1

While I respect Mark O. Hatfield for the strength of his convictions, his misses the one glaring point of logic that condemns it to self-annihilation. War is terrible, but alternative is usually worse.

Despite the terribleness of that of bomb, it is certain that it saved lives, considering our only alternative was a conventional invasion. Since estimates were as high as million troops for the casualties on our side alone, 300,000 lives is an excellent exchange.

And paradoxically, if that bomb made him and others, Japanese and American, pacifists, then maybe it did its job almost too well: It robbed our enemy of their taste for war. A particularly praiseworthy achievement, considering they had based their society on a militaristic hegemony that threw away human lives like trash.

Then when one pulls back from that to the greater context of WWII, one sees how pacifism basically caused most of the deaths during the war: Appeasement and inaction allowed the regimes of the Axis to arise and grow strong. That exacted their its toll in the form of 50 million lives lost.

How do you satiate a meglomanaic? How do you negotiate with a madman? The simple anser is that you can't and you don't. Someone like that only understands force.

War, on its face, seems absurd, but that melts away when you see the world at large. The Earth and its inhabitants, in the shadow of the Falll act absurdly, and so the insane becomes sane out of deperation.

And yet, I have begun to fear what might happen if we become to quick to pick up the sword, instead of the paper and pen. King David was not allowed by God to have the privilige of building the new temple, for he had been too sullied by war. Reflecting on secular thought, Sun Tzu calls a failure of diplomancy.

Combined, I think it creates a larger picture of the line we have to walk, between leveling our ferocity where it is due and pulling back when their is an opportunity to spare lives. Maybe that seems obvious, but it leaves us with something most people don't realize: There is no "litmus test" for when to go to war. The facts must be examined case by case.

2

'How will we respond to terrorism? What will we do to prevent its spread?'

bomb em, that is right. nuke em all, make em pay, learn em some international manners. that is what jesus would do. all that talk in the new testament about loving your enemies, all liberal lies. time to take out the trash, biblical style.

wow, a republical that was critical of war that suddenly supports bush wholeheartedly. wow, just like mccain. looks like they are pulling the ranks in close.

there are no liberal evengleicals. nuke em all, god will sort em out. the christians aren't here to prevent armegeddon, they are here to bring it.

3

Tommy,

all that talk in the new testament about loving your enemies, all liberal lies. time to take out the trash, biblical style.

Loving one's enemies does not require that we be pacifists. While we must always work within the framework of a just war doctrine, the greatest love we can show the world (including our enemies) is to restrain evil as much as humanly possible.

4

Joe,

The justice of the war is still up for debate, the immediate necessity of it less so.

If you really wanted to show 'New Testement' love in the 'new' post-9/11 world then the better option would have been to spend the $200B Iraq war budget reforming some willing and ready Middle Eastern nation--perhaps Afghanistan (victim of a more justified and necessary war). By undermining the desperation, poverty, and hatred that Islamist movements thrive on, we would be 'restraining evil' even more effectively.

The people of the Middle East resent us because we (as a nation, not as individuals) always apply greedy strings to our aid offers, and rarely fulfill the lofty long-term promises we make. If on just one occasion, we (as a nation) could maintain the resolve and clarity of purpose to develop an Arabian nation the way we developed Germany, Japan, and Israel, we wouldn't be facing the enemy we face now.

Now that we destroyed Iraq, let's only hope that we do it there. If it weren't for the rampant coruption in the effort--evidenced by Halliburton, Chalabi, and probably Allawi--we might be on that path. As it is, I think we're screwing it all up even worse and have fanned the flame rather than fought it.

5

Andrew-
Why the hit at Allawi? Do you have any evidence or are you just making up the accusation? And what's the evidence of corruption by Halliburton?

6

Andrew,

The justice of the war is still up for debate, the immediate necessity of it
less so.

Assuming you are talking about the war on terror (and not just Iraq), what part of it being just is debatable?

If you really wanted to show 'New Testement' love in the 'new' post-9/11 world then the better option would have been to spend the $200B Iraq war budget reforming some willing and ready Middle Eastern nation--perhaps Afghanistan
(victim of a more justified and necessary war).

Well, we already are working on Afganistan. And we should keep in mind that country wasn’t “willing and ready” until we invaded.

By undermining the desperation, poverty, and hatred that Islamist movements thrive on, we would be 'restraining evil' even more effectively.

No offense, but I’m really tired of the Islamist hatred being blamed on poverty and desperation. The Middle East isn’t even the most underdeveloped place on the planet. Why aren’t other non-Islamic countries having problems with terrorism?

The people of the Middle East resent us because we (as a nation, not as individuals) always apply greedy strings to our aid offers, and rarely fulfill the lofty long-term promises we make.

Do you seriously think that most ME people are even aware they we provide them aid? We need to face the fact that they mainly hate us because we are Christians and Jews. I realize it isn’t politically correct to point out the obvious, but not everyone in the world thinks like a New York liberal. Their reasons for hating us do not have to align with acceptable standards of the intelligentsia.

