45 Comments

1. Jamie Irons:

Roger,

You write:

And the soi-disant left still has no real response to the world situation other than Not Bush…

This is especially perceptive. That an entire major political party’s message could be summed up in two words is…well, I don’t know if it is more disheartening or infuriating.

I wonder about another eaction to Bush’s speech here.

Jamie Irons

Nov 30, 2005 - 12:20 pm 2. Jamie Irons:

I wonder about another reaction to Bush’s …

Sorry.

Jamie Irons

Nov 30, 2005 - 12:23 pm 3. Paul:

I object to the linking of leftism and liberalism.

Admittedly these day the term “liberal” refers to leftists, but the left is a product of the philosophies of the (largely German) counter-enlightenment, which was socialist-collectivist and opposed to the enlightenment principals of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free market capitalism, democratically elected government, the favoring of science and reason over religion and dogma, etc., which define clasical liberalism.

The left always has espoused rule by an “enlightened” elite over the unwashed masses, and that’s a recipe for dictatorship every time. When they have taken the control of governments they also have called for the democide of populations as a prerequisite for the building of utopian societies, and while they got the democide part down pat they never seemed to be able to get the utopian thing off the ground.

The American left has always backed, or at least failed to partipate in the resistance of, international communism. They’ve been Soviet apologists, Mao supporters, backed the Sandanistas, idolized Che and Fidel. Why should anyone be surprised that they currently choose the side of dictators or terrorists?

The overwhelming success of capitalist democracy and the abject failure of their beloved socialism sticks in their craw to no end. In fact it has rendered them quite insane for all intents and purposes and the only joy left to them at this point is to hope to see America, the bench mark for the success of capitalist democracy, humiliated and defeated.

Nov 30, 2005 - 12:26 pm 4. Reverend Scaramonga:

Your assessment of the rat-faced boy’s drivel as nothing but the same tune, played yet again, is dead on the money. Corn is in a group of losers who have nowhere left to hide. As the success in Iraq becomes more and more apparent to the people of America, Corn and his cohorts of nay saying appeasers are losing credibility by the bushel. The problem for Corn is, he had so little to start with.

Nov 30, 2005 - 12:38 pm 5. Jamie Irons:

Another analysis of Bush’s speech, and this analyst is well-qualified:

Mac Owens…

Jamie Irons

Nov 30, 2005 - 12:40 pm 6. Terrye:

This morning I actually turned on Imus and I had the same reaction to him. {Don’t ask, suffice to say I won’t be listening to him again}

Same old same old. He is not even aware of the fact that the airport road is actually used on a daily basis now by people who are not in flack jackets and humvees.

He blithely states that there was no wmd, no terrorists, nothing amiss in Iraq and now the place is a hopeless mess and it is of course Bush’s fault.

His source of information? The media of course. They all say that right? Of course that would be the same media that just a few years ago was talking up Saddam’s weapons and ties to terrorism and human rights abuses.

I don’t know if these guys are suffering from denial or amnesia but it is impossible to even have a civil and sane conversation about Iraq with them. Waste of time.

Nov 30, 2005 - 1:01 pm 7. Insufficiently Sensitive:

“And the soi-disant left still has no real response to the world situation other than Not Bush.”

That includes the industry which purveys the news of the day to the vast majority of Americans: the MSM. By selective omissions and soda-straw coverage of the gloom, they bring us Iraq, the disaster – and assign the blame to the President.

Nov 30, 2005 - 1:04 pm 8. Insufficiently Sensitive:

“And the soi-disant left still has no real response to the world situation other than Not Bush.”

That includes the industry which purveys the news of the day to the vast majority of Americans: the MSM. By selective omissions and soda-straw coverage of the gloom, they bring us Iraq, the disaster – and assign the blame to the President.

Nov 30, 2005 - 1:04 pm 9. beautifulatrocities:

It’s incredible: the Democrats have essentially backed themselves into the position of opposing freedom in the Mideast because it’s not to their advantage.

