25 Comments

1. Michael J. Totten:

Ah, thanks Roger.

Aug 15, 2007 - 7:37 am 2. Buddy Larsen:

Like the soldiers fighting there, he is already part of the history yet to be written of this war.

Aug 15, 2007 - 8:47 am 3. Stace:

You’re absolutely right about Michael, Roger, and this applies to PJMedia in general, too.

I’ve dropped all my decades old subscriptions to Time, Newsweek, and NYT because you guys are providing much more thoughtful and better written commentary and reporting.

Aug 15, 2007 - 9:36 am 4. Lem:

Regrettably it is the Wrights and the Priests, with their anonymous sources, get the Polks and the Pulitzers.

Aug 15, 2007 - 11:01 am 5. dclydew:

It’s not often that I agree with you Roger, but I can wholeheartedly support the entirety of this post.

Aug 15, 2007 - 11:21 am 6. CTRepublican:

Say what you will about Robin Wright, Lem, but what’s so “regrettable” about Dana Priest? Should she not have reported on secret prisons or appalling conditions at Walter Reed?

Aug 15, 2007 - 12:16 pm 7. Lem:

Heeere is saint Dana

http://tinyurl.com/2ofmup

Aug 15, 2007 - 1:51 pm 8. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

hi rog’

glad you love mjt – many do, but many do not.

just scroll the many disparaging comments at hugh hewitt’s today; (he linked to that post, too).

here’s my beef:

MICHAEL J. TOTTEN DOESN’T KNOW WHICH PARTY’S NOMINEE HE WILL VOTE FOR IN 2008.

this is what totten wrote in the comment thread):

“I vote for members of both parties, and I don’t know which party I’m voting for next year.”

I find this extraordinarily bizarre.

After all, each and every one of the Democrat candidates has said they would withdraw by a date certain.

This a policy which observers as diverse as John Burns of the NYTIMES, Michael Ware of CNN, and O’Hanlon & Pollack of Brookings (all left-of-center observers from organizations highly supportive of Democrats and liberals and their policies) have uniformly said would be a genocidal disaster.

The hawkiest of the Dems is Hillary and even she supports withdrawal by a date certain.

Obama has made either major gaffes or major foreign policy errors: calling for attacking our ally, Pakistan, and deriding our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Biden has long favored an arbitray withdrawal timetable.

Edwards too.

Ditto Richardson.

WHAT’S WORSE, The Dems all maintain this belief despite the gains our surge is winning. And, despite the signal it would send to friend and foe alike.

An anti-JFK signal.

As JFK said in 1961:

“we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

The current Dems seem a lot less hawkish than JFK; the JFK of that Inaugural Speech would vote GOP today.

If one cares about the future of a democratic Iraq, and preventing genocide, then one cannot in good conscience support ANY of the Democrat candidates.

If Totten thinks that winning the war in Iraq and defending our allies in Iraq and in its Kurdistan region is important, then Totten is wrong not to have already made up his mind.

Furthermore, I believe that not a single Democrat running for the presidency can be trusted with our national security or the defense of the free world.

Voting for a Democrat now is like voting for a Copperhead in 1864.

Believing that, I have no choice but to vote for the GOP candidate for POTUS in 2008.

AND YES: I AM A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT – have been since 1974.

1974 – when the Dems pulled the plug on the nascent democracy of South Vietnam and stood by as – ONE YEAR LATER – North Vietnam violated the terms of the Paris Accords and INVADED the south. And it led to… genocide, tyranny, and totalitarianism in SE Asia.

Today’s Dems want a repeat. In Iraq. And the Middle East.

I feel that Totten should know this; I wonder why he refuses to accept it?

Of all the Congressman who caucus with the Democrats, in either body of Congress, the only one who gets it is Lieberman. A man today’s Democrat party couldn’t renominate.

Joe gets it.

WHY CAN’T TOTTEN!?

IS HE TO THE LEFT OF LIEBERMAN?

COULD HE REALLY SUPPORT ANY OF THE DEMOCRATS NOW RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, OR THE TWO GORLLAS ON THE SIDELINE: GORE AND KERRY!?