If on just one occasion, we (as a nation) could maintain the resolve and clarity of purpose to develop an Arabian nation the way we developed Germany, Japan, and Israel, we wouldn't be facing the enemy we face now.

I think you are missing a key point: Germany and Japn were only developed after they surrendered to us in a war. And our alliance with Israel is one of the primary reasons many Arabs view us as enemies to begin with.

Now that we destroyed Iraq, let's only hope that we do it there.

We haven’t destroyed Iraq. You should really talk to someone who has been there to get the straight story.

If it weren't for the rampant coruption in the effort--evidenced by Halliburton, Chalabi, and probably Allawi--we might be on that path. As it is, I think we're screwing it all up even worse and have fanned the flame rather than fought it.

And your evidence for this is…? Let me guess, you read it in the paper so it must be true, right?

7

Andrew,

You wrote, "The justice of the war is still up for debate, the immediate necessity of it
less so."

Tell us, in your view, what makes a war just?

8

David Marcoe says:

"Then when one pulls back from that to the greater context of WWII, one sees how pacifism basically caused most of the deaths during the war: Appeasement and inaction allowed the regimes of the Axis to arise and grow strong."

I'm not sure that's an accurate use of the word "pacifism". Governments at the time were not reluctant to go to war because of any noble-sounding dedication to peace. It was because they were unwilling to pay the political and actual costs of going to war until their choices became limited to either subjugation, annihilation, or surrender.

Terrorism tends to muddle that choice as it's not always clear if war is correct answer. We could solve our terrorism problem in Iraq by truly "going to war" with Iraq. It would wipe out the terrorists but also large parts of the "civilian" population, probably creating more terrorists. Instead we are waging a more "sensitive" war, using a primarily economic policy backed up with military firepower, - the carrot and stick method. This is probably the approach that has the most chance of success, although there are great difficulties.

Joe, the corruption of Chalabi is pretty well documented. And he is still a wanted criminal for embezzlement in Jordan. This should not be a surprise. The US after all, had many dealings with Saddam even after knowing he was evil, namely because he was the enemy of our enemy Iran, at the time.

And while I have seen no proof of corruption at Haliburton (between our government and the company) I have seen massive waste and likely some fraud, as would be normal for a huge multi-national corporation. Such entity's are often inherently wasteful because they are too large and too diverse to be controlled effectively.

9

I'm not sure that's an accurate use of the word "pacifism". Governments at the time were not reluctant to go to war because of any noble-sounding dedication to peace. It was because they were unwilling to pay the political and actual costs of going to war until their choices became limited to either subjugation, annihilation, or surrender.

You are right to point out that pacifist motivations were the sole motivator, but it was one of the main reasons not to deal with an otherwise obvious problem.

The pacifist movements the US, Britain, and allied nations were strong and vocal, starting after WWI. Most of the justification for not dealing with it again was the sheer horror of war, along with the pragmatic costs. The WWI veteran Basil Henry Liddell Hart wrote famous/infamous Strategy, which is an epitome of post-WWI attitudes: He rails against attritional doctrine in his treatise, invoking indirect methods of warfare, almost to the exclusion of all else. There are some WWI veterans alive this day who are avowed pacifists. WWI sparked the modern pacifist movement and inspired like Ghandi, who had been a medic in WWI, in conflicts in the African colonies, I believe. The attitudes before the war are deeply contrasted, where war was, quite literally, glorified, with troops being sent off in a carnival-like atmosphere.

In light of the contrasting attitudes--happily sending troops off to war, versus "Peace in our time."--I think it is entirely accurate to use the word pacifist.

10

Edit: "were not the sole motivator"

11

Joe, the corruption of Chalabi is pretty well documented. And he is still a wanted criminal for embezzlement in Jordan.

If by documented, you mean lots of his political enemies have accused him of various crimes, then you are right, his corruption is well documented. Of course by that standard, President Bush is a deserter, war criminal, and stole the 2000 election, and of course John Kerry is a war criminal. Though since Kerry did admit to war crimes, the case against him is probably stronger than the one against Chalabi.

12

LOL ... Chalabi cleverly exploited the panic after 9-11 to his own ends. It's SOP in the Intel business to not trust exiles unless their info can be independantly confirmed by multiple sources, precisely for the reasons which are now clear regarding Chalabi.

However in this case, for some reason, the Bush WH felt they could handle it ... that they were above decades of Intel wisdom and could not be outsmarted by an MIT Ph D in Mathematics.

They were not and they got tooled.

13

Rob Smith writes

"If by documented, you mean lots of his political enemies have accused him of various crimes, then you are right, his corruption is well documented. Of course by that standard, President Bush is a deserter, war criminal, and stole the 2000 election, and of course John Kerry is a war criminal. Though since Kerry did admit to war crimes, the case against him is probably stronger than the one against Chalabi."