Last year, Steyn remarked on the curious fact that while the economy was doing great, the Dems were in the business of telling Americans they were doing terrible. That failed, & so will their anti-Iraq strategy. I’ve always scoffed at reports that the Dems are finished, but the pathologies in the Democratic Party are so much more severe than those in the Republican, you have to wonder. And part of it is the Internet, which continues to push the Dems leftward even as it undermines their spokesmen in the MSM. These are tectonic events, & sometimes when such things happen, political parties collapse

Nov 30, 2005 - 1:36 pm 10. beautifulatrocities:

Postscript: the Dems only have to lose a few percentage points support to become completely irrelevant

Nov 30, 2005 - 1:37 pm 11. JBlossom:

Well, it’s nice to know where the Kool-Aid is being drunk these days.

As soon as you folks figure out what the plan is for success in this war is please drop me a line. In the meantime our military leaders at least have the sense to speak for themselves about how it should be conducted:

Top U.S. military officer contradicts his civilian boss

Or his he a communist too…?

Nov 30, 2005 - 2:27 pm 12. Terrye:

You know what Jb? You can always find someone to contradict someone. It is not a big deal..Especially if he has an axe to grind for some reason.

I think the interesting thing about the lefties is that they only hear what they want to hear and they have never have a better idea. They just bitch.

I remember back when Demcorats said Saddam had to go, he had wmd, he was killing people in the hundreds of thousands and now it is like that never happened.

You know waht Saddam is still alive…you can always give the country back to him. Go ahead, it is not as if we really give a damn about the Iraqis now is it? They either serve a political purpose or to hell with them….

Nov 30, 2005 - 2:41 pm 13. Syl:

JBlossom

What is your considered opinion on the issue you linked to? Do you believe our military has the right to physically intervene in the activities of a sovereign nation?

And, remember, Iraq was not a sovereign nation when we invaded. It was under a ceasefire agreement which limited its rights. But it is sovereign now.

Or are you under the impression that Iraq was sovereign on March 19, 2003, but is an American colony now? or that we are ‘occupiers’, rather than invited guests under contract with a sovereign government?

Actually, I would like to read the agreement we signed with the interim Iraqi government. It might have an answer to the problem.

Nov 30, 2005 - 2:45 pm 14. Syl:

As for Corn, he is much like the LA Times which ignored what Bush actually said and spouted the same old criticisms it had before Bush’s speech.

And CNN, which quoted some of Bush’s speech, then cut to Lyndon Johnson back in the day as if Vietnam and Iraq are the same.

Sheesh.

I really think the liberals and the left in this country believed their own hype during the ’90’s: that war was obsolete and everything could be fixed through diplomacy.

It was such a beautiful utopian dream that they would not let go of it, even after 9/11.

Nov 30, 2005 - 2:50 pm 15. JBlossom:

Boy, this is fun, you guys are pretty funny. I’ll have to try this more often.

For Terry E., you say “I think the interesting thing about the lefties is that they only hear what they want to hear and they have never have a better idea. They just bitch.” Sorry, I didn’t notice how “fair and balanced” the chat on this side of the fence is. I really should be ashamed of myself. Thanks.

For Syl, you point out “Do you believe our military has the right to physically intervene in the activities of a sovereign nation?” Gosh, you have a point there, that’s very observant. Maybe our military should not be in a sovereign nation. Maybe they should have left once Iraq was declared a sovereign nation again. Maybe they should just…withdraw? Good point.

Keep up the good work, it’s very entertaining.

Nov 30, 2005 - 3:05 pm 16. Syl:

JBlossom

Maybe they should have left once Iraq was declared a sovereign nation again. Maybe they should just…withdraw?

Um, we signed an agreement to stay. Take it up with the Iraqi’s. We’re honoring our agreement.

Nov 30, 2005 - 3:07 pm 17. JBlossom:

Oh, BTW, Terry E., that “someone” contradicting our Secretary of Defense was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A Marine. He don’t cut and run, do he?

Nov 30, 2005 - 3:11 pm 18. Steven Mitchell:

Terrye, go read JBlossom’s link. It’s not the big deal he makes it out to be, and mainly off-topic. Rumsfeld made an incorrect statement about military procedures, and was corrected on the spot. No harm done.

JB, the topic is about strategy, not military protocol. The plan for success is what we are doing now. It is working, or haven’t you read Lieberman’s op-ed yet? If you have a better plan*, feel free to explain it. If you don’t, then you are just carping.

*Or even an alternate plan that you’d like to throw out there for constructive brainstorming. Present in good faith, that’s trying to help, even if the alternate is flawed. Most Dems have dropped even the pretense of constructive criticism. Short version of political conversation since 9/11:

GOP: Here is the issue that must be addressed.

