Excitable Andy, in addition to general gobsmackedness???????? over the idea that history might treat Pres. Bush more kindly if Iraq turns out relatively well in the long run, is agitated over terms of the proposed Iraq security pact:
50 long-term military bases. How is that not empire?
It is not empire in the sense that the US bases in Japan, Germany and South Korea pursuant to Status of Forces Agreements is not empire. Indeed, it is not empire by any common definition of the word, as the US does not seek to rule over any of the more than 90 nations with which it has SoFAs.
Apparently, the BDS has eaten away so much of Sully’s brain that he is no longer to grasp rather basic concepts like the SoFA, or even the definition of the words he uses. It’s so sad when BDS goes untreated.
I love it! we’re soooo sneaky, it only looks like they’re holding elections (and the elected government is having problems getting laws passed). it’s so realistic! ROVE YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD!!!
George Bush doubleplusungood thoughtcime.
Isn’t Andrew Sullivan British, and he’s going to tell us about imperialism. You don’t have to go back that far in history for examples of actual British imperialism.
The empire waist has definitely made a comeback in women’s clothing. I think Andrew has noticed that, and put two and two together. We are all Napoleon now.
If I remember correctly, in the period right after 9/11 Sullivan expressly favored an imperial American foreign policy toward the Middle East. Then Bush opposed gay marraige, and became an unworthy would-be emperor in Andrew’s eyes.
I didn’t know there was an empire pantywaist.
Excitable Andy lost his grip on his johnson and shot a wad on the keyboard.
It seems that Andy has internalized all the political assumptions of the Left these days. That, and a lot of things that are longer than they are wide.
Plus, he seems really disturbed by the idea that 25 years hence, Bush might be treated like Truman, because then all he has written these past four years will look pretty bad. And Sully is really all about maintaining his cred.
[…] for fun. Protein Wisdom re what a moron Andrew Sullivan is for thinking, breathlessly, that 50 long-term bases = […]
I’m glad to hear we’re going to have some long-term bases there. That means our men and women in uniform will hopefully have some more comforts while they serve in the area, as we know they have damn few right now. Like Bush said, we are going to be doing this a long time.
God forbid you check to see whether or not many of your pro-Bush political allies actually do use the terms “empire” and “imperialism” to describe the U.S. and its policies before you start attributing the use of such terminology to “Bush derangement syndrome”:
“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, however, many foreign policy pundits, mostly from the Republican right but also including some liberal internationalists, have revisited the idea of empire. “America is the most magnanimous imperial power ever,” declared Dinesh D’Souza in the Christian Science Monitor in 2002. “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets,” argued Max Boot in a 2001 article for the Weekly Standard titled “The Case for American Empire.” In the Wall Street Journal, historian Paul Johnson asserted that the “answer to terrorism” is “colonialism.” Columnist Mark Steyn, writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, has contended that “imperialism is the answer.””
http://www.jeetheer.com/politics/anglosphere.htm
Brownie, you misrepresent what Steyn said–which was NOT “Imperialism is the answer.” That was the headline of his 10/14/01 Chicago Sun-Times column, but if you bother to read the text, he does not advocate for imperialism (nor is he responsible for crafting headlines).
Steyn says:
“In fact, insofar as the Middle East’s the victim of anything other than its own failures, it’s not Western imperialism but Western post-imperialism. Unlike Africa, Asia, Australasia and the Americas, Araby has never come under direct European colonial rule. Instead, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the Great War, the winners carved up the Arabian peninsula not into colonies but ”spheres of influence,” a system that continues to this day.”
He goes on to make the case for toppling dictators like Saddam Hussein:
“America has prided itself on being the first non-imperial superpower, but the viability of that strategy was demolished on Sept. 11. For its own security, it needs to do what it did to Tojo’s Japan and Hitler’s Germany after the war: Systematically dismantle them and rebuild them as functioning members of the civilized world.”
God forbid you check to see whether or not many of your pro-Bush political allies actually do use the terms “empire†and “imperialism†to describe the U.S. and its policies before you start attributing the use of such terminology to “Bush derangement syndromeâ€Â
Except that in the very first paragraph of your article, George W Bush, the person at whom BDS is directed and the person who if not making all foreign policy decisions, is the person responsible, states “America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish.”