Is there any hope for people as lost as Rob Smith? I have my doubts. Kerry never admitted to war crimes. Even his avowed enemies, the Swift Boat Liars, never accused him of war crimes and they are very careful to avoid saying that Kerry acted criminally in their lie-packed book.

But that doesn't stop Rob Smith! No, Rob's script is written in his DNA by now. The emotional investment in that loveable swaggering Texan and his inept incompetent cronies is far too great for Rob to back down now.

Was the invasion of Iraq prepared for and handled competently? Hardly anyone today would claim that is the case. But Rob would rather argue about whether Bush is a war criminal. Nice strawman.

Did Bush win the 2000 election? Yes, he did. However, it is undisputed that he lost the popular vote and it is undisputed that thousands of voters in the key state, Flordia, were disenfranchised (it also looks likely that it'll happen again). But Rob wants to talk about whether Bush "stole" the election. Nice strawman.

Is Chalabi a reliable figure? Chalabi's close friends admitted to lying to the Bush Administration re Iraq's nuclear programs in order to encourage the US to invade Iraq. Did Chalabi know his friends were lying? It's not unclear. Would it be unreasonable to speculate, given Chalabi's other shadowy dealings? Of course not. Bush himself distanced himself from his friend Chalabi, for obvious reasons that weren't related to Chalabi's reputation for honesty. But all this is too nuanced for Rob. No, in Rob Smith's world, Chalabi is a man of virtue, just like that lovable swaggering Texan whose words speak louder than his actions, the man historians will remember as the Worst President Ever.

Was Bush a deserter? It's unclear. Again, no one disputes that there are gaps in Bush's military record and no one disputes that Bush lied in his book about the time he spent flying airplanes. Also undisputed is the fact that Bush and Cheney avoided combat in Vietnam. Also undisputed is the fact that Kerry didn't and that he received medals. Also undisputed is the fact that the people who question Kerry's record in Vietnam are liars.

But does Rob Smith want to discuss that? Nope. In defense of the virtuous Chalabi, more snake than human, Rob asserts that Bush must be deserter if Chalabi's droppings aren't perfectly round.

Rob Smith has fallen victim to a disease which plagues many conservatives overcome by the fear of losing, known as "say anything but never admit that you were wrong."

It's a vile disturbing illness and we wish Rob the best with his recovery. It all begins with an apology.

14

While we're going back and forth, here's Garrison Keillor's take on the War on Terror and his other related feelings about the Bush Administration and modern-era Republican Party:

We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore

by Garrison Keillor / In These Times

Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned—and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today’s. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.

In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. “Bipartisanship is another term of date rape,” says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.

The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.

Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.

Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy—the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.

The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good.

Our beloved land has been fogged with fear—fear, the greatest political strategy ever. An ominous silence, distant sirens, a drumbeat of whispered warnings and alarms to keep the public uneasy and silence the opposition. And in a time of vague fear, you can appoint bullet-brained judges, strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill, stupefy the press, lavish gorgeous tax breaks on the rich.

There is a stink drifting through this election year. It isn’t the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision. No, it’s 9/11 that we keep coming back to. It wasn’t the “end of innocence,” or a turning point in our history, or a cosmic occurrence, it was an event, a lapse of security. And patriotism shouldn’t prevent people from asking hard questions of the man who was purportedly in charge of national security at the time.

Whenever I think of those New Yorkers hurrying along Park Place or getting off the No.1 Broadway local, hustling toward their office on the 90th floor, the morning paper under their arms, I think of that non-reader George W. Bush and how he hopes to exploit those people with a little economic uptick, maybe the capture of Osama, cruise to victory in November and proceed to get some serious nation-changing done in his second term.

This year, as in the past, Republicans will portray us Democrats as embittered academics, desiccated Unitarians, whacked-out hippies and communards, people who talk to telephone poles, the party of the Deadheads. They will wave enormous flags and wow over and over the footage of firemen in the wreckage of the World Trade Center and bodies being carried out and they will lie about their economic policies with astonishing enthusiasm.

The Union is what needs defending this year. Government of Enron and by Halliburton and for the Southern Baptists is not the same as what Lincoln spoke of. This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.

This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we’re not getting any younger.

Dante said that the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, so I have spoken my piece, and thank you, dear reader. It’s a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning.

15

Earlier I said:

"Terrorism tends to muddle that choice as it's not always clear if war is correct answer. We could solve our terrorism problem in Iraq by truly "going to war" with Iraq. It would wipe out the terrorists but also large parts of the "civilian" population, probably creating more terrorists."

Actually if you want to read an opinion that disagrees with me and says military force can solve the terrorist problem in Iraq, there is an interesting column in the Washington Times. It almost convinces me. (I guess I'm just a flip-flopper). ;-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52801-2004Sep26.html

16

This is worth a look too.

http://shannonlove.blogspot.com/2004/09/see-all-green.html

17

I guess a few folks around here will be putting their Garrison Keiller audiotapes for sale on eBay soon. Of course, if only the IRS did a better job of taxing that sort of revenue we might able to make some headway towards reducing the deficit.