Dems: Mean-spirited! Wait, we want details before we commit.

GOP: We thought this was important enough that everyone ought to say something about the broad strategy first, but if you want to opt out, here’s our plan.

Dems: No plan, we knew it! Besides, your plan is just putting money in Haliburton’s pocket. Who did Cheney talk to about this plan? Where’s your plan?

GOP: Whatever. America, here is what we are doing. Here is how it has gone so far. Here is it what is left to do.

Dems: You aren’t done yet? Failure! Mistake! You should have followed our plan. Why didn’t you admit you had no plan? Liar! You fooled us. You are so gullible. Besides, your plan was doomed from the start.

GOP: As I was saying, now is the time to finish the plan, then we can bring the troops home.

Dems: Why aren’t our boys home yesterday? They didn’t need to go, and your planned was flawed because it didn’t have enough boots on the ground.

here a crackling noise interrupts our narrative

Dems: Howard, I’m running out of talking points to conceal the fact that we have no clue what this is all about. Yeah, I already used the Liar bit… Is this mike on?

And so it goes.

Nov 30, 2005 - 3:22 pm 19. JBlossom:

Syl, that’s a good point. We’re there as guests. As such we should be civilized folks with our hosts. Nothing like a few electrodes in uncomfortable places to warm up relations with the locals. Hey, at this rate we’ll be winning minds and hearts everywhere in Iraq before the Tet holidays. But heck, why stop in Iraq? Why don’t we just let you folks do all this stuff to people who disagree with you everywhere? That’s all you really want after all, isn’t it? Heck, let’s bring back lynching too while we’re at it, now those were the good ol’ days, weren’t they?

Folks, this ain’t about war: our troops know how to do war very well, thank goodness. This is about the politics of fear and hate. You can’t hate a nation into existence. But at the rate we’re going, we may hate at least two nations out of existence. Hint for the geographically challenged: one of them is on this side of the Atlantic and has a city that just sank under the weight of amazing carelessness.

So here’s the flash, folks: the great majority of people in this nation are glad to support our troops through thick and thin but unwilling to live under a regime based on fear and hate of anyone who disagrees with their outlook. My forefathers died for something much nobler than a nation that cannot stand to listen to the will of its own people. If we wanted a king we could have just given up before the first shots were ever fired in Lexington. So sad that so many are willing to give up what they fought for.

Nov 30, 2005 - 3:30 pm 20. JBlossom:

Syl, that’s a good point. We’re there as guests. As such we should be civilized folks with our hosts. Nothing like a few electrodes in uncomfortable places to warm up relations with the locals. Hey, at this rate we’ll be winning minds and hearts everywhere in Iraq before the Tet holidays. But heck, why stop in Iraq? Why don’t we just let you folks do all this stuff to people who disagree with you everywhere? That’s all you really want after all, isn’t it? Heck, let’s bring back lynching too while we’re at it, now those were the good ol’ days, weren’t they?

Folks, this ain’t about war: our troops know how to do war very well, thank goodness. This is about the politics of fear and hate. You can’t hate a nation into existence. But at the rate we’re going, we may hate at least two nations out of existence. Hint for the geographically challenged: one of them is on this side of the Atlantic and has a city that just sank under the weight of amazing carelessness.

So here’s the flash, folks: the great majority of people in this nation are glad to support our troops through thick and thin but unwilling to live under a regime based on fear and hate of anyone who disagrees with their outlook. My forefathers died for something much nobler than a nation that cannot stand to listen to the will of its own people. If we wanted a king we could have just given up before the first shots were ever fired in Lexington. So sad that so many are willing to give up what they fought for.

Nov 30, 2005 - 3:31 pm 21. beautifulatrocities:

JBlossom is like Ted Rall: writes mortifyingly embarrassing screeds he thinks are brilliant, but are actually like something I would have written in 9th grade & thought was so choice

Project for JBlossom: try writing a paragraph free of both rhetorical questions & the world “folks”

Nov 30, 2005 - 3:36 pm 22. Rhod:

Corn might have had something to do with the “outing” of Valeria Plame, but that’s another issue.

Roger correctly describes the enemy in Iraq. Even so, we need a word to describe them; “terrorists” won’t do, and “insurgents” they are not. The closest definition is counter-revolutionaries, and some of the them are belligerents because of their connections to neighboring countries.