REPEAT: i am not a member of the GOP; i am a registered Dem.

I do not vote the party-line, and i am not recommending that totten should.

i am merely criticizing his bizarre stand on the candidates for the presidency.

there is a HUGE difference between the dem candidates and the gop candidates on Iraq and WW4.

it is clear that one side is for appeasement, for retreat from, and accommodation of the enemy.

as michael SEEMS like he’s a hawk who gets WW4, it is bizarre that he doesn’t get that the leading candidates from each party are so diametrically different on this issue.

if he is a hawk, then he cannot possibly vote for any of the leading Dem candidates.

but he won’t admit that.

is this a pose? because he wants to appear non-partisan?

i dunno.

but it’s a twist which of the commenters at HH have also noticed, albeit a twist in mjt that comes out in his posts in other ways.

i think its’ important for folks like mjt to accept the fact that the dem party is no longer the party of fdr and truman and jfk but the party of carter and tedddy and mcgovern – and chomsky and CAIR and the aclu.

there is too much at risk to waver in nambipambi non-partisaness.

ALL THE BEST!

Aug 15, 2007 - 8:41 pm 9. Michael J. Totten:

Wait until after the primary.

Aug 15, 2007 - 10:41 pm 10. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

which primary?

will any dem become a trustworthy hawk after any primary?

sheesh…

lookit mjt:

maybe the iraq war and WW4 are not the most important issues for you.

many voters have other priorities when choosing a candidate:

some feel a trustworthy pro-life candidate is more important – (like rightwing sparkle, i think).

some feel it’s ending illegal immigration. They like Tancredo.

others feel it’s pork-busting.

i feel that based on your INTREPID reporting – which is ALL WW4 related – and based on your support for the kurdish success with democracy, and your insight that iran is central to ultimately winning WW4, (and your expeiences in lebanon with hizb’allah) that you are a hawk.

since there are NO HAWKS in the democrat party, your hesitation to admit that you could – sadly – only vote for a GOP candidate would be a necessary position.

now you say “after the primary.”

maybe you mean after the nominees are picked?

otherwise this makes no sense.

IMHO, An opinion writer like you should get off the fence on this BASIC issue, and admit that the Dems are not trustworthy on WW4.

maybe you feel it will damage your credibility with your Dem readers. And hurt your “ratings”?

I think it will be the opposite.

And I think that you have a higher responsibility.

As do other columnists like Hitch and…. ROGER.

The upcoming contest is the most critical since 1864.

Please don’t sit by the sidelines and let America elect a McClellan.

Then again, maybe you are not a hawk.
Maybe you think Obama and Edwards and Hillary and Richardson are right?

Maybe you think Bush lied, that this is Bush’s war, that we are not fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and that we should ONLY fight them in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and… everywhere/anywhere EXCEPT Iraq.

Maybe you think we could have “contained” Saddam?

PLEASE: LET US KNOW.

Your views on the presidential contest are important.

ALL THE BEST!

Aug 16, 2007 - 4:47 am 11. LarryD:

“… get the Polks and the Pulitzers.”

Of course. Those awards are given by “progressives”, to “progressives”. The rest of us should consider them meaningless, no matter how much ceremony they attach to the awards.

Aug 16, 2007 - 8:28 am 12. dclydew:

I am of the opinion that Mr. Totten has done a fantastic job of Blogging from the front lines. As far as I’m concerned (neither registered as a Dem or GOP), Mr. Totten can vote for whomever he damn well pleases, based on whatever criteria he finds most in line with his positions. If he votes GOP, I’ll still read his stuff. If he votes Dem, I’ll still read his stuff.

Unlike most bloggers, spouting bullshit that they glean from other bloggers, rape from the front pages of the dread MSM, or occasionally expose some sort of MSM bullshit… Mr. Totten actually goes and experiences that which he speaks about. Not from some comfy chair and keyboard, but from Beirut, Baghdad and Northern Israel. I fear that your self-imposed title of “astute blogger” seems a bit ironic based on the above posts full of idiotic ramblings.

Aug 16, 2007 - 8:28 am 13. David Thomson:

“Voting for a Democrat now is like voting for a Copperhead in 1864.”

I would modify this sentence ever so slightly to read:

Voting for the typical Democrat now is like voting for a Copperhead in 1864.

There are a few exceptions to the general rule. Nonetheless, you are more right than wrong. Today’s Democratic Party is far more sympathetic to the Daily Kos than to Joseph Lieberman. The real question regarding the 2008 elections is whether the Democrats can sufficiently hide their overall radicalism from the independent voters.

Michael Totten is doing superb work. And yes, there are few MSM writers who can compete with him. Unfortunately, too many Americans still waste time with the losers. They need to cancel their subscriptions.

Aug 16, 2007 - 9:15 am 14. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

i agree that mjt is a fine reporter.

reports are imporant, but reporting is not analysis.

anecdotes of hapenstance meetngs are not data.

i often diagree with his analysis and his propensity for generalizing from his encounters.

(tom freidman does this all the time too – he’s made a career of it.)

i agree that mjt is better than 99% of the msm.

and i agree that he WOULD maintain his audience no matter how he votes.

which is why i am so chagrinned that he is so generous to the specific candidates running for the nomination on the Dem side. his willingness to suspend disbelief is bizarre – as i have noted above.

all of them are copperheads.

if mjt think WW4 is the most important issue, then IMHO he cannot seriously vote for/support/condone a single dem running right now.

ALL THE BEST!

Aug 16, 2007 - 9:35 am 15. Michael J. Totten:

Reliapundit: “Your views on the presidential contest are important.”

Ask me in a year. Right now I am focusing on Iraq. I don’t have time for domestic partisan squabbling right now, and once I make my decision (in a year) I will quickly move on and continue focusing on foreign correspondence, which is my job.

A year is an eternity in politics. Everything could be totally different then. If I had to vote today I would vote for Rudy Guiliani. But I am not voting today.

Now leave me alone.

Aug 16, 2007 - 9:35 am 16. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

okay.

wait a year and focus on iraq.

but…

the contest – as its unfolding does seem to have an effect on events over there.

witness obama’s pakistan remarks.

the dems partisan use of Iraq is another thing which disgusts me. and many other hawks.
they parrot al Qaeda and encourage the enemy.

they hurt our chances at victory.

BOTTOIM-LINE: mjt, you carry A LOT of weight.

your views can influence a lot of people in the 2008 race heavily.

so it’s important you take a principled stand.

ALL THE BEST!

Aug 16, 2007 - 9:41 am 17. David Thomson:

“your views can influence a lot of people in the 2008 race heavily.”

Michael Totten is currently backing Rudy Giuliani. The odds are highly unlikely that he will be able to support the Democratic Party presidential candidate. What more do you want? Something tells me that Joseph Lieberman is not going to be Hillary Clinton’s running mate.

Aug 16, 2007 - 11:24 am 18. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

david;

you assert mjt is for rudy, but he doesn’t, apparently.

in this thread he said he has not decided which party’s nominee to vote for.

he said in his thread at his blog:

“I vote for members of both parties, and I don’t know which party I’m voting for next year.”

that was the whole point of my comments.

it would make sense if michael was for rudy; rudy can be trusted with ww4. unlike ANY of the dems/copperheads.

Aug 16, 2007 - 1:56 pm 19. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

david; also, above he reiterates he wants to wait until after the primnary (ies?).

all i want is for people who want VICTORY to vote GOP and not be fooled by the copperheads.

and i want people who think we might get away with retreating from iraq, or “strategically redploying” to realize it would only encourage outr enemies and discourage ou allies.

i have a long link-filled post on totten and the copperheads at my blog ; the astute bloggers.

check it out, if you want.

ALL THE BEST!

Aug 16, 2007 - 1:59 pm 20. Michael J. Totten:

reliapundit: all i want is for people who want VICTORY to vote GOP and not be fooled by the copperheads.

We all get that at this point, so you can stop yelling at everyone now. You can also wrap up your obsession with my own personal voting record at any time. I assure you no one will wish you did not.

You can also stop libeling me (not here, but elsewhere) as an anti-Semite if you decide you would rather be known as a decent human being than as a degenerate scumbag.

Aug 16, 2007 - 3:20 pm 21. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

mjt:

your nastiness and personal vitriol and name-calling reveals a lot about you.

i admire yopur courage for going to dangerous places to report.

your writing is easy to read.

generally your analysis is weak.

and your political values confused.

this is obvious from the fact that david thomson swears you are for rudy – which MIGHT be true, while in this thread and the one at your own blog you claim to be waiting and not decided which party’s nominee you will support.

for someone who poften portarys hiumself as an anti-islamonazi hawk – i repeat – THISIS BIZARRE.

all the dem candidates are essentially copperheads.

a REAL hawk could entertain voting for any one of them

good luck in your adventures!

i hope – like scott thomas – you get a book deal.

Aug 17, 2007 - 7:01 am 22. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

MJT – CORRECTION:::

“a REAL hawk could NOT entertain voting for any one of them”

good luck in your adventures!

i hope – like scott thomas BEAUCHAMP – you get a book deal.

Aug 17, 2007 - 7:03 am 23. Michael J. Totten:

reliapundit: your nastiness and personal vitriol and name-calling reveals a lot about you

Accusing me of anti-Semitism and of working for Hezbollah is not a way to get on my good side. If you ever want me to be polite to you, you need to write an apology in public on the front page of your blog.

Aug 17, 2007 - 4:15 pm 24. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

QUOTE:

“I decided to work in the Middle East for many reasons, Swopa, but one was because I knew I was being too America-centric. I wanted to break out of it and write about the subject up close and a little more on its own terms.

I also felt I owed it to Arabs and Muslims. You may have noticed that I am a lot more sympathetic to them than I used to be.”

michael j. totten at August 18, 2007 05:28 PM

_______

I THINK THIS VERY RECENT QUOTE PROVES ONE OF MY POINTS ABOUT MJT.

i feel his reporting and writing are excellent.

But i have always felt that his analysis and sympathies basically have always had more in common with the Arabists at State (and the doves of Labour & Meretz) than let’s say Bolton or Cheney or Bush or Bibi or Sharon.

that’s why i called him out on his statement that he wasn’t sure which party’s nominee he would vote for in 2008.

no real hawk could feel that way. NONE.

I FEEL THE ABOVE QUOTE HELPS SHOW HOW/WHY TOTTEN IS NOT A REAL HAWK.

which is fine. except he seems sometimes to want to play both sides of the game. a moderate hawk/dove. not a chicken hawk a dove-hawk.

this ambivalence comes out in his posts as fuzzy analysis. it the thing i don’t like about his posts.

AND THEN THERE’S THIS QUESTION: would a true blue patriot go to germany in 1943 looking to be SYMPATHETIC with nazis!?!?!?!

or to hanoi in 1970 to be sympathetic to the VC?

totten and the Dept State ask us to be sympathetic to those who are our civilization’s sworn enemies.

i feel this is wrong. and a bad strategy. if we want to win.

land for peace – and sympathy for the enemy – are means to appeasement, not victory.

appeasement is merely surrendering a little at a time.

i believe that churchill was right when he said about diplomacy (paraphrasing):

“it’s like talking nice to a mad dog while you slowly reach down a grab a rock.”

Aug 18, 2007 - 8:26 pm 25. Michael J. Totten:

Reliapundit,

Gee, after spending years working in the Middle East and making friends over there — some of whom have been murdered by terrorists and are today targeted to be murdered by terrorists — I’m just like a Nazi supporter in your depraved mental universe for having more sympathy for the people of the region than I did before I ever set foot in the place.

Are the Kurds the sworn enemies of our civilization? Are the pro-American Arabs of Anbar Province (whom I have met and looked in the eye while you haven’t) also the sworn enemies of our civilization? If you truly believe they are then you either know nothing about them or are a really sick person.

Several American soldiers, including very high level officers, told me that what surprises them most about their time over there is how much emotional attachment they have to the Iraqis they have befriended. Are you going compare them to Nazi supporters and Hanoi Jane, too?

You really are a sick person.

Aug 18, 2007 - 8:47 pm

Write a Comment

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