18

I was out for the day and the conversation has gone on too far without me. But to make what defense I can organize:

1) When I wrote about the arguable character of the justice of some 'war', I was referring of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I apologize for the lack of clarity. The invasion of Afghanistan and the general movement to impede terrorist financing and police terrorist activities is subject to considerably less debate on all counts.

2) I admit the slam at Allawi was a little egregious. The biggest reason I suspect Allawi is because of his statements to Congress and the press this weekend--through which he lost a great deal of credibility as an independent actor working for the benefit of the Iraqi people. He contradicted American intelligence estimates, WH cabinet assessments, and widespread media coverage about the 'facts on the ground' in Iraq and instead just parrotted Bush campaign lines.

While it shouldn't be a surprise that a man handed a country on a silver platter would do his best to return the favor, it would have been really nice if he'd been the kind of guy who would be frank with Congress and put the interests of the Iraqi people ahead of his own.

3) I stand by the fact that it is desperation and poverty that breeds terrorism, although I will concede that other factors contribute. However, I see no reason to believe that Islam and some overblown hatred of Christians and Jews be the source of terrorism in the Middle East. It's historically inaccurate to universally characterize Islam or Muslim/Judeo-Christian relationships that way. Islam has seen peaceful prosperity, and vile war--just like Christianity. There have been many periods of rivalry between each religion's adherents and many periods of cooperation. To say anything else belies either blind ignorance, intellectual laziness, or a conscious desire to falsely villify a religion.

But there are, in fact, other characteristics that distinguish the Middle East from, say, sub-Saharan Africa.

The first notable characteristic is the matter of past success. The Middle East is the birthplace of Western civilization and Islamic culture once led the world in terms of development and success. Being aware of that history, it's natural for the current victims of the state of the Middle Eastern to try to explain the loss.

Which leads me to the second notable characteristic: the attention of the world. Africa doesn't receive anyone's rapt attention. On the other hand, the Middle East has provided the foundation of worldwide industrialization for the last 200 years, and has been a hotly contested strategic region for at least as long. What this amounts to is a growing suspicion along the lines of "if we're so important to the West, and they're doing so well because of us, why are we still doing so poorly?"

Perhaps the right answer is for them to blame it on themselves or corrupt leaders who have abused Western generousity. But that's not the answer they have. Their answer is that they're on the short end of a huge deal and deserve to either get some 'fair share' or the independence to operate without interference.

So you see--they don't hate the West because of Islam, they hate the West because: they're poor, they used to be rich, and they never realized results from the last 200 years of Western involvement. And let me just disclaim that I'm just articulating a particularly plausible view from the other side. I'm not 'blaming America' or even saying that the perceptions I've described are accurate. I'm just saying that these are perceptions that have been thoroughly expressed in media and academic outlets for quite a while now, and are perceptions that explain the situation without betraying the other facts we know about Islam.

19

My favorite piece of neocon duplicity goes like this: Trumpet that no domestic terrorists attacks have occurred since 9-11 and that this is evidence George Bush's policies are working. But if a terrorist attack does happen, the terrorists are trying to affect our elections so we should elect George Bush to send them a message that we won't be intimidated.

It's a lovely tautology in which the answer to either permutation is to reelect George Bush. That the two halves of the tautology are mutually inconsistent with each other is nary a drawback for the religious right. Afterall we are talking about supporters who can easily dismiss empirical evidence for evolution and many of whom believe the universe is 6,000 years old. Ignoring glaring inconsistencies is their re'son detre.

Inspired by an article on Orcinus http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

Fascism is a word that gets thrown around a lot and I don't think we're living in a fascist state by any means. But the groundwork has been laid. Glorification of the military, the 'your with us or against us' mentality. The use of religion and ideology to justify bigotry and violence. Intense secrecy, the marginalization of empirical data in determining a course of action. Propaganda and misinformation. Branding critics as traitors. The Big Lie and the Rovian Whisper Campaigns. The ends justify the means, hatred of the weak, The Glorious Exalted Divinely Appointed Leader is Infallible, etc.

Never forget; Fascists come to power by persuading the people to elect them. I don't think we will see that happen here in the US. But, I never would have thought people would be so easily misled as they have been by this WH either. If it does happen, it's of little solace to know the very people who supported the ultranationalists will be suffering along with the rest of us who saw the scam.
By the time the religious right figures out they got played like a harp, it will be too late.

20

Fascism is a word that gets thrown around a lot and I don't think we're living in a fascist state by any means. But the groundwork has been laid.

Don't forget the all important collusion of the central government and big corporations to control power in a cartel-like fashion. Tell me that isn't the real state of affairs of our current political system--no matter how much lipstick you put on this pig.