The GWOT, too, is a silly expression. Terrorism is not an entity, and sooner or later we’ll need to find a name for this conflict. Podhoretz’s description or it as WW IV is pretty close to the truth.

Nov 30, 2005 - 3:39 pm 23. penwil:

So the general is disagreeing with Rumsfeld specifically on whether US troops should only report on Iraqi abuses or go so far as to physically intervene, and somehow JBlossom was able to extrapolate from that the Joint Chiefs and the Sec. of Defense are in disagreement about the entire conduct of the war.

And he wonders why we’re all so underwhelmed by the brilliance of his argument.

Ever since the Democrats have unveiled their cut and run strategy, I’ve been waiting for one of them to explain to me what their plan is to deal with the bloody aftermath that will follow. I mean, beyond watching the Iraqis die and blaming Bush–what exactly do they plan to do next? And if Al Queda is embolded by our cutting and running to launch more terrorists attacks against the US–what is their plan for dealing with that? Beyond watching Americans die and blaming Bush, that is.

Oh, wait, I forgot . . . the UN will fix things.

The venal stupidity of these people is just breathtaking.

Nov 30, 2005 - 3:43 pm 24. JBlossom:

Shucks, Beautiful Atrocities, to honor you with fancified speech would take all the fun out of it, now wouldn’t it? Jes’ puttin’ some fun stuff out there for you to swat at with hate and vindictive. Thanks so much for obliging me on this point. It’s lots of fun. You just keep on posting what you want, it’s a free country for the moment. I have no hate for you, just love for my country.

Nov 30, 2005 - 3:45 pm 25. JBlossom:

Shucks, Beautiful Atrocities, to honor you with fancified speech would take all the fun out of it, now wouldn’t it? Jes’ puttin’ some fun stuff out there for you to swat at with hate and vindictive. Thanks so much for obliging me on this point. It’s lots of fun. You just keep on posting what you want, it’s a free country for the moment. I have no hate for you, just love for my country.

BTW, last time I looked, war IS a physical intervention. Anyone of you folks care to tell me how our physical intervention is going to win this thing? I’d be kinda worried myself if our very top general is willing to speak up about how he really wants to prosecute the war in front of one of his superiors. Just looking for some direction here, I’m just a simple guy. Boy, it’s so easy to spit on someone who doesn’t have any responsibility for the mess that you’re in, isn’t it?

Nov 30, 2005 - 3:53 pm 26. tefta:

“You would think left/liberals would have some positive response about … ”

Roger, if you’re really waiting for sanity from your lefty friends, you’re in for a long wait. The only way they can get back in power is if we lose the war big time, the economy tanks, the polar icecaps melt, and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile they can take what little succor they can from the headline, Unemployment Plummets! and Gas Prices Plunging!

Nov 30, 2005 - 4:14 pm 27. Syl:

JBlossom

In case you forgot, Bush won the election last November.

And a recommendation: read Hamilton. He will help you understand why a president serves for four years. It’s because in a democracy, the will of the people may become fickle, and if the president has to answer to their fickle nature more frequently than his four year term, nothing will be accomplished.

That makes the president a leader, not a follower.

Got that?

So all that ‘King’ nonsense you were spouting up there is, well, nonsense.

Nov 30, 2005 - 4:20 pm 28. jerry:

Paul:

Not only has the left failed to oppose communism, they also failed to oppose Nazism as well. The only reason the left got behind the war is that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union otherwise they would have been as anti-war on December 7, 1941 as they are today.

Nov 30, 2005 - 7:40 pm 29. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

JBlossom hasn’t said anything of relative importance to where were are at in the WOT and further has shown the typical deficit the left has when it comes to moral relevance in discussing the subject. Liberal isn’t liberal anymore, just carp about the past, bitch about the present and moan about the future. Hey JBlossom, like it or not we are winning and Bush has three years to cement in his policies. Democrats may not agree with them or even think they are pathetic, yet the Democrats have taken a truly pathetic pass on everything thinking Bush and the Republicans will destroy themselves while Democrats stand by wishing the worst on anything and everyone that they seem to think stands in their way of better political fortunes, the bitter emptiness thy hold onto as a party is quite discouraging.

