I rarely agree with Coisty about anything, but Hitch has some things in his background that people would not be comfortable with, just like Baker does. The difference is Baker never went out of his way to insult a dead Pope and the entire Catholic Church.

I am just saying maybe we should ease up until we actually know what it is in the report. Or we can run our mouths and insult each other. Whichever.

“Have you ever heard some of the really jnasty things Hitch had to say about the dead Pope?

And Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa, Princess Di, and even poor old Bob Hope.”

And Israel? Oops, Coisty left that one out because it would have ruined his cheap-shot, thinly-veiled Jew-baiting.

One thing about him, he had the sense to consider the events leading to and following 9/11 – and changed some of his longstanding positions to recognize the growing threat of Islamofascism, and to support the regime change in Iraq in hopes of nurturing a government there less likely to add just one more tyrannical gang of thugs to the group of Middle Eastern governments (and to the UN General Assembly).

But now omitting Hitchens from the discussion, will this august company of philosphers consider another achievememt of the Baker-Scowcroft influence on Bush 41? Think Jugoslavia. There was such a place, on his accession in 1988. The failure of that administration to recognize the Serbian push for dominance (JNA weapons were freely distributed to the gangsters who rained artillery on all the mixed-ethnic towns like Vukovar in order to foment murderous conflict between formerly peaceful neighborhoods) was so blatant that large numbers resigned from the State Department on account of Administration failure to take any noticeable action to call anyone to account.

I voted for Clinton in ‘92 precisely for the reason that the Bush administration had run out of gas in its pitiful – and ignorant – foreign policy efforts. Big mistake of course, Clinton promised much re Jugoslavia but it was mere feelgood blather as far as holding together Jugoslavia. Still, it’s hard to separate the current ISG from the blokes in 1991 who failed any sort of attempt to head off six years or so of murder in a once-civilized, and very successfully diverse, country.

Be very cautious about following recommendations from such ‘realists’.

Dogmatism is difficult to deal with whether it is from the Left or Right. Those in power whether Democratic or Republican put a lot of pressure on members of the party to conform. Comply or there will be some kind of retribution. It’s often more about power and staying in power than trying to create policy that works as best as possible. It will be interesting to see this phenomenon at work in the new Congress.

Regarding the prejudgment of Baker, all of these folks have an axe to grind even if it the creation of controversy to sell their columns. Some are motivated by fear of what may be in the report and how it may impact their own views of policy. It’s not like character assasination is something new to either side.

You are right that we should wait and see, then make informed judgements.

It would be great if both parties were working together through their disagreements to accomplish something for the citizens of this country.

What seems to me to be the loss of character and integrity in Congress and in our larger society is disappointing. Here in New Jersey, we had choice between “under federal investigation” Menendez and Tom Kean “Lite”. Crummy choices. We elected the fellow under investigation for corruption. I have always tried to determine a person’s character before anything else becasue it reveals something about what a person will do under pressure. Menendez is a miserable failure on that score. But I digress…

Have a nice Thanksgiving and thank God that we are lucky enough to live in the greatest country with more freedom than anywhere else in the world.

And Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa, Princess Di, and even poor old Bob Hope. He’s also praised much of Soviet rule singling out the destruction of Orthodox Christianity as a great achievement. The man is vile. The fact that “conservatives” (mostly neocons, but not exclusively so) love the unreformed Trotskyite (sorry Trotskyist as they insist on saying) speaks volumes about the state of the so-called Right.

Incidentally, James Baker did great work putting together the incredible coalition to fight Desert Storm, a war that was not as unanimously supported from the get-go as people now claim a decade and a half later. “Hitch” was, of course, one of the most shrill critics of the liberation of Kuwait. Bush-Baker support for green lighting Syria’s destruction of Lebanese Christian Michel Aoun’s forces was unfortunate but the neocons didn’t object to it at the time. (If some of them did they were very discreet about it as I had subscriptions to NR and the WSJ at the time and followed what Krauthammer, Safire, and company wrote and said and I don’t recall them objecting to the destruction of Maronite resistance to syrian rule). Their animosity towards Baker only began when he stood up to Yitzhak Shamir’s demands for $10 billion in loans for illegal settlements right in the middle of Desert Storm.

And Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa, Princess Di, and even poor old Bob Hope. He’s also praised much of Soviet rule singling out the destruction of Orthodox Christianity as a great achievement. The man is vile. The fact that “conservatives” (mostly neocons, but not exclusively so) love the unreformed Trotskyite (sorry Trotskyist as they insist on saying) speaks volumes about the state of the so-called Right.

Incidentally, James Baker did great work putting together the incredible coalition to fight Desert Storm, a war that was not as unanimously supported from the get-go as people now claim a decade and a half later. “Hitch” was, of course, one of the most shrill critics of the liberation of Kuwait. Bush-Baker support for green lighting Syria’s destruction of Lebanese Christian Michel Aoun’s forces was unfortunate but the neocons didn’t object to it at the time. (If some of them did they were very discreet about it as I had subscriptions to NR and the WSJ at the time and followed what Krauthammer, Safire, and company wrote and said and I don’t recall them objecting to the destruction of Maronite resistance to syrian rule). Their animosity towards Baker only began when he stood up to Yitzhak Shamir’s demands for $10 billion in loans for illegal settlements right in the middle of Desert Storm.

I don’t worry about the spying. After all I am in my 50’s and I grew up in a time when the law could easily do much worse than it does now. Trust me.

I worry about the demonizing of perfectly decent people simply because someone thinks that might disagree with them.

But over all I agree with your statement.

Terrye,

It always has been, from the perspective of someone not actively with the “right”. Just as the left has been from the perspective of someone not actively with the “left”. I’ve had the rare fortune to disagree with both, just enough to see that the problem appears across the political spectrum…

Once upon a time, at least here in Ohio, the general political situation was one of compromise. It was obvious that good Americans voted in all members of the State Legislature and Gov. Rhodes. When there was an issue, debate or problem, Gov Rhodes would call the heads of the Democratic wing of congress and they would sit down and work on the issue until they could reach a consensus. Gov Rhodes didn’t always get what he wanted, but he always got the undivided attention of the Dems. They knew that he was more interested in a policy that could appeal to the broadest group of citizens, rather than a policy to appease his “base”. More often than not, they picked their battles carefully, because they respected him and more importantly Ohioans respected him.

We’ve lost the ability to work together as a nation, because (I think) both parties have swung to appeasing their base, rather than working with the elected members of the government to find a decent middle ground. Since elected officials only try to appeal to their base, then they lose the respect of everyone else (and probably deep down, they even lose respect in the eyes of their base).

As the politicians go, so goes the populace. Thus we have no possibility that “the other side” might have value… they are all reduced to “nazis” “dhimmis” “fascists” or “appeasers”.

I think it may be the single largest threat to our nation, even more than that of Islamic aggression. How difficult will it be to destroy us, if we’re too busy tearing each other apart? I often wonder what Bin Laden had in mind when planning 9/11. Did he forsee that it would split wide open political divisions? Did he know that we would react by restricting freedoms, by spying on citizens, by getting dangerously close to the line on torture? Did he plan to scare us, or did he hope to discredit us, through our subsequent actions?

I don’t know, I’d like to think he’s not that bright. But, if not, then we have brought the Hateful, spiteful and judgmental political environment upon ourselves.

At least, thats how it seems to me.