21

Don't get me wrong. This is not a fascist state by any means. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that were the case.
And I'd have to guess that George Bush, having been raised in a family with a rich history of supporting democracy, does not wish to take us to that end. It would take more, a lot more, for the US to end up as a fascist state.
But what is disturbing to me is how far we've come in such a short time in that direction.

22

DS,

Never forget; Fascists come to power by persuading the people to elect them.

You have a point. Obviously the only way to prevent the election of fascists is to not vote at all. If they aren't elected they can't take power.

Brilliant!

Help Prevent fascism. On Nov. 2nd, just say no to voting.

23

Andrew writes

"And let me just disclaim that I'm just articulating a particularly plausible view from the other side. I'm not 'blaming America' or even saying that the perceptions I've described are accurate."

and its sad, Andrew, that you even have to do so. The situation you describe was, of course, the subject of much discussion before 9/11 and (briefly) afterward. Of course, that kind of thoughtful discourse was more or less quashed in the year preceding the invasion of Iraq in favor of discussions about whether it was our right to invade countries whenever we felt threatened by them and screw what anyone else thinks.

And so, here we are.

One interesting thought that arises out of your explanation for the discontent of the Arab world is why evangelical Christians who (in contrast) live in the wealthiest country in the world are also so eager to attack others and are so rabid in their defense of corporate interests, as if the continued economic and military domination of the earth by the United States was a Biblical mandate, a situation to be maintained no matter what the cost. Odd.

24

Did September 11, 2001 happen, or not?

Was it a friggin dream? Because I'll tell you what I remember. I remember dropping my kids off at school and hearing on the radio that 19 members of a suicidal death cult took over four airplanes and plowed three of them into our largest office buildings, killing thousands. Then more satanic death cult members killed hundreds of Australians and New Zealanders in Bali. Then still more satan-worshipping death cultists brought down two Russian airliners before taking over a school of children, where they made the kids get naked, drink their own urine, and subjected them to sexual tortures before killing them with bombs and machine gun fire. More still strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up in synagoges and Jewish supermarkets.

And I come on this site, every day, and hear that this is our fault because of George Bush. What a bunch of stupid morons you are. Absolutely, pathetically, irretrievably stupid.

The appeasers above will cast their votes on November 2 for the appeasement candidate, John F. Kerry, who has avowed surrender, withdrawal, and will only embolden the enemies of civilization to make more ambitious attacks more often.

We'll see on November 2nd whether America has turned into a country of pussies, or if Larry Lord and DS and Andrew and Patrick are a very vocal minority.

25

Did September 11, 2001 happen, or not?

It sure did Kevin. Yet oddly, you're encouraging us to vote for the clowns who gave up on catching the perpetrators of 9-11 and invaded the one country in the middle east who had the least conenctions to Al Qaeda. You do it every freaking day.
Are you an idiot? I don't think so.
A shill? Possibly.
So greedy you don't care about letting those murderers go as long as you get a big fat tax cut? I hope not but I think thart's entirely possible. If so it's not pretty.
So hopelessly hoodwinked by a few biblical references that you think Bush is a Divinely Appointed Infallible Leader? Are you maybe just a heavy drinker and intermitently incapable of rational thought when you're on a binge?

Inquiring minds want to know Kevin, how you could bring up 9-11 and then turn around in the same breath and harshly criticize those of us who point out that Bush turned his back on Al Qaeda and went off chasing phantoms in Iraq.

26

Joe if you choose not to vote on Nov 2, I will heartily endorse your action my friend. ::EG::

27

hearing on the radio that 19 members of a suicidal death cult took over four airplanes

Yeah. I didn't hear that. Granted, I was trapped in a train under Chambers Street, but from what I remember, some highly motivated ideologues tried to make a spectacular and violent political statement because they didn't have enough power to wage a traditional war--just like the IRA does, just like the Zionists did, and just like Confederates tried to do, and much like a few anti-abortion radicals do. But hey, I guess that's a little far-fetched. Who could dare think that there would be more to the story than a widely popular, 1300 year old religion?

And I come on this site, every day, and hear that this is our fault because of George Bush

I don't come here as often as you, but I didn't see anyone say that in this thread. The history of modern tensions between the Middle East and the West is two-sided and runs for nearly 200 years. That you didn't hear about it until some ratings-hungry loudmouth screamed about satanic death cultists is your own fault.

What responsibility has been placed on George Bush is on a comparitively negligible, but far more immediate, aspect: the diversion of military focus from hunting al-Qaeda (the ephemeral "death cultists"--remember them?)to recreating Iraq. Does he not deserve both credit and blame for the actions of the United States and its military during his term in office?

The appeasers above will cast their votes on November 2 for the appeasement candidate, John F. Kerry, who has avowed surrender, withdrawal, and will only embolden the enemies of civilization to make more ambitious attacks more often.

Well, I only hope all the right-wingers join me in criticizing that statement. I mean, who's ever head of John F. Kerry avowing anything? Isn't he just an insufferable flip-flopper with no clear plans or opinions on anything?

28

Larry Lord wrote: Kerry never admitted to war crimes. Even his avowed enemies, the Swift Boat Liars, never accused him of war crimes and they are very careful to avoid saying that Kerry acted criminally in their lie-packed book.

You're right, The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are better defenders of Kerry on this score than Kerry himself. From their website:

On June 6, 1971, John Kerry described the work of the Swift boats to the Washington Star as follows:

"We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats' that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."

What John Kerry told the Washington Star was a lie. (emphasis added)

For further instances of Kerry admitting war crimes, I'd recommend Joe's The Swift Boat Veteran With the Truth: Is John Kerry a War Criminal?, a post I note you commented on. So you're not ignorant of the facts, Larry. And yet the third sentence of your response to Rob Smith is so blatantly untrue, I'm forced to conclude you're being intellectually dishonest.

Further evidence: You accuse Rob of erecting "straw men," when you must know that the "Bush stole the election" mantra has been repeated over and over for the past four years. Here's one example that pops up on the first page of a Google search for bush stole election -- from CNN, no less: Bush Stole the Election. How about selected not elected? That precious gem dropped from the mouth of no less a luminary than Hillary Clinton. And yes, Bush has also been labeled a war criminal, and worse. Hardly a straw man.

Now, Larry, let's look at your own straw men:
Is Chalabi a reliable figure?
Where in Mr. Smith's post does he say he was?

No, in Rob Smith's world, Chalabi is a man of virtue
Where in Mr. Smith's post does he say he was?

Rob asserts that Bush must be deserter if Chalabi's droppings aren't perfectly round
Huh???

Mr. Smith makes the perfectly sensible observation that Mr. Chalabi has not been convicted of any crime. For that, Mr. Lord chooses to bully him without regard for the ethics of honest debate. I'm disappointed, Larry.

29

Yet oddly, you're encouraging us to vote for the clowns who gave up on catching the perpetrators of 9-11 and invaded the one country in the middle east who had the least conenctions to Al Qaeda.

Actually, no DS. We still have quite a few forces on the ground looking for him. Bin Laden and company are finding less and less places to hide. It is a matter of time. Too much time, admittedly, but a matter of time. We haven't "given up the hunt" in any fashion. Just because media coverage dwindles on something doesn't mean it isn't there.

In fact, what you hear on the news maybe one percent, one tenth of one percent, or, at times, one one hundreth of one percent of what actually goes on.

So, can we please move on from that myth?

30

Personally, I believe bin Laden's dead. If not, he's making for an awfully good imitation of a dead man.

But so much the better. As long as some people believe he's alive, it gives us more chances to kill militant Islamists.

31

David,

I'll stand by with when you are skeptical about media coverage. We all know that the media can only hope to cover some fraction of what's going on, and editors will choose to release only some futher fraction of that. That's all true.

But don't you feel like you might be subscribing to just at least as tenuous a myth when you personally 'fill in the gaps' for what the media has been failing to cover?

Just now, you made the following assetions:

1) "We have quite a few forces on the ground looking for [Osama bin Laden]"
2) "Bin Laden and company are finding less and less places to hide"
3) "We haven't 'given up the hunt' in any fashion"

What credible resources do you draw on to make these assertions? Whatever resources they may be ought to be more reliable than 'the media' (whatever that is) for you to offer them as a refutation to what DS has been saying. And I think we can agree that neither a few personal anecdotes, nor unverified statements from electoral candidates meet that standard. I don't deny that you may have access to such resources, but I'm very curious as to what they may be because I'm sure they will help me make sense of the whole ordeal myself.

32

"Yeah. I didn't hear that. Granted, I was trapped in a train under Chambers Street, but from what I remember, some highly motivated ideologues tried to make a spectacular and violent political statement because they didn't have enough power to wage a traditional war--just like the IRA does, just like the Zionists did, and just like Confederates tried to do, and much like a few anti-abortion radicals do."

Is that what you think it is? You're just a dumb son of a bitch, too blind to horrible, unspeakable evil. Why can't they wage a traditional war? Hell, they have over a billion people. They're sitting on top of a giant pool of oil. They have money pouring in. Are they too stupid to build an army? An air force?

Fine. You're right--as much as the militant Muslim screams "Allah Akhbar", and screams his hatred for anything not-Islamic, we can at least be glad he is a complete incompetent on the battlefield. We were in Afghanistan something like 60 days before we suffered our first combat casualty. Here is Iraq, where all you pussies on the Left are screaming "quagmire" and "Vietnam", we've lost 1,000 men. Try to imagine a war with a China, or a North Korea, and multiply that number by 50, and you will see what it's like to be at total war.

I know a little about Civil War history, and about the history of the IRA. Tell me about when Confererates raped and mutilated Yankee children. Tell me about the IRA beheadings of Western journalists. No difference, my ass.

For all that, your candidate will end it all, right? He'll bring the troops home, sit down with Al Queda, negotiate a peace, and build a dome around America or something. Hey, I'm sure he's got a plan, it's just top secret. He's kept it from everybody, including the eight split personalities inside himself.

Come November 3, we'll know.

33

Here is Iraq, where all you pussies on the Left are screaming "quagmire" and "Vietnam", we've lost 1,000 men

You want to hear about 'pussies' screaming things? Take a look at the god-damned War on Terror itself. An immense, painfully expensive project based on 3000 people dying through a project that took years to pull off.

How many Americans have been killed by Islamist terrorism in the 20 or so years its been brewing? As a product of the War on Terror, how much have we spent on each one?

Now try that same math using deaths from things like AIDS, Cancer, and think about the money we could have put to that... It would be a lot more productive. But you know why we don't do it?

Not because terrorism 'presents the greatest threat facing our age' (it doesn't; those things do)--it's because 15,000 people dying of AIDS every year doesn't make the news the way a big plane crash does. It's the 'pussies' who have nightmares about 'satanic death cults' that waste all our money, kill innocent Afghani and Iraqi bystanders, and have a hissy-fit when somebody says their Dear Leader didn't make the right decision.

Seriously--I'm sick of this terrorism crap. Get over it. The War on Terror should be part of comprehensive international policing efforts, not some military monstrosity that operates at the expense of the things that really effect us.

34

Strange David because during this same period Bush has flip flopped from "Wanted dead or alive" to "Osama's really not that important".

Andrew is correct. Terorism is a real threat but it pales in comparison with previous threats-like the 10,000 nukes that were once poited at us from the forces of the USSR. And it poses less danger than aids or even poverty in terms of the numbers affected. But to read Bush's proclamtions you'd think the terrorist are the biggest threat facing the country in our history.

35

LL--Your post amuses me to no end, I mean talk about a crazed response. I point out in a rather amusing way that most (if not all) of the charges against Chalabi come from his political enemies and you accuse me of having some previously unknown DNA sequence that forces me defend President Bush and, I assume Chalabi. It must be a rather strange DNA sequence that only kicks in sporadically because I certainly wasn't defending Bush when he signed McCain-Feingold or the Medicare Drug Benefit (among others) and I think Chalabi is a bit of a shady character, but then who among the players in Iraq aren't. Lets hit some of the highlights point by point.

Did Bush win the 2000 election? Yes, he did. However, it is undisputed that he lost the popular vote and it is undisputed that thousands of voters in the key state, Flordia, were disenfranchised (it also looks likely that it'll happen again).

Ahhh, that tired old chestnut about Bush disenfranchising thousands (millions, billions) of voters, most of whom were dead, convicted felons, or illegal aliens and therefore not eligible to vote, but no mention of how hard Gore and his supporters tried (and for the most part succeeded) in getting absentee military ballots disqualified. But I guess in the Bizarro world of Larry Lord, it is wrong to disenfranchise dead folks, illegal aliens, and convicted felons, but perfectly okay to do the same to soldiers, sailors, and Marines posted overseas.

Is Chalabi a reliable figure? Chalabi's close friends admitted to lying to the Bush Administration re Iraq's nuclear programs in order to encourage the US to invade Iraq. Did Chalabi know his friends were lying? It's not unclear. Would it be unreasonable to speculate, given Chalabi's other shadowy dealings? Of course not. Bush himself distanced himself from his friend Chalabi, for obvious reasons that weren't related to Chalabi's reputation for honesty. But all this is too nuanced for Rob. No, in Rob Smith's world, Chalabi is a man of virtue, just like that lovable swaggering Texan whose words speak louder than his actions, the man historians will remember as the Worst President Ever.

It would require a lot of reading between the lines of a very short post to assume that I think that Chalabi is a "man of virtue". I merely point out that most of the charges against him are from his political enemies, and that none of them have been proven. In truth, I think he is a pretty shady character, along with most of the major players in the Middle East. As for Bush being the worst president ever, you should probably stick to biology and leave history to the historians. Really do you think that Bush will be ranked worse than Buchanan, Nixon, Carter, or Hoover? If you do, it is you, not me with the mental disease.

Was Bush a deserter? It's unclear. Again, no one disputes that there are gaps in Bush's military record and no one disputes that Bush lied in his book about the time he spent flying airplanes.

Desertion has a very specific definition under the UCMJ, and from personal experience (Florida National Guard, 1997-2000) I can tell you that missing a few drills does not qualify. If by "gaps in Bush's military record" you mean that he took time off from drilling to do something else, then I also have gaps in my record (missed several months of drills due to a heavy course load), but like Bush, I received a honorable discharge from the Guard.