Terrye, Syl, Roger, myself and many other people posting here had been loyal lifetime DEMOCRATS voting GOP for the first time. (I took a pass on renewing my membership in the Democratic Political Party and am sure my Marxist Grandparents are either rolling in their graves or relieved that I have recognize true opportunity to advance human rights when I see it)

I was born in the 1950’s and campaigned for McGovern and voted for every Democrat since. Roger, Syl, Terrye are all older (and wiser) and did the same. If you if think you are impressing anyone with your shallow carps and prejudiced chants then please do go and narcistically admire yourself in some mirror for you aren’t impressing anyone here, we know where you are coming from. Ron Rosenbaum said in his farewell to the left…

But that wasn?t what made Heidegger a new chapter, Mr. Lang said; it was his astonishing postwar behavior. After everything came out, after it was no longer possible to deny at least post facto knowledge of the Holocaust, nothing changed for Heidegger. He felt no need to incorporate what happened into his philosophy. “His silence,” Mr. Lang said, “it wasn?t even denial. For him, it wasn?t important! It wasn?t important ?. Now if you ask which of them is worse ? the Revisionists [Holocaust deniers] deny it occurred, but their official position, at least, is that if it occurred, it would have been wrong. But Heidegger knows it occurred, but it?s just not important?it?s not something to distort history to deny. For Heidegger, this is not history to concern oneself with.”

Not history to concern oneself with ?.

Here?s the analogy: Heidegger?s peculiar neutrality-slash-denial about Nazism and the Holocaust after the facts had come out, and the contemporary Left?s curious neutrality-slash-denial after the facts had come out about Marxist genocides?in Russia, in China, in Cambodia, after 20 million, 50 million, who knows how many millions had been slaughtered. Not all of the Left; many were honorable opponents. But for many others, it just hasn?t registered, it just hasn?t been incorporated into their “analysis” of history and human nature; it just hasn?t been factored in. America is still the one and only evil empire. The silence of the Left, or the exclusive focus of the Left, on America?s alleged crimes over the past half-century, the disdainful sneering at America?s deplorable “Cold War mentality”?none of this has to be reassessed in light of the evidence of genocides that surpassed Hitler?s, all in the name of a Marxist ideology. An ideology that doesn?t need to be reassessed. As if it was maybe just an accident that Marxist-Leninist regimes turned totalitarian and genocidal. No connection there. The judgment that McCarthyism was the chief crime of the Cold War era doesn?t need a bit of a rethink, even when put up against the mass murder of dissidents by Marxist states.

The point is, all empires commit crimes; in the past century, ours were by far the lesser of evils. But this sedulous denial of even the possibility of misjudgment in the hierarchy of evils protects and insulates this wing of the Left from an inconvenient reconsideration of whether America actually is the worst force on the planet. This blind spot, this stunning lack of historical perspective, robs much of the American Left of intellectual credibility. And makes it easy for idiocies large and small to be uttered reflexively.

—————-

More simply put and in the spirit of above, Christopher Hitchens noted the propensity of the left to act as if John Ashcroft were a greater threat then Bin Laden and a need to treat Bush as if he were the next Hitler needing to be brought down and ruined. Of course all this is done while refusing to account for Saddam atrocities and the effects of leaving him in power. What was the cost of cutting out of Vietnam and further burden of literally taking from them the ability to defend themselves. How about the millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese who died even after Kerry denied such a thing would happen? Very typical, just take it out of the equation because it doesn’t work for the lefts interests! No wonder the left puts such a high interest in betting on losing today. At least the Right knows Marxism and Fascism are both evil. The left still excuses and even sympathises with Castro!

The bottom line is Nixon beat McGovern by 23% while the public wss more sour on Vietnam. Many may not like where we are, but they aren’t about to turn power over to a Party that has no sense of history, shows no ability to account for the realities of the day. The difference is some of us old lefties have learned from history and have been given few choices because so much of the left still lives in denial or just plain doesn’t care. It is a joke, my neighors railing against our illegal War to free Iraq while getting into their car with the “Free Tibet” bumper sticker, that pretty much sums it up.

Nov 30, 2005 - 8:51 pm 30. Paul:

Jerry:

I was aware that when Hitler and Stalin were allies the American left fell into line in supporting the alliance, but to my mind Nazism is Communism’s collectivist cousin and both are antithetical to the American system of placing individual liberty and the restriction of government’s power as the cornerstone of civil society.