He shoots, he- *clank*
If we are going to be accused of being imperialist empirers, shouldn’t we at least start acting like it?
I didn’t misrepresent what Steyn said; I posted an excerpt from an article which quoted the title of his column. He may or may not have written the title himself; writers sometimes do so in columns. But neither of the passages you cite in the article contradict what I think to be Steyn’s unambiguous advocacy of imperialism. Elsewhere in that same article, Steyn writes: “America has prided itself on being the first non-imperial superpower, but the viability of that strategy was demolished on Sept. 11.” In other words, being “non-imperial” is not the answer. If I were to write, “Not blowing up Florida is not the answer to America’s election difficulties,” for instance, it’s pretty clear that I advocate blowing up Florida.
A bit later: “If neo-colonialism makes you squeamish, give it some wussified Clinto-Blairite name like ”global community outreach.'” This pretty much seals the deal, I think.
Now, if you still want to argue that Steyn is not advocating for a form of imperialism, or not referring to the U.S. as an empire, fine. But what about D’Souza and Boot? Are they not actually advocating for imperialism either? And if they are – or if any pro-Bush pundit is – does this not make the assertion that only “Bush derangement syndrome” can account for describing the U.S. as engaging in imperialism somewhat absurd?
Baracky will make sure there’s no legacy in Iraq for nobody but the Sadr people and Iran. Baracky hearts Iran cause they promise to get rid of that pesky Israel. Baracky’s priorities are a lot different than they are in Andy’s wet dreams. Bless his heart.
“Except that in the very first paragraph of your article, George W Bush, the person at whom BDS is directed and the person who if not making all foreign policy decisions, is the person responsible, states “America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish.â€Â
He shoots, he- *clank*”
Let me try to explain this for you a bit better.
1. Original post asserts that Sullivan must have BDS if he uses terms like “empire” to describe the U.S.
2. I point out that lots of pro-Bush types use terms like “empire” to describe the U.S.
3. You point out that Bush says we aren’t an empire, thus contradicting absolutely nothing I have said and leaving my argument entirely intact as it doesn’t rely on Bush claiming that we are, indeed, an empire.
4. You do a victory lap around your computer for some reason.
5. ???
6. Profit!
There’s a treatment for BDS?
British imperialism did more good than harm, but at least it was real imperialism, unlike the New Imperialism, in which political conversation within the imperial power, two weeks after the invasion, centers around the question of “exit strategy.”
Also, why was Truman so great? I allow that it’s likely my own ignorance, but he seems to get a lot more respect than I know him to have earned. I’ve seen a quote – which Google isn’t finding for me – that indicated that he didn’t consider him especially qualified for his job, and I would like to have more politicians like that. Was his performance as CinC for Korea remarkable in some way? Did he have some domestic policies that I can’t think of? What am I missing?
NPR says America ain’t no empire cause it’s pitiful and everyone hates us and besides we’re rapidly being eclipsed by China and also a bridge fell down in Minnesota. Get with the narrative, Barrett.
But what about D’Souza and Boot? Are they not actually advocating for imperialism either?
You really want to use that argument? That pundits advocating policy constitutes actual policy?
Barrett–get a job. If the U.S. is an empire, riddle me this: That’s up with the whole trade deficit thing and why they hell are we paying four buck a gallon for gas? Permanent bases are a) to project force, b) to protect allies, and c) to serve as tripwires. The sooner everyone quits paying attention to Andrew Sullivan the better.
Steven: Truman recognized that the U.S. could not retreat behind oceans any longer and had to assume the mantle of free world leader. Such an outcome was a very cloe-run thing at the time. That, in a nutshell, is why he is remembered favorably.
Writers rarely, as I understand it, write their own headlines.
That said, I imagine any number of conservatives might have used the word “imperialism” as something they were in favor of in the last seven or so years, but I would think there would have been a hint of irony (possible exception: Ann Coulter; I’m never quite sure whether or not she’s kidding), and I hope you’ve at least considered this. When someone does advocate “imperialism” in the 21st century, I hope you’ll look at the context, and the extent to which what they describe differs from 19th century British imperialism, let alone the even more exploitative forms of imperialism perpetrated by the other European powers.
“You really want to use that argument? That pundits advocating policy constitutes actual policy?”
No, I’m not arguing that at all. I don’t even think that the term “empire” is an accurate description of American policy myself. What I’m saying is that if someone writes that “If you do X, then you have Y,” where X is some criticism of the Bush Administration and Y is BDS, when in fact many people who do X clearly do not have BDS as they are fairly pro-Bush, then the person making that argument is wrong. Again, I’m not saying that Bush advocates empire; I’m saying that some of his supporters do, and thus it’s foolish to single out someone else who also uses the term “empire” and claim that he is somehow deranged.
I was the one who used the word “imperialism”. So I looked it up to make sure I was using it in the proper context.
Imperialism -the policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
We have urged the Iraqi government to share their power through proportional representation, as well as, their oil revenue. How is this economic and political hegemony, i.e., imperialism? Unless of course, you’re saying that we want to colonize Iraq. Help me with my ignorance!
Steven-
I don’t think Sullivan or Boot or Steyn are using the term “empire” to denote something that would closely resemble 19th century Britain. I’m certain that if you asked Sullivan what he means, he would confirm that. Now, if he came out and said, “The U.S. now closely approximates the British Empire or the Roman Empire,” he would be, I think, very wrong. But I think it’s clear that he’s claiming no such thing, just as Steyn and Boot aren’t advocating for any such thing.
Does the UN have an empire in Bosnia?
I think we should make the Clintons hereditary regents of Puerto Rico.
You haven’t been following the arc of Sullivan’s “thoughts”, have you?
Trust me, the guy’s deranged.
Barrett: let’s leave Sullivan and Steyn out of it, then: what are you thinking about as an “empire” when you object to “imperialism”? Specifically, what are you objecting to?
Fastest goalposts I ever saw. We oughta organize a drag race sometime.
Barrett, that does not follow at all.
Andy calls something that isn’t, Empire. Whether non-BDS advocate for actual Empire or not does not mean that having long term bases in any given country is Empire. Calling out having those 50 bases as Empire is a demonstration of BDS, no matter how many right wing pundits wish we would establish some sort of Empire rule, because it is no such thing and it is based on an irrational understanding.
Mad dogs and Pantywaists. ( A tailsline)
“Barrett–get a job. If the U.S. is an empire, riddle me this: That’s up with the whole trade deficit thing and why they hell are we paying four buck a gallon for gas? Permanent bases are a) to project force, b) to protect allies, and c) to serve as tripwires. The sooner everyone quits paying attention to Andrew Sullivan the better.”
First of all, I’ve never claimed that the U.S. is an empire, so while I look for a job, how about you brush up on your reading comprehension?
It might be wise for you to brush up on your history, too. Even though I don’t think that the U.S. is an empire, I do think that your arguments are nonsense, and that you may have come to the correct conclusion by complete accident. You seem to think that an empire simply cannot have (allegedly) high prices on commodities. I would advise you to read the history of the Roman Empire, which often had such things, not to mention terrible inflation. Better yet, why not just think back to twenty years ago when the Soviets had a both an empire and, yes, a paper tiger economy with high prices for certain commodities?
I blew it with the last post by inadvertently erasing a good portion of it. Sullivan is pissed off about Iraq, so he groups all of this other garbage in and labels it a US empire. I don’t care who characterizes what we are doing in the world as imperialism, because it’s not. That led to my rant about Iraq. Amen!
Tomorrow Andrew makes his case on how history should view Lincoln–the carnage, the negligent planning, if only the Copperheads had won in 64 and just gotten out of the South–you know I voted for Lincoln in 1860 but in 64 I had no choice but vote Democrat!!–; Lincoln who really screwed things up and doesn’t deserve a shred of credit for any so-called victory. Just because Grant saved his sad ass in the end, why should we credit Lincoln with anything but psychological problems. Lincoln let Gen. McClellan run the show for how many months? Not to mention–he’s a Christianist. Did you read his second inaugural address!!??!! Of Lincoln I say, tear down the memorial.
“…if the Iraq of 2038 or so is stable, democratic, and at peace with its neighbors,”…I see no reason to congratulate George W. Bush for botching the start of it.
That’s not BDS; that’s just bitchy.
“Barrett: let’s leave Sullivan and Steyn out of it, then: what are you thinking about as an “empire†when you object to “imperialismâ€Â? Specifically, what are you objecting to?”
I’m objecting to Jeff’s assertion that Andrew Sullivan is somehow deranged because he uses a term that lots of people on both sides use in a similar context. I disagree with Sullivan that having a bunch of military bases in the Middle East makes the U.S. an empire. I myself do not see the U.S. as an “empire” and don’t refer to it by term; it is a republic which happens to have quite a few military bases around the world and an active stance on the world scene. But Sullivan does use that term, and so do many conservatives, which is to say that the term is used both by its advocates and detractors, and thus it makes no sense to attack Sullivan simply for using a word that many people use on both sides.
Barrett, that does not follow at all.[…]
Yeah. What she said. Better. Than I could.
Damn.
I’m objecting to Jeff’s assertion that Andrew Sullivan is somehow deranged because he uses a term that lots of people on both sides use in a similar context.
Ooooh. You misunderstand: we think Andy’s deranged in almost any context. ‘sides, I think it was Karl not Jeff.
Excellent post as usual, Jeff, but please turn up the air-conditioning.
“Andy calls something that isn’t, Empire. Whether non-BDS advocate for actual Empire or not does not mean that having long term bases in any given country is Empire. Calling out having those 50 bases as Empire is a demonstration of BDS, no matter how many right wing pundits wish we would establish some sort of Empire rule, because it is no such thing and it is based on an irrational understanding.”
Again, Sullivan is in agreement with the conservative commentators described above that having lots of military bases is a form of empire. Both groups are wrong, but only one side is described as “deranged” for being wrong about this, while those like D’Souza who also say that we have an empire at this very moment are not described as “deranged.” If Sullivan is basing his assertion that we are an empire on an “irrational understanding,” is D’Souza basing his own assertion that we are an empire on an “irrational understanding” as well? Why or why not?
Barrett,
You do have something of a point in the general case. Pontificating pundits (including blog commenters) often use metaphors, or employ words using something other than their primary meaning. It is part of what we get along with the Artistic License®; check clause 2.204.1(b) which specifically authorizes such hijinks.
HOWEVER — and this is important — in this specific case, and from the context of the piece, Sullivan is clearly stating (or, more properly, shrieking about, as is his wont since the HIV drugs kicked in) that fifty permanent military bases constitute an Imperial possession. Not even Ann Coulter at her most acerbic and jingoistic would make such a clearly false-to-fact claim. In fact, she would probably sneer at such a meagre incursion into the affairs of Iraq.
We are not jeering at the claim. We are jeering at Sullivan for making the claim, since it is so obviously silly. It is something we do here. “Excitable Andy” so frequently goes ballistic over trifles that it gives us hours of enjoyment.
Regards,
Ric
Given that D’Souza’s quote is from 2002, and we don’t have the whole quote, just an extract, I suspect he was using it in an ironic sense in response to allegations that the US deserved its current situation because it was an empire. At the very least, he is qualifying how the US is different from historical empires. Until I see a quote from the interventionist right (as opposed to the paleoconservative isolationist crypto-libertarian right) with a link to provide source and context, I doubt anyone on the side of the administration is using the term Imperial or Empire to describe the US. The term is loaded, and has become further loaded in the hands of those that use it as an all-purpose invective. In that respect, it’s kind of like the term fascist.
We think Sullivan has BDS because of all the stuff he’s said in the past. This quote is just further reinforcement.
Fair enough; I guess Andrew Sullivan doesn’t have many fans on either the left or right. But you have to admit that his blog is a great source for learning about internet memes that everyone already knew about six months.
… ago. Oops.
this weekend sure appears to have agitated some folks.
Brownie – If anyone suggest that we are imperialists, or an empire, they deserve to be ignored, or mocked. The ability to note that Sully is dereanged is not based only on this most recent blather. His body of work speaks for itself.
Well, personally, I think one can say the same thing about D’Souza, who has an unfortunate tendency to say nice things about Shariah law, and who, as I’ve mentioned several times, throws around the term “empire” just like Max Boot does. But we’ll have to agree to disagree. Anyway, thanks for the debate, all.
This reminds me of a story about a friend of mine who was an operator for AT&T.
She used to get a lot of collect calls from prisoners in the Bridgeport jail, and one time said “excuse me? I didn’t catch that number.”
The prisoner on the other end yelled at her and said: “Whatsa matter lady? You got a dick in your ear?”.
She shut the phone down, and about fifteen minutes later, when she turned it back on, the first call was from the same guy, making a collect call. After he gave her the number, she said: “Excuse me? Excuse me? I can’t hear you. I’ve got a dick in my ear”.
Sounds like Sully has a dick in both ears. Diversity, ya know?
“I didn’t misrepresent what Steyn said; I posted an excerpt from an article which quoted the title of his column.”
Indeed. You should have read his column instead of quoting the headline which he did not write and attributing it to him.
Again, I will cite the key passage of Steyn’s column: “For its own security, it needs to do what it did to Tojo’s Japan and Hitler’s Germany after the war”
Can American activity in Germany and Japan following WWII, in any sense of the word, be described as “imperialism?” Or are you and Sullivan allowed to redefine the word to mean whatever you want it to mean to make your point?
And again, I will cite what I consider to be the actual key passage of Steyn’s column: “America has prided itself on being the first non-imperial superpower, but the viability of that strategy was demolished on Sept. 11.†Please tell me what you think that Steyn means by this.
Easy, wolf. Barrett has clearly stated that he does not believe that US activities since WWII constitute “imperialism”. Don’t snarl until your tail’s stepped on — it disturbs pizza deliverypersons and other innocent visitors.
Regards,
Ric
Also, I should point out that I’ve stated very clearly several times in the last 30 minutes that I don’t agree with Sullivan about the U.S. being an empire, so perhaps you should stop claiming that I do agree with Sullivan about the U.S. being an empire.
Dear God, people are defending me before I can defend myself. This political debate is in severe danger of becoming polite and thus violating several internet bylaws.
– It appears Hillery’s butt fucking at the hands of the DNC gestapo yesterday have pushed some of the moonbat contengent over the cliff.
– And Excitable A…..Well hes in danger of running out of usable, miss-applied terms that he can morph into some sort of anti-Bush pejorative rant, in this case, using the US policy as the surrogate.
– But he does love him the troops.
– Sometimes it seems like being a true Imperialism might not be such a bad idea. It would lend some measure of truth to the Lefts idiotic screeds, and I wouldn’t have to cash my paycheck at the gas station.
It’s like how Baracky’s church isn’t worthy of denouncing maybe. Is the Middle East really worthy of for real imperializing? They’ve got a ways to go I think. They could start by reading more. And making things. And maybe getting a sense of humor.
“Is the Middle East really worthy of for real imperializing?”
They have dates. As in, the edible kind. Not actual dates. Only the Lebanese and Egyptians have those.
– And Vrownie. If you hang around here long enough you will find that the PW sorp is as quick to defend anyone badly misjudged, as they are to debate you vociferously if they think your doing the tin-hat troll dance.
– Call it the charm of the place. That and Dan doesn’t drink that much anymore. The Leprechauns finally got to him I think.
– Ummmm….edible dates. (Does she have a sister?)
“That and Dan doesn’t drink that much anymore.”
We all have our shortcomings.
I love dates. We make some here in California though. Those Ramadan lantern thingies are festive though. I might get some for Christmas.
The US isn’t imperialist. That’s not because we’re nice guys; it’s because we’re lazy asses who want to make money. People who sling the word around are either being ironic or are pretty stupid. Leftists who don’t have any separate categories for capitalistimperialistexploiter fall into the latter category.
There are lots of places in the world that could benefit from genuine imperialism on the part of the United States — Zimbabwe, e.g. But we’re too lazy to manage ourselves properly; why should we be willing to pay to straighten other people out? Effum. Note that this does not mean we aren’t willing, even eager, to make a buck off ’em as they go down, but that isn’t at all the same thing.
Regards,
Ric
Damn, I wish we were Empire building. Instead of an Army officer I’d be an Imperial Stormtrooper officer with a cape and shit. Can you imagine me, in a bar, with my cape on? Can you imagine the pooty I’d be attracting? Seriously, would you guys even let me buy my own drinks? Because when I wasn’t building empires I’d be a cape-wearing, pooty-gettin’, non-buying drinker of alcoholic beverages. Basically what I’m saying is I would support The Empire if for no other reason than the cape, the ass, and the drinks.
/thanks in advance for those drinks.
“Note that this does not mean we aren’t willing, even eager, to make a buck off ‘em as they go down, but that isn’t at all the same thing.
– Just whom is this “we” you speak of pale face. I, for one, am still waiting for my kickback check from Exxon.
“First of all, I’ve never claimed that the U.S. is an empire”
Then please explain why you have your panties in such a twist.
What’s wrong with imperialism, anyway?
I, for one, am still waiting for my kickback check from Exxon.
Mine comes every 90 days. Re-invested, of course.
Whosoever wins the election will do exactly what Petraeus says.
So that they can take credit.
Petraeus is, however, going to do what Sayeed Ali al-Sistani says.
and that looks like drawdown to me.
;)
hey Jeff.
did Satch have a good time?
Thanks, ‘feets! I’ma go clean up all this pale ale now. Fucker.
Hey, wait a minute! Is it Jeff or is it Karl? It looks like Karl and he’s in the headline, but the “Posted by” says Jeff G.
Whassup?
Folks,
Dont waste any more time on Andrew Sullivan’s bitching about “Empire” – there was a time when i actually read his blog with the hope that he did not have idealogical blinders on – but ever since he became a fairweather fan of the Iraq war and the biggest cheerleader for that piece of shit that goes by the name BHO, he has lost what ever respect he had.
It is indeed the height of irony that a British Tory is spewing such utter gibberish about Empires – coming from India, the “jewel of the British crown” I know a thing or two about how the British Empire worked. I was born a good 29 years after India’s independence but history class right from the 5th grade tells you how the Empire functioned. It essentially did what Rudyard Kipling called the “white mans burden” i.e. civilizing 3000 year old civilizations like India and China. Let me go over quickly what an Empire does
a. It makes sure that its colonies swear allegiance to the Crown. The representative of the British Crown ( The Viceroy) has the ultimate auothority on any and every political decision made in the colony.
b. Taxes are levied by the Crown and its subjects are expected to pay up or go to jail – Boston tea parties are strictly prohibited
c. When the “Crown” is attacked by its enemies, soldiers from the colonies are expected to join in the war efforts – in fact they exist solely to serve the Empire.
d. It controls just about every aspect of the economy – a very unfortunate aspect which affected India’s economic policies well after Independence and still does.
The US “occupation” of Iraq comes now where close. It does provide security for the country but it is not going to be doing this for ever – when the Iraqi army does stand up as it is beginning to, its involvement is going to diminish. the recent victories of the Iraqi army in Basrah and Sadr city is the best demonstration of this fact.
I dont see the Iraqi Parliament conducting its business in English ( if I am not wrong Arabic is the official language in their Parliament). Iraqis are not paying taxes to the Federal Govt – if any thing the US is pouring billions of dollars in to this effort much to the resentment of many Americans who would rather see it spent on national health insurace, Katrina, global warming or any other latest socialist fad.
The US is not exactly trying to “civlize” Iraq by teaching them baseball. Believe me, this was the excuse that the Brits had when they introduced cricket and tea to its “uncivilized” subjects.
To be fair, they did give us the Indian Civil Service and created the infrastructure for a railway system – but ahem, you need a giant bureaucracy and a transportation system (to transfer goods and materials) to run a fricking Empire.
If the US could get the constantly bickering parties in Iraq to sit down like adults and settle their disputes, that would be huge. There does seem to be an effort on the part of Iraqi politicians to get their act together now ( their oil redistribution laws, ex-Baathists re-entering civil service, Sunnis getting into the Iraqi army etc) but a lot remains to be done. A true Empire would not be sitting back and hoping and cajoling the conflicting parties to sort things out.
There are a few more things but i dont want to bore any one with more details. I would conclude by saying that Andrew Sullivan has indeed lost his fricking mind and has no effing idea of what he is talking about.
But then again, drinking from the Messiah koolaid can do this to any one. Btw, if any one noticed he has said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on Obama having disowned the African American community – just how many more people are going to be thrown under the bus for this crook ?
And this guy is supposedly the “conservative of doubt”. I doubt if he is still a conservative at all – if you back a Marxist for President i dont know how you can still keep saying that.
Sullivan is funny fellow, and was wrong many of times.
And sure is excitable. Plenty.
But one thing he is right about- Bush will never get any distinction in history as a good president. Never. Not even like Truman, Karl.
And you can blame that on convenient disease of BDS if you like, but just be careful the infection is widespread and majority are already affected by it…..
All this over a word. Am I the only one that thinks its an outstanding idea to have a large presence in that part of the world?
We should actually pull from Germany and other places we’ve stayed long enough at and move them where they’re needed. The middle east.
– Buffoon – In general we try to go soft on making common sense statements like that. As I pointed out earlier, HillBots skewering by the DNC yesterday has enough moonbat heads exploding as it is, and any more observations about their craziness will make the mess impossible to clean up with even the best spot remover.
You know, I can’t really figure out why exactly an empire is always considered a bad thing.
Are you nuts? It’s like having a kid or being a sin-eater; once you step in it, you’re in.
St. Paul, arrested for evangelizing, said
“civis romanus sum” (latin scholars feel free to correct), which is to say, “I am a Roman citizen” which meant, in context, he had the right to be taken to Rome for trial.
That’s empire. Imagine say, an Iraqi arrested for fraud and demanding, as a US citizen, to be taken to the US for trial.
Or a German, or a Japanese, or a ….
You see my point.
Empires are empires. What we have going is not an empire.
Then it must be a franchise.
“Citizen of Rome I am.” Sounds like Yoda.
You know, the Iraqis have an issue they take it to the board of Iraqis
R Us and get it resolved! Simplicity itself.
oh its Karl.
:(
Basically, Andy agrees with North Korean propaganda if he thinks that South Korea is occupied by the U.S.
Just as he believes Arab and Euro-lefty propaganda if he thinks Iraq is part of an American “empire.”
We’d have cheaper gas if that were true.
– We’d have cheaper gas, AND those Exxon kickback checks I referred to earlier.
– (Couldn’t we have just a tiny little sort of empire….Just for a little while….We could promise to give it back. Please.)
Well, I dunno that we’d have cheaper gas. ISTM that in an industrial economy, imperialism doesn’t pay, it costs. Imagine the army of Dedicated Public Servants™ we’d have to have over there to manage it, and the sepoys to protect it, and and and… Production cost would be the least of the worries in that case.
And cynn, you imagine you’re joking I think, but “franchise” really isn’t a bad way to put it. In a Japanese McDonalds you can get rice ball, and German ones serve beer with the hamburger. We know our system works — not perfectly; it does make smoke and grinding noises and throw off sparks from time to time, but it somehow manages to chug along — and has for two hundred years, which is really rather remarkable; the wonderful civilized French are on #5 officially, plus a couple of other tries in the same period of time. We know it isn’t perfectly suited to everybody else, but why not start with it and modify for local conditions instead of trying to invent a brand new one for every instance?
Regards,
Ric
sashal,
I didn’t say that Bush may get regarded like Truman (though he might if Iraq turns out better than Korea). I said Sullivan is probably scared that it might happen.
everyone who confused me with Jeff G,
Understandable in this case because the bottom of the post says Jeff G. I have no explanation for that whatsoever. Either Jeff tinkered with the post in some way not apparent to me, of (more likely) WordPress had a hiccup.
Petraeus is, however, going to do what Sayeed Ali al-Sistani says.
and that looks like drawdown to me.
You get most of your news from Iranian Public Radio now, nishfong?
She certainly isn’t getting her news from the Obama campaign:
Whosoever wins the election will do exactly what Petraeus says.
Obama says the exact opposite.
She has been crowing about that Sistani story over in the Pub. The super genius scientist is too fucking dense to realize the only source for it is the Iranian government. I hope she is a bit more discerning with the data on all those top secret defense projects she is working on.
nishi needs to move. The nuon flux where she lives clearly isn’t sufficient to support progressive life.
We look at separation of Church and State from the point of view of having watched the Roman Church f* up Europe for a millenium and a half, and conclude that involving the religious as religious in Government is likely to produce poor results. Ali al-Sistani sees it from the other side; from his point of view, religious people who get involved in Government are sloughing off their responsibilities, and need to get back to their jobs providing religious and moral instruction to the people. That’s why he’s in Iraq, instead of back home helping his brother mullahs run Iran. The two approaches don’t lead to exactly the same place, but even if we can’t get on the same page we can agree on the chapter, at least.
No matter what FARS and IRNA say, Sistani isn’t going to start interfering directly in how things go from a secular-government standpoint — the way he sees it, he’d be abrogating his real responsibilities if he did. His objection to Americans is that they make his real job harder by tempting Iraqis with liquor and free speech, and he wishes they’d go away and stop doing that. This is not the same thing as “Kick the bastards out!”, but the distinction is probably too fine for nishi to grasp.
She has, of course, grasped that Obama is lying through his teeth. She’s going by the rule that a lie says nothing whatever, and is projecting her own prejudices into the vacuum. It seems to be the thing to do lately on that side of the aisle.
Regards,
Ric
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Attendee: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, peace – shut up!
Reg: There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all.
Dissenter: Uh, well, one.
Reg: Oh, yeah, yeah, there’s one. But otherwise, we’re solid.
There is no treatment for BDS. Time will not heal it. It doesn’t matter how history treats Bush. All that is irrelevant. BDS sufferers will take the syndrome with them to their graves. Beyond the grave, actually. Forever. They’ll do their level best to inculcate everybody around them while they’re still alive. Everybody will receive a dosage of venom at every opportunity. Where opportunities don’t exist, they’ll be created. Every political discussion will lead straight to a Bush-related screed. I have seen the future, and the future said, “We haven’t enough Freuds on the planet, nor a geologic age to fix this, so we’ve abandoned even trying.” For my own sanity I’ve accepted it as a fact of present day and future life.
I hope she is a bit more discerning with the data on all those top secret defense projects she is working on.
Wouldn’t want the “Mini-Me Project” to go tragically astray.
But one thing he is right about- Bush will never get any distinction in history as a good president. Never. Not even like Truman, Karl.
And you can blame that on convenient disease of BDS if you like, but just be careful the infection is widespread and majority are already affected by it…..
The D is for “Derangement” sasha. It’s an English word. Look it up. But you’re so deranged, you won’t realize how stupid your comment is.
Oh Alp, why so surly so early. Might a warm cup of vanilla biscotti java harsh your morning meanies. Whole bean, just gound, c’mon, I’ll even let you drink from the sacred O! mug.
Wouldn’t want the “Mini-Me Project†to go tragically astray.
heh. But shouldn’t it be called “Mini-Ni”?
“heh. But shouldn’t it be called “Mini-Niâ€Â?”
Naw, it’d be “Stupid ni”.
Just like the original.
Or maybe Ninni-Ni?
Jeff –
“Long-term bases” refers to the construction techniques employed rather than the intended time US troops will be stationed on said base.
So, we’re using concrete rather than sheet metal.
Big, effin’ whoop.
Sully’s misread of the phrase probably has some “signifier/signified” thingie in it somewhere, but – eff it – Sully’s gone off on a rant without understanding the basics of the discussion.
What’s new.
Oh Alp, why so surly so early. Might a warm cup of vanilla biscotti java harsh your morning meanies. Whole bean, just gound, c’mon, I’ll even let you drink from the sacred O! mug.
I’ve been tired of sasha’s Bush-hate boner poking in and creating awkward silence for some time now. Maybe he should dip his Bush Derangement Stiffy into an O! mugful of iced-clue.
….and my hip hurts.
Wow, sashal can see the future!
Any notions of how a man might make money on the NBA Finals, sash?
Incidentally, Truman’s approval rating when he left office in January of 1953 was lower than Richard Nixon’s in August of 1974 — 22% to 24%. There’s absolutely no way we can tell how History will view W. Sometimes I suspect he’ll end up rather like Cicero, who destroyed the Catiline conspiracy so effectively that everyone later wondered why he made such a big deal of it.
But then, the War on Terror looks to be as long a fight as the Cold War, so the Truman analogy remains apt.
But I suppose people think their vehemence is of such pitch and moment that it is new.
Andrew Sullivan is losing his grip… on Glen Greenwald’s back hair.
Remember “no blood for oil”? If the USA wants an empire, and if we went to war in Iraq to get their oil, then where’s my oil?
[…] once asked how having 50 long-term bases in Iraq was not empire, only to adopt a modified, limted hang-out […]