But does Rob Smith want to discuss that? Nope. In defense of the virtuous Chalabi, more snake than human, Rob asserts that Bush must be deserter if Chalabi's droppings aren't perfectly round.

I didn't know that it was possible to be more snake than human, but since you are a biologist I will defer to you. I guess then it is also possible to be more horse's ass than human, a category that you would to fit nicely into. Not sure what the connection is between Chalabi's droppings and Bush's millitary service is, but judging from some of your prior posts you seem to be quite knowledgable about droppings, so again I will defer to you.

Rob Smith has fallen victim to a disease which plagues many conservatives overcome by the fear of losing, known as "say anything but never admit that you were wrong."

As the presidential race goes on, my fear of Bush losing (never very large to begin with) keeps getting smaller and smaller. Do liberals fall victim to a similiar plaque, cause your case seems to be quite advanced?

36

Andrew writes:
"How many Americans have been killed by Islamist terrorism in the 20 or so years its been brewing? As a product of the War on Terror, how much have we spent on each one?

Now try that same math using deaths from things like AIDS, Cancer, and think about the money we could have put to that... It would be a lot more productive. But you know why we don't do it?

Not because terrorism 'presents the greatest threat facing our age' (it doesn't; those things do)--it's because 15,000 people dying of AIDS every year doesn't make the news the way a big plane crash does. It's the 'pussies' who have nightmares about 'satanic death cults' that waste all our money, kill innocent Afghani and Iraqi bystanders, and have a hissy-fit when somebody says their Dear Leader didn't make the right decision.

Seriously--I'm sick of this terrorism crap. Get over it. The War on Terror should be part of comprehensive international policing efforts, not some military monstrosity that operates at the expense of the things that really effect us."

*****

This has to be THE stupidest post I have ever read. And on a website populated by the likes of Larry Lord and DS, that is quite an accomplishment.

Where to begin? 2,403 Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor. I can only imagine that you would have sat by with your thumb up your ass until we had conquered polio first. You say 15,000 people a year die from AIDS? Well, how do you know, if it's not reported? I've heard of AIDS, and I'm as right-wing as they come. I've also heard that this Adminstration is spending more to combat AIDS worldwide than all the previous administrations combined. But it's not enough for the Left!! No sir, as long as we're pissing money away on such piddling matters as national defense.

I'll say it again--if you don't support this war, you're a pussy. Period. And so is your candidate. You may disagree on the means or the place or how to do it more effective. But if you can't get upset when Islamists CRASH AIRLINERS INTO OUR LARGEST CITIES, WHEN THEY BEHEAD AMERICAN JOURNALISTS, WHEN THEY TAKE OVER SCHOOLS, WHEN THEY BLOW UP BUSES OF TOURISTS, you are too far gone for me to give a rat's ass about, in your words.

Terrorism doesn't affect us, you say. Tell that to the wives of 9/11. Tell that to my friend's family, who died in the Pentagon a year after writing my letter of recommendation to grad school. Tell that to the families of two Air Force friends of mine, killed in the Khobar Towers bombing. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who found themselves out of work after 9/11. Terrorism affects us all, asshole.

37

I hope Bush does win. More killing, mmmm... taste of blood.... low interest rates to keep the economy afloat. more 'just war' whatever that means, no one has actaully given a definition of how this war is just because bush invaded an unarmed country. wow, that is hard, like beating up the neighbor's kid cuz he threatened to shoot his slingshot at you. in fact, some of my neighbors have been looking at me kinda funny. and they aren't my religion, and their skin is a different color. and they pray to a different god, at least i think it is different. lets get em, tex! jesus owns a mini-nuke! armegeddon! yeah!

38

Just because tommythecat posts under a different name doesn't mean I don't recognize her lunatic ramblings.

Are we at war with Hindus? With followers of Shinto? Druids? Wiccans?

No, we're only at war with people who have attacked us. And the war will be over when they have either all surrendered or been killed. Or we have.

39

No, we're only at war with people who have attacked us. And the war will be over when they have either all surrendered or been killed. Or we have.

iraq didn't attack us. stop watching the 'news'

and i like being the rider of the apocalypse better, there is no reason the christians should have the corner on the killing. killing is more fun than peace.

40

andrew,

don't try to reason with kevin. he wants to kill, let him. it is the way things are going. if you can't beat em, join em. it goes down easier if you sing 'onward christian soldiers' while pumping rounds into a guy with a turban.

41

>In a grim reminder of what we are up against,
>Josh Claybourn points out that videos of
>beheadings are popular DVDs among Iraqis and
>that 93% of viewers of one of Al Jazeera's most
>popular TV programs support the kidnapping and
>beheading of innocent Westerners in Iraq.

When you act like Orcs instead of Men, don't be surprised when Men of the West do unto you as they would do unto Orcs.

42

"The only choice for the government was to do it on the scale they did, because their constituency already showed itself to be full of *ahem* 'pussies'."

Had to be repeated.