The present day anti-war left earned their stripes by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Viet Nam (America’s defeat was their victory and road to power), but the moral stain of the blood of the millions in SE Asia, who were the people who paid the true cost for America’s defeat, has never been acknowledged by the “compassionate” left.

When the stark consequences of one’s actions are denied or ignored the road leading to a divorce from reality is embarked upon, and the full blown lunacy that we see in today’s leftists is the result of that journey.

This is what Wretchard said in his own comments section today;

“Only a nation that never felt real subjection could attempt the luxurious act of deciding whether a given set of events was a ‘victory’ or a ‘defeat’. The idea that the New York Times could arbitrate the meaning of Iraq is in a way proof, in and of itself, that the armed forces have kept the nation safe for such a lunatic debate.

Real defeat, not just defeat in newspaper headlines, is a pitifully obvious thing. It means daily humiliation, fear, want, and a host of other things which very few in the United States really know. I mean really, really know. The Moveon.org people are playing at defeat, like it was a game. And I wonder sometimes if they are not courting poetic justice.”

Word.

Nov 30, 2005 - 8:53 pm 31. Shochu John:

Roger says, “You would think left/liberals would have some positive response about the overthrow of a hideous dicator, something which, when I was on the left, I was begging our government to do (Pinochet most notoriously).”

Yes, and now where do us foreign policy realists go? I never thought we’d be a dying breed, caught between those on the Left who treat simple foreign folk as children (we will help you, but handouts only) and those on the new Right who approach the problems of the world as if they were children (sound planning is overrated when you are a positive thinker, support freedom and oppose terrorism).

Perhaps there really is a sensible middle path that involves neither being the supporters of butchers nor the bringers of anarchy.

Nov 30, 2005 - 11:42 pm 32. HA:

Roger,

What is to be done? This is something our modern reified left rarely asks or says.

Actually, they have answered this question repeatedly and consistently. Their answer?

Surrender.

Dec 1, 2005 - 3:35 am 33. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

Shochu John

Yes, and now where do us foreign policy realists go? I never thought we’d be a dying breed, caught between those on the Left who treat simple foreign folk as children (we will help you, but handouts only) and those on the new Right who approach the problems of the world as if they were children (sound planning is overrated when you are a positive thinker, support freedom and oppose terrorism).

The reason the realists have a very limited seat at the table is of their own doing. I mean really, how does one equate finishing a War started more then a decade ago after multiple breaching of the terms of that war’s resulting ceasefire by a murdering dictator thug who is paying off suicide bombers and terrorizing a hotbed region of the world as to… approach the problems of the world as if they were children? How about victims, reestablishing world oreder and asserting needed authority, geez where is the proper context? Of course add to this all in context with post 9/11 your traditional brand of realism is no longer realism!.

Perhaps there really is a sensible middle path that involves neither being the supporters of butchers nor the bringers of anarchy.

Pose the conundrums yet offer no solutions, that is why realists have been sidelined, they have offered nothing except a willingness to overlook death and destruction.

Dec 1, 2005 - 5:02 am 34. Ann:

a combination of unreconstructed Baathist fascists, Al Qaeda-style religious psychokillers and assembled lumpen street thugs – not just amorphous “terrorists.”

Don’t forget what is probably the biggest segment of the bunch: foriegn intelligence services from neighboring countries who don’t want to see a nasty democracy set up in the middle of the wonderland of dictatorships.

Dec 1, 2005 - 6:20 am 35. JBlossom:

Joseph (formerly Samuel) et al.:

Thanks again for the amusing rants. It’s probably not good for me to listen to this stuff, but it is quite entertaining.

Kind of sad that nobody has yet to tell me how we’re going to win this thing. I’d be delighted to have a healthy and safe Iraq, but let’s level with the American people as to what it’s going to take. Nor has our “leader” done a very good job of convincing the American people, in large part because most Americans know that we’ve been here before. And this is without the benefit of any significant field reporting in Iraq by American journalists. We’re left with highly filtered field reports from Papa Joe Stalin – oops – Lieberman to fill the gaps from on high. There’s the solution, just let the facts come from administration apologists, that will convince people in a flash.

