involvement/Corporate Business Interests” in the Chilean Coup…Seems crazy to
Main article: United States intervention in Chile
The possibility of Allende winning Chile’s 1970 election was deemed a disaster by a US government desirous of protecting US business interests and preventing any further spread of communism during the Cold War. In September 1970, President Nixon informed the CIA that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable and authorized $10 million to stop Allende from coming to power or unseat him [34]. The CIA’s plans to impede Allende’s investiture as President of Chile were known as “Track I” and “Track II”; Track I sought to prevent Allende from assuming power via so-called “parliamentary trickery”, while under the Track II initiative, the CIA tried to convince key Chilean military officers to carry out a coup.[34]

After the 1970 election, the Track I operation attempted to incite Chile’s outgoing president, Eduardo Frei Montalva, to persuade his party (PDC) to vote in Congress for Alessandri. Under the plan, Alessandri would resign his office immediately after assuming it and call new elections. Eduardo Frei would then be constitutionally able to run again (since the Chilean Constitution did not allow a president to hold two consecutive terms, but allowed multiple non-consecutive ones), and presumably easily defeat Allende. The Chilean Congress instead chose Allende as President, on the condition that he would sign a “Statute of Constitutional Guarantees” affirming that he would respect and obey the Chilean Constitution, and that his reforms would not undermine any element of it.

Track II was abortive, as parallel initiatives already underway within the Chilean military rendered it moot.[35]

The United States has acknowledged having played a role in Chilean politics prior to the coup, but its degree of involvement in the coup itself is debated. The CIA was notified by its Chilean contacts of the impending coup two days in advance, but contends it “played no direct role in” the coup.[36]

President Allende’s economic policy had involved nationalizations of many key companies, notably U.S.-owned copper mines. This had been a significant reason behind the United States opposition to Allende’s reformist socialist government, in addition to his establishing diplomatic relations and cooperation agreements with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Much of the internal opposition to Allende’s policies came from business sector, and recently-released U.S. government documents confirm that the U.S. funded the truck drivers’ strike,[37] which had exacerbated the already chaotic economic situation prior to the coup.

The most prominent U.S. corporations in Chile prior to Allende’s presidency were the Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies, and ITT, International Telephone and Telegraph. Both the copper corporations aimed to expand privatized copper production in the city of El Teniente, Chile, the world’s largest underground copper mine. At the end of 1968, according to Department of Commerce data, U.S. corporate holdings in Chile amounted to $964 million. Anaconda and Kennecott accounted for 28% of U.S. holdings, but ITT had by far the largest holding of any single corporation, with an investment of $200 million in Chile. In 1970, before Allende was elected, ITT owned 70% of Chitelco, the Chilean Telephone Company and funded El Mercurio, a Chilean right-wing newspaper. Documents released in 2000 by the CIA confirmed that before the elections of 1970, ITT gave $700,000 to Allende’s conservative opponent, Jorge Allesandri, with help from the CIA on how to channel the money safely. ITT president Harold Geneen also offered $1 million to the CIA to help defeat Allende in the elections. [38]

After General Pinochet assumed power, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told U.S. President Richard Nixon that the U.S. “didn’t do it,” but “we helped them…created the conditions as great as possible.” (referring to the coup itself)[39]. Recent documents declassified under the Clinton administration’s Chile Declassification Project show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970 immediately before he took office (”Project FUBELT”), but claims of their direct involvement in the 1973 coup are not proven by publicly available documentary evidence, but many documents still remain classified.
dge -

Jul 25, 2008 - 7:06 am 90. fred:

Benj,

I often mention myself as an ex-Leftist because I want it known that there are thinking people who were at one time thinking Leftists who continued to think and followed evidence and logic. That’s all. I’m not alone in this experience. I’m sure there are people who used to be on the Right who have now gone over to the Left. I’d be curious to know how, based on reason and fact, they did so. And I’d love to engage such a person in a civil and interesting dialog. I left the Left because, primarily, it betrayed some of the foundational principles of Western culture. In the mid to late eighties I began to pay attention to the reality of socialist regimes in the world. I also caught on to many lies being bandied about on the Left. And lots of other reasons besides.

And at present I still find myself of two minds on a score of topics, the legacy of my Catholic upbringing which had a healthy dose of the social teachings of the Church down through the centuries. But, overall I think socialism has been a failure everywhere it’s been tried. There are reasons for this beyond the excuses for it that I’ve heard from the Left over the years.

Jul 25, 2008 - 9:37 am 91. Wadeusaf:

Benj,

Stealth secularist? LOL! Would be a perspective on Franklin or maybe Jefferson or perhaps JFK. I dunno, did FDR attend services?

The notion of stealth involving secularism, is like a foul smelling whiskey swilling Boston papist trying to be pious in a house where all the residents are staunch anabaptists.

I don’t think its possible.

Jul 25, 2008 - 11:40 am 92. ridgerunner:

Benj,
Where were you in 1973? I was working in Brasil and closely followed Allende’s attempt to communize Chile. Your presentation is so completely one-sided that I must conclude that you are a Marxist. You failed to mention 1) that Allende defied thousands of judicial decisions that he didn’t like, 2)that he smuggled weapons from Cuba to arm communist paramilitaries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_packages, 3)that by 1970 Castro (not so bad since he hadn’t yet been a dictator for 40 years)killed thousands of small farmers who resisted his collectivization, and 4)that not-so-bad Castro had liquidated thousands as soon as he took power in 1959. The Chilean military knew what awaited them and they shot first. Well done.

Jul 25, 2008 - 11:48 am 93. Zenster:

Wadeusaf, thank you for the link. Landis is either seriously misguided or playing for the other team. Thank you for the input.

Jul 25, 2008 - 11:58 am 94. Benj:

RR - “your presentation is so completely one-sided” - Wasn’t “my” presentation - just passed on a section taken from Wiki entry - Not sure re the bias - but since YOU just passed on a Wiki thingy you’ve got me scratching my head…- BTW - ever seen “The Battle of Chile” - famous 3 hour doc from the 70s - Trust me - The Wiki version of America’s (and Chilean’s eliltes) crimes against Chilean people is pretty tame…Do you really want to sign off on Pinochet and that Stadiuem of torture and (later) that TErroirst (yup that’s the word) attack on LEtelier…Pinochet - now there’s a brute who belongs on a list with Hitler and Mugabe! - Since you were in brazil in 73 - occurs to me you may have missed the reporting on Dita Beard/ITT/Nixon/Plumbers episode - Hard for me to recall all the details but if you go back and look into that I doubt you’ll be thrilled with the actions of American corporations after Allende’s suprise election - PS Don’t need instructions on Fidel’s perfidy (one reason I mentioned Allende’s and Fidel’s differing responses to Hungary and 68) - PS “I am not a Marxist” as Karl himself once said.

Jul 25, 2008 - 2:27 pm 95. ridgerunner:

Benj,
Like Karl, not a Marxist, only a spreader of the poison.

Jul 25, 2008 - 4:19 pm 96. Benj:

RR - knowledge = poison? - Abuse ain’t Argument…

Fred- Easy to see why folks who bought into, say, the wonders of the Soviet U. or the Cultural Revolution or the Sandinistas or…might be shamed into heading way right - But you know there have alwasy been leftists (and more liberals) who were anti-totalitarians. Think on (the greatest of em all?) Orwell. And there are other writers on left who are more modern, more clear than Orwell ever was about what might offered up INSTEAD of statism/socialism to people aware that Western (& Christian!) values don’t match up with wbat’s on offer from Ayn Rand or Bill Buckley or minds ruled by the Market.

I mentioned Lawrence Goodwyn’s stuff here - Alexis checked it out and found his books are not worthless - I think someother clubbers might have got the groove there too. Goodwyn is a radical democrat. At the end of the Populist Moment - (hsi abridged version of his standard history of American populism) he provides a chapter on “economics” that challenges preconceptons on both the left and right. Read that myself matters of “provision’ ever since…A couple other writers might interest you as well - Might look into Castoriadis and Mauss…Interesting European heads…Key is to keep looking out for genuinely new ideas that are in great Tradition(s). (Castoriadis, for example, is the great updater of Greek demos - Mauss is a hero of Social Anthropology) - Though as Bob Dylan once said in a song that came out right after 9/11 - “You can’t open your mind to every conceivable point of view.”

Jul 27, 2008 - 11:08 am 97. Ken:

Programmer, who the hell were the “Republicans you knew”? Reagan, like Bush, ran a big deficit in order to (justifiably) defeat a foreign enemy. Or are you talking about Newt Gingrich, perhaps? I will always remember Newt as the guy who pushed through the Lautenberg Amendment. Not my idea of a good Republican.

The fact is that, although Bush hasn’t been perfect on domestic issues, I now feel much less threatened in regard to my Second Amendment rights than I did during the Clinton years. Of course, a spreadsheet-obsessed accountant wannabe like yourself wouldn’t understand that.

A little clue, though–those Democrat girls you’re trying to impress by bad-mouthing Republicans? They don’t get turned on by green eyeshades, any more than any women do.

Jul 27, 2008 - 8:19 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.