Well, “Joseph”, you brought up Vietnam and McGovern and empire, some interesting topics. We had a peace plan on the table in 1968 that wasn’t very appealing, but it was there. Nixon spits on it, tries to win the darn thing and winds up with essentially the same thing in 1973. Now of course Johnson escalated the thing with dreams not unlike the current Texan in the White House, including looking good in the 1964 election, not unlike Bush’s tying the hands of the Democrats in the 2004 election. But Nixon played the war like a fiddle from the very beginning. “Secret plan” in ‘68, knock out moderate competitors so you can get a hopeless dove running against you – all for what?

EMPIRE.

Oh, it’s all about the power, isn’t it? Be honest. Win at all costs. To heck with fair elections, just get the fools in that will toe the party line. Your interests have about as much to do with democracy as Saddam or Osama. The Democrats are indeed hapless as agents of empire, but so are most people who don’t give a hoot about world dominance. Democracies fight wars because they have to. Empires fight wars because they want to. Evil empires fight wars because they like to. That’s the truly scary transformation of America in our lifetime. Greece’s democracy was short-lived, Rome’s longer but not all that long before empire consumed it. America’s had a pretty good shot at democracy, but its survival is a 50/50 shot at best. Reaming holes in Iraqis is not likely to change that any time soon.

Was the war in Vietnam winnable? If we were an empire without a democracy behind it, of course. Just throw citizens and their taxes at it long enough and anything’s achievable. We won our last DECLARED war against two global powers in four years, in part because people wouldn’t put up with it much longer than that – and even then it took a huge propaganda effort, phenomenal leadership, Constitutional compromises and a couple of A-bombs at the finish line to make it so in that period of time.

So the question becomes this: is the purpose of a democracy to be at war or to live prosperous and peaceful lives in freedom? Freedom isn’t free, and my family and friends have paid the price. There are wars worth fighting for the sake of a healthy democracy, and a big stick has saved us more than once from unsavory characters and has saved many innocent lives. But we have been witnessing a transition in this country to a state of permanent war for the sake of empire, not unlike that outlined in George Orwell’s novel 1984. So yet again, a question: are wars like our current engagement being fought to serve the people or to control the people? Fear and hate are potent weapons and very dangerous ones at that. They are very hard to control. When they are used too much they become tools of evil that make us more like our enemies. Carter spoke naively about a “malaise” that was as much about his own failure of leadership as about the country, but he was on to something, as was Eisenhower with his farewell warning about the military industrial complex. War for the sake of war kills democracies. We are witnessing that today.

You’re all plenty intelligent people, I am sure, and I am sure that you mean well in your own way. But intelligence is no guarantee of moral clarity. With your hate, your anger, your pride, your insistence on labeling people you are unwittingly becoming the enemies of democracy. Hitler had plenty of bright folks, and let us not forget that the Russians had people smart enough to beat us into space. The Chinese will probably overtake us within the decade in the sciences and in many industrial fields they are already leaders. What has all this hate and fear bought us? Inferiority to our totalitarian enemies. America is at its strongest when it invests in hope, in growth, in fairness, in justice, in openness. The power of America is not in our leadership, it’s in the people who choose it and follow it towards democratic goals.

And unfortunately the world is not America. Superficially it looks that way at times, but America is not as exportable as we’d like to think. People like to adopt the idea of America in their own images, with their own traditions. That’s true in our own country as well, of course, but within a Constitutional framework that has protected us against the excesses of those traditions. Iraq will become a democracy when it has the culture, the education, the economic infrastructure and the philosophical traditions to do so. This will take decades, or longer. We should do everything to encourage that process, but the Vietnam experience shows us that there are better ways to do this than war. Investment, insistence on human rights as a basis for commercial relationships, fair play by international laws – these are the tools that are most likely to result in prosperous allies that see the value in democracy. If we don’t walk the talk, then nobody will want to walk our walk.

You can see in China the consequences of not abiding by this fully. By sidestepping human rights for the sake of commercial expediency, we have created a totalitarian economic juggernaut fueled by slave wages and cruelty. Now American jobs are dropping left and right because of our unwillingness to stand up for democracy. Clinton fueled this as much as any other recent President, it’s not all on Bush’s shoulders. Democracy as an expedient luxury soon dies. Either you believe in the full breadth of the American experiment or you don’t. It takes the full package, not just snipping out whatever pieces of the Constitution or the Federalist papers suit your fancy. Without the fullness of American democracy we will go down in history as just another democracy that threw itself away for the sake of empire. There are probably worse fates as a nation, but I think that we can do better.

So enjoy your little war, do whatever it takes to prop it up. Who knows, we may yet be able to get a Nixonian “peace with honor” and have Democrats to blame for another few decades as the peaceniks who destroyed everything. Heck, it’s worked for thirty years, why not a while longer? But at some point there won’t be any more Democrats left to blame: there will be only Americans left holding the bag because of the enormous hubris of intellects who believed in the glory of empire and their own self-manifest greatness. At that point you may have to come up with some new targets for anger and hatred to fuel things. And that, dear commentators, will be when the real frightening parts of this experience will unfold. Just ask the Germans.

Have fun, it’s been a hoot, but I think that it’s time for me to retire from the political commentator game. It looks as if it’s in much better hands than I can manage to provide. Godspeed – we’ll all be needing it.

Dec 1, 2005 - 9:43 am 36. Steven Mitchell:

Comparing a U.S. Senator to Stalin? That’ll get you admitted into the “clueless liberal posing as a concerned moderate” hall of fame. Or maybe not, since I think they grade on results, not effort.

Also, don’t look now, but your military man Pace (from your link) just threw a lot of cold water on your “ideas”. See Roger’s post a few topics up.

Dec 1, 2005 - 10:26 am 37. RogerA:

Sochu John–You used the term “foreign policy realist” in one of your posts–please let me know what you mean by that term, because a foreign policy realist goes back to Hans Morgenthau’s seminal 1947 Foreign Policy article. In that article, Morgenthau defined realism as the use of power to pursue a nation’s national interest. Somehow, I think you are using a different definition of “foreign policy realism.”

You are certainly welcome to your definition, but please be aware that the Morgenthau, and a generation of foreign policy analysts and academics, understand the term somewhat differently than you are using it.

Dec 1, 2005 - 10:47 am 38. Syl:

JBLossom

Your strawmen are showing.

Dec 1, 2005 - 12:10 pm 39. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

JBlossom

Papa Joe Stalin – oops – Lieberman?

I don’t know JBlossom how about…

Bush=Hitler

Oh, that’s right, that’s not original or clever enough anymore.

Your post is a parody and testament that supports everything Ron Rosenbaum and Hitchens rightfully point out as blindspots held by those on the left. The rest of your post can speak for itself, but I’ll add…

out of place

out of context

out of time

Dec 1, 2005 - 1:33 pm 40. jerry:

jblossom:

I see you are recycling the nonsense of American’s economic and political demise. Japan was going to overtake us in 80’s, the EU economic model was the future in the 90’s and now China is the future in the 21st Century. Well, just as the Japanese model was declared the winner they collapsed. Europe never got off the ground and truly is in terminal decline. the future for China is not that rosey. China has environmental problems, a banking system waiting to collapse, growing internal disatisfaction and a demographic time bomb that goes off in 2020. The US has the only stable, healthy economy and consensual government in the world. I wonder who is your next candidate to lead the world. Canada perhaps?

Dec 1, 2005 - 2:25 pm 41. RogerA:

Damn, Jerry–you GO guy! you have posited some very important points that NO one on the left has addressed or can refute. Great post.

Dec 1, 2005 - 2:52 pm 42. Syl:

jerry

Bravo. But don’t forget Australia!

Dec 1, 2005 - 5:02 pm 43. kynna:

“Joseph (formerly Samuel) et al.:

Thanks again for the amusing rants.”

That is the funniest thing I’ve read today. Joseph ranting? I don’t think I’ve seen a more thoughtful, mature commenter.

I have a lot of ‘liberal’ friends and I just avoid political conversation with them. They are so set and narrow-minded that they won’t even hear anything that doesn’t fit the scenario they’ve made up.

And if you disagree with them, it’s over. I’ve seen it happen. Friendships are lost. It’s tiring and depressing.

I did hear some of them talking about how it’s okay to hound Bush constantly because of what the republicans supposedly did to Clinton. They don’t even know we’re at war. It just doesn’t fit the scenario.

Dec 1, 2005 - 10:19 pm 44. pst314:

“I have no hate for you”

Is that why you started your comments here with “it’s nice to know where the Kool-Aid is being drunk these days”?

You may think you are being clever, but you are just shallow and dishonest–and obviously so.

Dec 4, 2005 - 7:41 pm 45. Robert Schwartz:

The folks here at WKRP want you to know that Cincinnati is spelled with one “t”.

Dec 4, 2005 - 10:49 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: