[extended reply to the Left Coasters here – ed]
From Jim Geraghty at TKS (via Allah):
Reaction at the liberal blog, The Left Coaster, to the latest message from al-Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri:
I have to admit it is fun to see Al Qaeda play Bush like a violin.
Revealing.
Left Coaster also discusses the NYT body armor story, addressed here by Conferederate Yankee, as well as the relative dearth in new jobs created in December (an interesting spin for an unemployment rate that fell below 5%). But be that as it may.
What I find most telling about posts such as Left Coaster’s (in addition to the affected tone of smug resignation directed at “obvious” errors made by those who it is fair to assume understand foreign policy and the mechanics of waging war quite a bit better than anti-war pundits) is that they are almost invariably circular in nature and pinned to “realities” that they have been at great odds to help “create” and propagate.
Perception, to those like Left Coaster, is reality—but perception itself is driven largely by a rhetorical campaign carried out by many in the legacy media, by virtually every major player in the modern Democratic caucus, and by apparatchiks like Left Coaster himself. Time and again we see those like Left Coaster or Kos or others pushing polls as objective proof of their own assertions, even as they unabashedly cheerlead for their fellow travelers to actively participate in (and, in some notorious cases, overparticipate) those very same online polls. The result being that they then tout those polls as proof that “the public” overwhelmingly supports their position.
More scientific polls present a different and more complex set of problems (including Democrats often being overdetermined among the respondents), but thus far have shown nothing too suprising—they tend to break down along partisan lines, with Democrats and left-liberals polling virtually in lockstep against the President, while some conservatives upset about the border issue, or with over-spending, will break from the GOP for purposes of being polled (the paleocons who disapprove of Bush, and the Lieberman Dems who approve of the President, cancel each other out). Hence, you see in a nation roughly divided, the President moving between 42-47% approval—though several percentage points that militate against the President’s approval rating are unavailable to Democrats in any election (the best they can hope for being a strong, right-leaning third party candidate to pull those votes from Republicans, or that certain social cons or right-leaning libertarians decide to stay home on election day to protest some “compassionate conservative” program or other).
These polls are further skewed on important issues by the general tenor and message of the high-circulation meda when it comes to their framing of stories; Iraq, for instance, has been portrayed almost universally as a minor mess and, at its worst, a complete and unrecoverable quagmire”—with negative stories and coalition deaths overrepresented by an enormous ratio when compared to coverage of the less sexy and slow moving positive news coming out of the region (positive news that has been covered extensively by Michael Yon, or Austin Bay, or Bill Roggio, or Arthur Chrenkoff, and Mudville Gazette, among other non-traditional outlets).
Only recently, in fact, the problem with polling as indicative of nothing more than rhetorically-driven and partisan-finessed “truth”—of a manufactured perception trumping empirical reality—was clearly illustrated in the competing polls over the NSA “domestic spying” non-story: The Rasmussen poll (discussed at some length here) vs. the Zogby poll, which added an interesting twist (one that Zogby, to his credit, acknowledged):
The inclusion of the president in the question appears key, says John Zogby, the pollster. When Bush becomes part of the equation in polling, political polarization comes to the fore. “Since the president is at the core of the issue, we felt it legitimated the question by putting his name in there,†Mr. Zogby says.
In the Zogby poll—where the President was specifically named, the electorate was split; in the Rasmussen poll, which more properly dealt with powers granted the office of the Presidency—which is what the question really should be, the poll numbers shifted dramatically in favor of the Executive branch—as clear an indication as possible that partisan politics is playing a dramatic role even in questions of our national security.
Then today, we find that Left Coaster actually enjoys that the US Commander in Chief in a time of war is supposedly being “played like a violin” by al Qaeda—that those who have vowed to kill us and who slaughter civilians on a whim have supposedly outmaneuvered the President and the military in Iraq, the proof being that Zawahiri appears to be following the Democratic-narrative that any withdraw of troops should be seen as a defeat for the US, an acknowledgment that we are losing the war, and are so succumbing to pressure both from the insurgents and the Democratic party leadership (who, on this particular issue, seem to be on the very same page).
Of course, this is a rhetorical ploy—another instance of an attempt to have perception trump reality—as the Democrat leadership (led by their military hero poster child, Jack Murtha) rushed around in advance of the latest elections (and in anticipation of the likely strong voter turnout) demanding a draw down of US troops on the patently false assertion that the war in Iraq was being lost, even while they knew such a draw down was inevitable (reality is granted to those who control the dominant narrative and assert its truthfulness. That such can be done purposely and cynically—and with full knowledge that the narrative is manufactured to persuade rather than to inform—is simply part of the game.
Which is why it is imperative that those of us who are concerned that epistemology not simply become a playground for those with the biggest bullhorn and a philosophy that unabashedly adopts a strategy whereby the ends justify the means, must consistently and painstakingly point out the rhetorical gambits and animating power structures that drives what orchestrated oppo research hopes will become ossified narratives—“contingent truths”—which increase in power over time and with pedagogical canonization, airbrushing of inconvenient counterclaims, and repetition.
****
update: Jane Hamsher fires back with a post titled, “Jeff Goldstein Better Make Damn Sure He Wants To Get Into a Right/Left Wackjob Posting Contest”, which post consists of a graphic of the Flight 93 Memorial design done up as a Red Crescent—the suggestion being…well, who knows, exactly? Is Hamsher implying that those who thought the controversial Flight 93 Memorial design bore too close a resemblance to an Islamic crescent (a conclusion at least some of them based on the design’s original title and the designer’s public proclamations and political leanings) are somehow of a piece with those who take admitted joy in the possibility that al Qaeda’s number two may be getting over on Chimpy McHitlerburton by closely parrotting the talking points of Murtha, Dean, Reid, Kennedy, and Pelosi—or by following the foreign policy advice of Kos or Cindy Sheehan? Or is she saying Steve Soto is some fringe ”Left Wackjob”?
Either way, I’m not saying Zawahiri’s meta-ironic transnational wink isn’t an absolute scream to those with the proper mindset. Just that, well—I’m not sure I see the connection to the Memorial, is all.
However, I will remind readers of my own take on the Flight 93 Memorial, which can be found here and here (discussions continue on throughout the comments).
Of course, as one commenter over at Hamsher’s site noted when I pointed out my earlier posts: “too much grad school.” Seems “nuance” and “intellectualism” are only permitted when they are introduced into the discussion by our blue state betters; otherwise, it’s mere bourgeois posturing—a strained affectation to be dismissed without so much as a second thought, much like “progressive” humanists dismiss the white trash blue collar laborors they pretend to champion at the precise moment that white trash blue collar laboror has the temerity to walk out of book on sociology or economic theory and into one of their salons in his mudcaked Timberlands and a pair of dirty Carhart overalls.
After all, ideology is one thing. But please. That smell!
Jeff,
You’re smarter than I am. I’m just stuck with pointing out that the left’s talking points mirror Al Qeada’s because, at least as far as Iraq goes, they have adopted Al Qeada’s goals. They are quite simply, on Al Qeada’s side. I fear their lunacy over the NSA matter indicates they are on Al Qeada’s side here in the US as well. If that’s the postion they choose, fine. I’m not going to be worried when they call foul when I point it out.
I also figure, that if you’re a Republican, (I confess, I’m not) that this is the best time for the left to lurch off into out right terrorist-cheerleading. This sort of thing makes it all the more certain that the 2006 elections aren’t going to turn out how the left, and most in the media, hope. If they really expect Union memebers, part of the Democratic party’s core constituency to re-elect those who make a habit of applauding, agreeing with, and cheering for Al Qeada they have slipped very far off the rails indeed.
Hey, at least they are consistant. They proudly joined forces with Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min, Mao, Castro, Sandanistas, ad nauseum. They have been steadily on the wrong side of history now for over 50 years. Why break a truly pathetic losing streak now?
There is an objective reality. What distorts that reality are our own experiences and preconceptions. What we wish to be true, rather than what is actually true. It’s a human failing, no matter what your politics are.
Sure, Jon. But that’s a rather toothless observation at this point. The question now for postmodern ironists is, how do we take the lessons of the linguistic turn and cynically turn them to our power advantage? I have been at pains to bring us back to a coherent system of signification, because I feel it is that breakdown in the understanding of how language works that allows the current cynical milieu in which will, power, assertion, and a coalition of fellow-travelers conspire to determine “truth”—Walter Benjamin’s idea of the victors getting to write history. Only now, “history” is being written on the fly (by way of a partisan narrative bolstered by a complicit press) in order to ensure and determine victory.
Ironically, those engaging in such a procedure most cynically and unabashedly are the first to decry the use of, say, military propaganda as part of a strategy toward bringing freedom and an enlightened humanism to some very bad parts of the world. That is, when humanism and enlightenment tries to play the pomo game and clear the grounds for “creating” a beneficial reality, these hegemonic ideological impulses are excoriated for breaking their own rules of succeeding without subterfuge. Whereas overt Rortian ideas about contingency, irony, and solidarity – insofar as they are embraced as legitimate – allow for those very same procedures to massage perception and create a provisional “reality.”
Applied postmodern theoretics serve to elevate epistemological contingency to an universal certaintly—one that deliminates other ideologies that don’t share its philosophical skepticism. It’s anti-ideologism is, in fact, the most pervasive proof that those who profess it are themselves disguised ideologues.
That’s the ultimate irony.
Allah,
Does Ace know you’re feeding Goldstein too?
“They proudly joined forces with Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min, Mao, Castro, Sandanistas, ad nauseum.”
You’re leaving out a few—Saddam, for example, but otherwise, a point well-taken. The left cares nothing about anything but attacking their political enemies, be it Reagan, Bush, or Eisenhower. Why would we expect anything different at this point?
Outstanding writing.
If the Left Coasters of the world think that their deconstructionist take on the war will help them win the Congress, they are certainly welcome to try. There are signs that the narrative Jeff speaks of is coming unraveled what with the shocking revelation by Stephen Hayes today of massive involvement by Saddam in terrorist training.
There may be other surprises in those 2,000,000 documents that would further undermine the left’s dominant narrative. Stay tuned.
The left during Vietnam was very fond of Sen. Aiken’s “declare victory and come home” approach, while assuming that noone would actually interpret the declaration as an accurate description of reality. Zawahiri knows the war is lost for AQ if it continues on its current path. Thus his statement, which he hopes will alter perception to the point where the facts on the ground actually change. What else can he do? The amazing thing is that the halfwits on the Left actually believe, or at least want to believe that what he says is true. Pathetic.
I would like to encourage everyone to leave a comment over at the left coaster. I’ve kinda got it in my head the enemy needs to be engaged at every oppurtunity, and that bunch are definatly the enemy.
OH, and it’s fun!
TW-“his” head seems to be up “his” ass.(a twofer!)
Great point, Jeff, just as the Post-Modern Right is obviously truly represented by Pat Robertson, proving that all Conservatives joyfully wish Sharon will die for abandoning Gaza.
Of course, the poor under-represented bullhorn-less Conservatives would never adopt a strategy whereby the ends justify the means, like illegally spying on Americans to catch terrorists.
Nice try, Jimbo, but Robertson’s in a distinct minority. Characters like the Left Coaster, Kos, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid et al., OTOH are as common as the grains of sand on a beach.
Who do you really think you’re kidding here?
jim your fellow travellers are in positions of leadership unlike roberts who freakin hosts a television show. you are a moral equivalacating fool. objectively, if you don’t want our side to win and you are spouting the othersides apologetics then you are fucking cheering for for them if not actually helping them towards accomplishing their goals.
regards
Jim,
The difference is, Robertson was roundly critisized by pretty much everyone on the right for saying such an assinine thing(I keep waiting for the bolt of lightning to take him out for presuming to speak for God). You, however, made no effort to condemn the treasonous(can assissting the enemy in thier propaganda during war be anything less?)statements of your compadres. Thanks for illistrating the poverty of intellectual honesty on your side.
TW-I never “met” a Bushhater I didn’t agree with.
not to mention the fact that no Americans have been illegally spied on to catch terrorists.
You think you got problems?
Three words: “Al Di Matto”
(and yeah, I misspelled that guido’s shit)
welcome to my Hell.
Hmmm.
What really are they thinking of? That they’ll somehow capture the Presidency in 2008 and then be in a position to take credit for Iraq assuming it improves by then?
Would the American public actually buy that?
The only ones being “played like a violin” are the Democrats. Amazingly it does not strike them as odd that Bin Laden’s last message just before the 2004 election was right out of Kerry’s playbook: followed several days later by a resounding defeat. Subsequent missives from Zawahiri have followed suit, right up to the Murtha-Reid-Pelosi meme that the draw down (announced many months ago to those who were actually paying attention) is a defeat. Laughable.
The ones being played are the Democrats. Al Qaeda continues to misread the American public, acting as if what they hear and see in the MSM is representative. It is not and this mistaken assumption gives Bush a distinct advantage—if he remains immune to NY/DC criticism. And there’s little reason to think that he’ll change at this point.
Anytime I get to feeling too confident about that answer, I remember just how many have voted for Billy Jeff Clinton and even more amazingly, how many voted for that complete treasonous stiff, Jean Francois Kerry…
tw: blue… Yep.
I’ve always seen the parroting of Leftist points by such as Zwahiri simply as yet more evidence that Leftist ideology does work—but only if your purpose is to rationalize tyranny.
That would explain a lot about history, no? For instance, why it was called “National Socialism” instead of “National Capitalism”? It renders irrelevant the question of whether German and Russian totalitarianism really were technically “socialist” or not; the fact remains that the philosophical nature of such doctrines makes them idally suited for the purpose of establishing said tyrannies.
Someday we’ll realize that’s all they were ever meant for.
If a terrorist watches CNN and reads the New York Times, he could reasonably be expected to believe that at the moment he stands up (with his five friends) in the cabin of a U.S. domestic flight he’s about to hijack, he’s already got half the passengers on his side.
Sad, isn’t it?
TW: hes. “He’s got Allah AND the DNC on his side.”
Jim’s right. I mean, look at all the right-leaning blogs who jumped to defend and rationalize what Patsy said.
They were everywhere!
Right?
As I’ve said elsewhere, we should stay in Iraq at least as long as it took to bring democracy to France, Germany and Japan.
And if you want to express your appreciation for the troops…
In first class, yeh, probably. Best not start their run back in coach, though.
I rather liked what Lileks said about that:
This is postmodern momentâ€â€where reality is granted to those who control the dominant narrative and assert its truthfulness. That such can be done purposely and cynicallyâ€â€and with full knowledge that the narrative is manufactured to persuade rather than to informâ€â€is simply part of the game.
“Winning and losing are events in the minds of the participants.”
Reality – when it comes to “winning” a war such as this – isn’t determined by military might, but precisely by the narrative spun on the use of that might. Al Qaeda is playing for the Muslim audience, and it is winning on the fight to implant two memes “America is on a crusade to dominate the Middle East for its own benefit” and “Superpowers can be worn out by Muslims brave and tenacious”.
You turkeys just don’t get that, do you? Every piece of “collateral damage” is a victory to your enemy.
For instance, why it was called “National Socialism†instead of “National Capitalism�
Why do those calling themselves “Republicans” seek to anoint Bush as a king?
[Chosen One kicks Wimp-Lo in the face. Wimp-Lo does a pose]
Wimp Lo: Ha! Face to foot style, how do you like it?
Chosen One: I’m sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: this is Earth.
“You turkeys just don’t get that, do you? Every piece of “collateral damage†is a victory to your enemy.”
Perhaps the enemies think it so, but does that make it so? Can Al Qaeda murder their way into being supported and successful? Won’t those scraping up family body parts eventually lean towards those who kill innocent Muslims inadvertantly rather than those who kill their coreligionists with glee?
As to annointing Bush king, you should refamiliarize yourself with the powers granted to the executive branch by the U.S. Constitution, Article II.
And another thing you morons will never understand.
Only half of America mourns American deaths in Iraq while the rest of us just see them as proof of what fools you really are.
And just why might that be, Sparky?
It’s because for the first time in history, the victor in a war left the country they defeated in almost as good a shape as before they went in. Now people look at Baghdad and they don’t see a conquered and rebuilding nation ala Germany or Japan. They merely see a normal Saturday night in most Paris suburbs.
IOW, it is precisely that there is anything left standing to actually suffer “collateral damage” that people like you can spin this as anything but the most successful military victory in history.
In essence, you are arguing for a more agressive, more destructive war next time.
Nice going.
Good God where have you been?
We have been saying the left don’t care about military deaths other than to use as a political tool for years now.
But thanks for confirming that for us.
Of course, the residents of Berlin were surprised as hell when they turned out for the victory parade and saw all those T-34’s…
wait, wait, wait, you’re american now?
Yeah, I’m with TomB. We DO understand this.
See, anyone who points out what a royal fuckup it was to invade eye-rack and to literally leave mountains of explosives unguarded (even though the locations had been documented by UN weapons inspectors, oh wait, that happened while Klintoon was in office, so it must be ignored or diametrically opposed) somehow “hates the troops.” Funny, I don’t remember reading about how great a strategy that was in Clausewitz or Sun-Tsu.
No, all that ordnance and a country whose borders were drawn by an imperial power in a way to make sure that ethnic and sectarian strife would be a fact of life (divide and conquer, anyone?)was not going to be a problem because boss dick said it would be a “cake walk.”
Gosh-darn, I guess the boys in the Badr Brigade and ansar-al-Islam were too busy remembering getting suckered by Poppy into rising up against Sadam after GW1 instead of watching McDonald’s commercials like they was ‘sposed to.
Meanwhile, putting some magnetic ribbon on the back of your car shows how much you care. I’m so touched. Remember the plan to cut combat pay becuase “Iraq wasn’t dangerous anymore”? Charges for hospital meals? Funding cuts to VA services for rehablitation and counseling?
Oh well, David Brooks (CEO of DHB Industries – maker of defective body armor) needed some way to make enough cash to have 50 Cent and Aerosmith at his daughter’s bat mitzvah.
Chickenhawks are go!
“ Only half of America mourns American deaths in Iraq while the rest of us just see them as proof of what fools you really are.”
wait, wait, wait, you’re american now?
I didn’t write that, obviously. Someone is spoofing the site.
Of course, the residents of Berlin were surprised as hell when they turned out for the victory parade and saw all those T-34’s…
I hate to point this out, but WWII was over 60 years ago. You’re not fighting the Wehrmacht. Occupying the capital does not win the game, but merely makes you a bigger target.
What next – are you going to claim you’re winning because you have spiffier formal uniforms and flashier medals?
Can Al Qaeda murder their way into being supported and successful?
The same question applies to the US. However, unlike the US, Al Qaeda does not need support in Iraq to be successful in their objectives. They do not need the oil, and they do not necessarily need a friendly government installed.
And just why might that be, Sparky?
Because this is fourth generation warfare. Unfortunately for your little wankfest about how wonderful the US has been for Iraq, the Soviets also recently fought a 4GW in Afghanistan – and lost.
I see this as a glass that is half-full, Phoney, not half empty: half of America still retains a sense of duty and has a solid connection to reality. What a surprise that you rejoice in the half-empty perspective.
Oh, and those who don’t mourn the deaths (any deaths, Coalition, American, or Iraqi [but excluding the terrorists]) in Iraq? They are the fools. Not to mention self-centered and selfish.
So you see no difference between the Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Iraq?
That speaks volumes.
Afghanistan? Isn’t that the place we invaded a few years ago? I believe that we are still there. Maybe we did learn something from the Soviets…..and your anti-American bias is too intense for you to admit the possibility.
“And another….fools you really are”
unfreaking believaable. as ace would put it. “I think piator just split an atom ……..WITH HIS MIND!!!!”
Tom B. – Phoenician is on record as saying exactly that. Not to mention delighting in the deaths of U.S. military personnel because in his/her view it would be an effective come-uppance to us RWDBs.
and yet, nobody seemed to catch that. hmmmmmmm.
It’s simple:
Democrats = the party of Goebbels (Hitler’s minister of propaganda)!
I don’t know about you guys, but that whole “knuckledragger” trope—where we get spellings like “eye-rack” and characterizations such as “boss dick”—that really puts me in my place by shaming me, invoking my moronic flyover country roots, complete with canned beer and flag wavin’ and daisy duke shorts on chicks who hate the negras, (though they secretly wouldn’t mind have some of that forbidden love snake in their white trash juice boxes)…
Really, it gives me pause and forces me to reexamine my position wrt foreign policy and the way best to fight a nationless death cult bent on our destruction as a way toward reestablishing the caliphate.
Now if you’ll pardon me, I must go and have a hank of jerky beef and ponder the error of my rube ways.
yes, yes, i’m weeping…..
Don’t you mean “snap into a Slim Jim”?
While watching NASCAR.
The President and we, his “fellow travelers,” don’t accept Kathy’s premise that he broke the law.
The above is the only part of jeff’s response to a post that I unintentionally posted to an old thread that is not a hysterical very uncivil screed.
Here is the gist of what I wrote before (Jeff deleted it, so I have to rewrite it here).
Jeff accuses Glenn Greenwald of using an “end justifies the means” strategy. That is extremely disingenuous of Jeff, since the right, including this blog, has used “the end justifies the means” to justify every legally and morally questionable act Bush has committed. Torturing Arab and Muslim detainees, flying them to countries where they are tortured, disappearing them to a gulag-like network of secret prisons where they are tortured and sometimes killed, denying detainees in the “war on terror” basic legal rights through Bush’s policy of arbitrary detention indefinitely with no charges and no access to attorney and no right to see the evidence against them (aka habeus corpus) are all fine, according to people like Jeff, because the president can do anything he thinks is necessary to “keep us safe.” In other words, the end justifies the means.
Jeff also says that once a president is elected, we all must “abide by his policies.” If by “abide by his policies” Jeff means “support his policies and don’t criticize them or oppose them,” I disagree very strongly. Jeff said that we have elections to determine who will make policy and he implied that whoever wins the election has the right to make policy without public opposition. That is un-American and reveals a profound ignorance of what democracy is all about. Part of our job as citizens of a democratic republic is to make sure our elected officials represent our interests, and if they’re not doing that, we not only have a right but a duty to say so. Also part of our job as citizens of a democratic republic is to speak out when we see our leaders taking actions that we believe are unconstitutional or that violate the animating ideals of the constitution. We have an obligation to speak up when we believe our leaders are acting in unethical, immoral, and illegal ways. The act of voting is only the BEGINNING of an American’s civic responsibility, not the end, as Jeff seems to think.
I will also point out that the president of the United States is not the only person who wins in an election. There is also something called Congress. There are Democrats in that Congress, and there are even some Republicans who oppose some of the things that Bush has been doing, and if they “abide by” his policies when they believe his policies are wrong, then they are not doing their job. Furthermore, I have the right not just to try to influence the president, but to try to influence my elected representatives in the House and the Senate. I have a right to let them know, in every law-abiding and peaceful way I can, that Pres. Bush’s policies are harmful to my country and indeed are destroying my country, and that I want them to do everything they can to change his policies.
As for not accepting my premise that Pres. Bush broke the law, my response is, that’s obvious, but it doesn’t mean that I must forfeit my right to act in accordance with my belief that he HAS. I still have the right, and Glenn Greenwald still has the right, and everyone still has the right, not to “abide by Bush’s policies” just because Jeff Goldstein thinks they’re wonderful.
When Wendell Phillips said that “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” he was talking about slavery in the United States, not foreign terrorism. Threats to liberty come from both within and without any country, and it is every Americans’ obligation to be exercise vigilance so that our own government does not become our greatest threat to liberty. Trusting your elected leaders blindly is the fastest road to tyranny. You go down that road if you want. I will not.
The jihadis will kill you as soon as they will better Americans, pal. They don’t care how much you hate Bush.
We mourn American deaths because each one makes us feel the preciousness of our Western freedoms all the more acutely. We mourn American deaths because we know, to some degree, what a sacrifice it is for them to have fought their hearts out in this great cause, and not live to see the finish. We mourn them because the loss of each of these precious, superb Americans is irreplaceable, even as they keep The Jihad away from America. We mourn them because sneering, nihilistic, deracinated relativists like you never would, not even if you were on your knees, being offered Islam Or Death by your heroes, if our side should lose.
Verbosity does not equate to intelligence, honesty, or coherence, Kathy.
I don’t say the ends justify the means. I say I agree with the means—which, so long as they are legal, don’t bother me one bit (in many cases); this doesn’t mean, as you would have it, that I’m averse to discussing which means are best. It simply means that when people like you try to cast my agreement with legal procedures as in need of some sort of special defense (rather than a substantive debate on their efficacy), I dismiss that as showy self-righteousness.
What I am averse to, if you really must know, is having positions characterized as being illegal or immoral (when such is not the case), and then told that my willingness to defend such positions marks me as in immoral apologist who cares about nothing by partisan cheerleading. That’s Sean Hannity, not me.
You don’t know me, you don’t know my blog, and all your moral posturing to the contrary will do nothing to lend your accusations any credence in the mind of longtime readers, many of whom I’ve disagreed with on a number of issues.
Glenn Greenwald said, in effect, that if he doesn’t like the Prez’s policies, it is his responsibility as a citizen—even if it means dissembling to do so—to put an end to those politicies. He believes its okay to lie and misinform to achieve his ends, and he believes the press should of course do the same. I disagreed. And that was the gist of the argument over ends and means.
You seem to want to turn it into something else so that you can proclaim both your patriotism and suggest your dissent is being demonized by Bushhumpers. You fail to even consider that I may have reached my conclusions in good faith, using research, common sense, and my own political compass. Only you are capable of intellectually honestly, you seem to say. And such disingenuous histrionics bore me.
If you wish to engage me, engage me and my arguments, not arguments you’ve created and then decided to attribute to the “Jeff Goldstein” who exists in your self-righteous, self-important partisan brain.
That is all.
Of course, Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller, Harman, Graham, etc. were all aware of the NSA program for years and took no action—aside from Jay sending a CYA letter to himself—to stop it. So they either did not think it was wrong, or were not doing their jobs. Which of those positions is more appealing to the Democrats’ base?
I wonder if Kathy realises how arrogant and condicending she sounds. “there is also something called congress”…please!
Are the democrats in congress doing thier job when they filibuster a qualified supreme court nominee, just because he isn’t in line with thier partisan politics? Are they doing thier job when they vote to authorise war, then do everything in thier power to hamper the effort?
If you spent half as much time trying to get your own party back on track as you do spewing hate, venom , and lies at the president, maybe you could win another election. You are right Kathy, there are republicans that oppose certain of the presidents policys. And they let it be known, adjustments are made(or not), and the party is better for it. The Dems are so unable to do that sort of self-evaluation and correction, that they have lost thier way, thier elections, and it seems thier sanity. Dems (not all, I’ll exempt Leiberman for instance) don’t even try any longer to think of what is best for the country. They only do what is expediant (they think!) for getting power back. I for one, think it is healthy to have a two party system. With the current Dem leadership however, I think it will be the republicans controlling all three branches of goverment for the forseeable future, and it will be the fault of the wacky left.
Think about it.
Sorry, I guess I miss Jeff’s hard-hitting response to Robertson’s blaming 9/11 on abortionists and homosexuals, calling for Chavez’s death and his latest excerable remarks.
I guess you must have missed the Pentagon’s report that 80% of our troop’s deaths could have been prevented if they had been provided with the proper body armor. If you care about our troops, quit whining about those that thought this war was a terrible idea and try focusing on those who have the power to protect them, but can’t be bothered.
”Because this is fourth generation warfare. Unfortunately for your little wankfest about how wonderful the US has been for Iraq, the Soviets also recently fought a 4GW in Afghanistan – and lost.”
Sorry, Hiram, but you evidently don’t understand LIC. Al-Qa’ida can only have a military sanctuary to the extent that the U.S. permits it to, unlike the Afghan mujahedin and the Viet Cong.
How true.
I think some of the component metals needed to make the body armour stronger went into the manufacture of patriotic ribbon magnets…
Body armor study fact-checked, as usual, found flawed.
GOTCHA MOMENT x1!
It is very difficult to stop a circular reasoner, I have been warned!
In your original post, you mapped the circle well— which to me is the best way to stop a circular argument and the most fun to read or watch!
Thanks and GJ!
Mr. Goldstein, if I may save you the time…
Ahem…
Jeff has no obligation to prove to one so self-important as yourself that he thinks Pat Robertson is an idiot. Jeff should simply be granted that as a courtesy simply because he is a reasonable human being. Your childish association (Ooh, Pat Robertson = Christian = RELIGIOUS RIGHT OMG = ALL REPUBLICANS) supporting a contrary idea for all Republicans, at best, shows that you continue to harbor infantile delusions about THOSE EEEEVIL REPUBLIKKKANS, which, frankly, is all the more reason not to take you intellectually seriously.
Coincidentally, I have not seen you denounce the beating and rape of women in Saudi Arabia and Iran, or honor killings for that matter. How am I supposed to know that you don’t support them? I mean, you oppose action against Muslim terrorists…
Grow up. Let’s not play that game.
Murtha, Sheehan, Kerry, et al: quit loving us so much. You’re killing us out here.
Sincerely, The Troops
Jim writes:
From my opening paragraph:
There’s nothing I find more troubling than those who presume to comment on a post without even having bothered to read it.
As for Robertson, here’s the last I “said” about him. If you missed my condemnation of his blaming 911 on gays and abortionists, that’s probably because you weren’t reading my site back then. And as to the Chavez thing, hell, he’s entitled to his opinion. It’s not like George Bush promised to take it under advisement.
Seriously, if the trolls here don’t stop misrepresenting my positions, I’m simply going to rid myself of their annoyances.
By the way, you might find that (SHOCK AND HORROR) most of us think Hannity is a nitwit at some level or another. Bill O’Reilly moreso. Because, I just know those are going to come next.
Jeff doesn’t need to bother. The rest of the Right is taking care of it, because unlike the Left we tend to clean up our garbage.
Saddam and his had been killing thirty thousand people a year for the previous eleven years. We could have saved 100% of our troops’ deaths by allowing that to continue. How many babies is a troop worth, Jim? Fifty? A hundred? What if they’re your babies, instead of little brown abstractions half a world away?
Your proxies are still killing Iraqi babies, with your wholehearted approval—apparent, since you refuse to consider any possible means of stopping it, and continue to refer to them in the most complimentary terms. Iraqi Minute Men are murdering people, including children, very likely as we speak; Iraqi insurgents are blowing up schoolteachers and destroying hospitals and markets with people inside. With your permission. I’ll bet if you bought a sword and some plastique they’d let you do some of it yourself, on TV, even. You ought to. It’d at least be honest.
Yeah, right. Send out the prospectors! We need more unobtanium to make absolutely impervious armor out of! Only when we have it can we do anything whatever, so make it quick!
Balls. The troops know what they have; they know what threat they face. Their commanders make sure of that—and they go anyway. Those commanders’ first job is to make sure the troops have the tools they need to do the job, and they’ve been doing fairly well at that.
Mistakes? Sure. But since you think mistakes are so terrible, we’ll hold you to it: you aren’t allowed a single error, not even in predictions of the future, and if you make one you’re evil, vile, and filled with violent intent against the good. Everything you say has to be absolutely true. Everything you predict has to come to pass exactly as predicted—no deviations. Miss one, even miss a tiny detail, and you get cast into Perdition. Up for that bargain, are you?
Regards,
Ric
Note when I posted the body armor reply, I forgot which thread I was in. Call it cognitive dissonance or whatever fancy term you feel is appropriate. I didn’t believe someone could be so egregiously STUPID as to not see the body armor bit at the top of the post!
Glad to see some support for the Pentagon, Jim. I agree, lets cut the social programs and put the $ into the military. Really.
The left’s propaganda war aganst democracy and civilization is failing, becuase of that fialure they seem to become more dishonest, and well…insane. See Jim and PIATOR for examples of dishonesty, viciousness and spittle-drenched insane hatred all at the same time. I shudder to think what they will do to support Al Qaeda next.
So you see no difference between the Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Iraq?
Feel free to explain the difference in objective, external terms. Every time I’ve bought this up, attempts to answer this degenerate into “America democracy, USSR communists!” as if internal politics make a lick of difference to the corpses your foriegn policies leave behind.
and yet, nobody seemed to catch that. hmmmmmmm.
Maggie, I realise you’re a wingnut, and thus stupid by definition, but run your mouse over the name at the bottom of this post, and then over the name at the bottom of the spoof post. Whoever did it misspelt my default dummy email address.
We mourn American deaths because each one makes us feel the preciousness of our Western freedoms all the more acutely.
I don’t mourn American deaths, since America is a greater threat to my freedom than Russia or China. Neither of the latter has asserted a right to kidnap me from my home, torture me, and hold me for three years without charge should their leader term me “an enemy”.
the relative dearth in new jobs created in December (an interesting spin for an unemployment rate that fell below 5%). But be that as it may.
Hmm – care to make any comment on yield curves while you’re busy sticking your fingers in your ears?
Jeff: Seriously, if the trolls here don’t stop misrepresenting my positions, I’m simply going to rid myself of their annoyances.
Ric Locke, two posts on: Your proxies are still killing Iraqi babies, with your wholehearted approvalâ€â€apparent, since you refuse to consider any possible means of stopping it, and continue to refer to them in the most complimentary terms.
My heart bleeds for you, Jeff. How does the Right stand the vile lies of the Left, poor wee lambs that they are?
You bunch of blathering idiots. Our PNAC war is only going to end with this reality: An American military presence in Iraq for a very long time. Which is exactly what was wanted from the get-go. There is no way the sunnis, shia’s and kurds are going to live harmoniously together. We shattered enough infrastructure and killed enough civilians to ensure problems for years to come. The kurds (in case you were curious- the ones with their own giant militia)are already negotiating oil deals without including or planning to include the other iraqi’s. And if you think they are going to share the oil profits – i got a bridge to sell you. Wait and see kool-aid kids.
The only reaslistic result of a “fair” election in Iraq given the demographics would be a supreme council for the islamic revolution SHIITE party winning a majority. Sweet, now we have two irans.
As for the domestic spying/surveillence – You all need a very brief and quick history and civics lesson regarding the bill of rights and what they were intended to do and prevent. Perhaps only then you would see why all these “national security” measures are blatantly un-american, un-patriotic and totalitarian in nature. Calling yourself patriots – HA!.
““Libertyâ€â€the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by governmentâ€â€is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.â€Â
â€â€United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989) Stick that in your patriot pipe and smoke it!
And thus my point is made.
Okay, I’m still really hungry for feedback on my work here, but is this a reasonable response to PIATOR’s assertion here?
“Because that’ll happen. Suuuuuure.”
If it isn’t, someone please explain my foul and show me how it is better done.
piator, my point was, even if it was fake it didn’t strike anyone as something you wouldn’t say.
tw: i knew the email was different, but that wasn’t the point.
thinking of something else. did i miss where the russians trained an afghan national army?
PiatoR, there’s a concept in the Western jurisprudence your country shares called accessory.
An accessory provides material aid or assistance before, during, and/or after the fact. Accessories include lookouts, knowing providers of tools and means, and those who deliberately prevent anyone from preventing the crime or obstruct law enforcement (including citizen law enforcement) from catching the malefactors.
By law going back far beyond living memory or even Blackstone, an accessory is as guilty of the crime as the persons committing it directly are.
You, personally, have specifically, right here in the comments of this blog, declared that al Qaeda and anyone else opposing the United States is your ally. You have provided material aid to them by publicizing and approving their propaganda, and you have done everything you could to prevent anyone from either stopping their crimes or catching them afterwards. On the occasions when they were caught, you have done everything in your power to see that they got lenient treatment and early (if not instantaneous) release.
What those people are actually doing is blowing up civilians on purpose. What they did before they were deposed was to murder, behead, disfigure, and torture people in job lots.
Those are crimes.
You are an accessory.
By rules of law going back beyond the Magna Carta, as an accessory you are as guilty of the crimes as the actors are. Tell me, since you have the experience and I don’t: do the skulls of babies really squeak when you stamp them with your boots?
Regards,
Ric
PNAC, for those in the know = “neocons.”
Phoenician: Who gives a fuck who your heart bleeds for? And sorry, you can try to shame me for pointing out how your vile lefty rhetoric works—you can try to suggest I’m wounded by it, that I’m a whiner for complaining about it, etc. But I’m going to keep doing it, because the mechanisms need to be exposed, and once people learn to see through the convoluted logic, they’ll be able to spot the flaws in your reasoning and dismiss you—and those like you—for the frauds you are. Lord knows I have no problem doing so. Which is why I don’t even bother with your larded and heavily intertextualized simulacra of coherent argumentation.
And funny, but while I was teaching this stuff, nobody called me a poor wee lamb for pointing it out.
I suppose context is everything.
Glad to see some support for the Pentagon, Jim. I agree, lets cut the social programs and put the $ into the military. Really.
“Bush pushes for renewed tax cuts.” – AFP, Sat Jan 7, 1:25 PM EST.
Oh, and meanwhile, median household incomes updated to spring 2005:
Carter: $36,035 (2001$) (presumably end of term)
Reagan: $39,144 (2001$)
Bush I: $37,880 (2001$)
Clinton: $44,853 (2004$)
Current: $43,318
Strange how the Bush economy doesn’t seem to be helping people in the middle, isn’t it?
We were on the side of the insurgents when the Soviets were in Afghanistan. That is why they won.
PiatoR,
So you lost, and decided to change the subject. And even taken out of context the figures you post don’t support your (supposed) point!
Pitiable. Maybe you need a rest.
Regards,
Ric
You sure about that?
Or do you think maybe their press just doesn’t talk about it. Because, you know, they’d be taken from their homes, thrown in jail, or shot in their driveways for printing such a thing.
You sure about that?
Absolutely. Others might do it (the Israelis spring to mind), but they don’t have Alfred E Neuman as their leader asserting a right to do so on the world stage
We were on the side of the insurgents when the Soviets were in Afghanistan. That is why they won.
Proof? When the US has left and the insurgents are claiming they won in Iraq, what will your excuse be?
Jeff- I wanted to add that was an excellent post, especially the poll-pushing point.
As for the mirrored rhetoric, my personal favorite was when Bin Laden mentioned “My Pet Goat” in his pre-election speech. I would like to think that gave even Michael Moore some pause.
Phony/roman, what you want to do is compare *median* incomes, and *median* household net worth, if you are trying to isolate the middle class as it has fared over the years. Always a good idea, if one wishes to adopt a haughty, know-it-all tone (not to mention a very precious handle), to avoid using the wrong data to make a point.
Phoney…….if it’s a dummy e-mail address, how do we know that you are telling the truth? No one can verify that it’s really yours.
So we only have your word for this. Consider that, moral relativist.
Are you really so guileless as to not realize how ridiculous that sounds to anyone with a working frontal lobe?
The President of the United States of America is thought by one “phonecian-in-the-time-of-romans” to resemble Alfred E. Neumann?
You could always try a little experiment. Find a phone pal in China that’s willing to discuss planning a terrorist attack against China with you. See how long your conversation remains private. See how long your pal remains free. Start moving some money around into groups that support terrorism in China. You know, the kind of thing that would get you in trouble in the US. Just give it a go.
Or go on a Russian blog and start saying the things about the Russian government that you say about the US government. See how long that lasts.
Russia and China have no free press. No ability to tell you critical things about their governments. Don’t confuse lack of reporting with the goodwill of those governments.
I think you meant “Carthagenian-in-the-time-of-Romans”, anyway–considering how well you folks have been doing in the last few elections.
Why not just drop the implication and call yourself “Elite-Sensitive-Intellectual-[and-I-think-good-looking-too]-Surrounded-by-Icky-Poo-Inferiors”?
If the US leaves and the Ba’athist <sneer>insurgents</sneer> are murdering people in job lots, will you cheer their victory? Will you declare them justified, and defend their actions? Will you drink the blood of the babies they kill?
Of course you will. You deserve it.
Regards,
Ric
It seems PiatoR is uncomfortable with the NSA tapping terrorist phone calls, and very scared of being snatched from his bed by US govt. agents…I wonder if he isn’t really Philistine in a town of Ragheads.
Phony/roman, what you want to do is compare *median* incomes, and *median* household net worth, if you are trying to isolate the middle class as it has fared over the years.
Which part of “median household incomes updated to spring 2005” do you have problems reading?
And even taken out of context the figures you post don’t support your (supposed) point!
Uh-huh.
“Miss-Longtailed-KittyCat-in-a-time-of-Rocking-Chairs”
If Corvan was confused about my post- i am not cheering on another Iran like state. Its called sarcasm. I was writing to show you a very real possibility of what bringing “democracy” to iraq could do. And that would be an islamic state run by a majority whose ethnic and religious ties would make them sympathetic to Iran. I know that may be hard to understand, but sometimes REALITY is.
See, unlike the neo-cons who claim the power to create and mold their own realities to suit their needs, real objective reality and truth do not suit the fancies of pseudo-intellectuals sitting in high powered think tanks. Reality doesnt give a shit about think-tanks. This is why we are still in Iraq. This is why we werent greeted as liberators. This is why when a president consistently changes his reasoning about the reasons for going to war and u.s. kids die, people get super fucking pissed. This is why Iraq DOES still have the very real possibility of breaking up into three separate Kurdistan/sunni/shia countries after a civil war. This is why Paul Bremer should not have received the medal of freedom.
This is why the Patriot Act must not be renewed.
This f-ing war on terror is a perpetual war – one without no logical end. There will always be a group somewhere pissed off at us for who we are and what we represent. That is a given. What is not a given is the American public lying down with asses outstreched so the traditional party of limited gov.t can expand gov.t directly into our asses and stomp on our rights as granted by the most sacred of democratic texts, the constitution – on a scale hitherto unknown except in fascist or totalitarian regimes. The same rights our forefathers secured with a million times the sacrifice we currently, as a nation, are undertaking to free iraqis. There is a very large contingent of people in this country who will not sit idly by while the philosophical and political foundations that made this country great are pissed down the toilet so some soccer mom in Dallas can feel a little bit more secure buying her $6 starbucks frappachino. WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!! This has been said many times, but it bears repeating – By giving this administration carte blanche authority to do the things it has declared itself the right to do in this time of war, which by their own definition is perpetual, you sir and your ilk have given Bin Laden more of a victory than he could have ever dreamed of by flying planes into those towers. You will, as an accessory AFTER the fact to that cowardly act on 9-11, destroyed what made America great by your implicit support for these un-american policies. For that there is no greater shame. History will judge you and your kind – and that judgment will be harsh.
I don’t say the ends justify the means. I say I agree with the meansâ€â€which, so long as they are legal, don’t bother me one bit (in many cases); this doesn’t mean, as you would have it, that I’m averse to discussing which means are best.
The problem is that the means (torture, arbitrary detention, etc.) Bush has used to achieve what he says is his end (national security) are not. I have no doubt that you are not averse to discussing which means are best—but you want to frame it as just a debate over strategy. And while I do think that the use of torture and stripping prisoners of legal protections are bad strategy because they will ultimately make us less safe rather than more safe, my objections to these things go far beyond strategy. For you, the issue is only “Should we do these things,” not “Are we within our legal rights to do these things.” And I object to that framing, because to me the deeper and larger issue IS the Bush administration’s contention that it makes its own reality and thus does not have to obey the laws everyone else is bound by.
Glenn Greenwald said, in effect, that if he doesn’t like the Prez’s policies, it is his responsibility as a citizenâ€â€even if it means dissembling to do soâ€â€to put an end to those politicies. He believes its okay to lie and misinform to achieve his ends, and he believes the press should of course do the same. I disagreed. And that was the gist of the argument over ends and means.
Well, I read the post of Glenn’s that you refer to in your November post, and I don’t see where Glenn states a belief that it’s okay to lie and misinform to achieve his ends. Your opinion
is that he and others who take his positions are lying and misinforming, but that IS an opinion, not a fact. You cannot reasonably accuse Glenn of saying it’s okay to lie and misinform based solely on your belief that he is lying and misinforming.
You fail to even consider that I may have reached my conclusions in good faith, using research, common sense, and my own political compass.
As you say, I don’t know you, so I don’t know if you’ve reached your conclusions in good faith, using research and common sense. That you have followed your own political compass seems obvious.
I am willing to consider that you have, and if you say you have, I take you at your word.
Obviously, that doesn’t mean I don’t still disagree utterly with your support for Bush’s policies, for the Iraq war, etc. It doesn’t mean that I don’t find your arguments (and not just yours; most conservative bloggers too) uninformed, dangerously naive, and misinformed.
I do recognize, of course, that what I just said is opinion, not fact. I have plenty of facts to back it up, but it’s still opinion.
Phoenician, you haven’t so far in this thread alluded to “bed-wetting.” C’mon, there’s still time.
TW=Alone As in, “Phoenician stands alone to defend the indignities heaped upon Al Qaeda.”
Brave, brave monarchist Phoenician.
This sentence from my comment:
The problem is that the means (torture, arbitrary detention, etc.) Bush has used to achieve what he says is his end (national security) are not.
should have read:
The problem is that the means (torture, arbitrary detention, etc.) Bush has used to achieve what he says is his end (national security) are not legal.
So your point is that the nation is becoming poorer, or that some class is becoming poorer, or that the USA must maintain some sort of internal or otherwise income ratio or something? If you had a thesis statement, then someone else might have something with which to argue. Dueling Google pastes is rhally beneath us high-toned Ancients. For starters, you could check into the difference between ‘income’ and ‘wealth’, tho–that’s just a dictionary away.
So your point is..
He doesn’t have a point, Buddy. He’s given up on making any points because we aren’t buying it, and has started throwing random shit against the wall to see what sticks.
His figures could just as well be used to justify an argument that Bush has prevented rich people from porking all the cash—that would move “median income” just as well as anything.
Regards,
Ric
Law-Jockey, at least you have convictions. At east you’re not bending every fact toward some partisan goal. I don’t think you or kathy either one are looking closely enough at the nature of the threat. Bush will be gone in three years. Suppose you’re in control–Bush is pres, but, somehow you’re in control. You let the war slide for three years–or simply choose not to fight it–because you dislike Bush.
How do you see the world at the end of those three years? How’s the mideast? How’s Europe? How’s AQ? How’s terrorism? You *must* have some vision–or else you wouldn’t be proper in attacking current policy the way you do. So, compress that vision for us, why doncha, and spin it on out here for us. Maybe you’ll get some converts!
law jockey- could you please give me a stroll down memory lane? Tell me when this beautiful time existed when there were no civil liberties questions, the constitution was intepreted exactly as you would have it interpreted, nobody was downtrodden or mistreated, and everybody agreed with the government?
Cause I’m not remembering it.
Is it when only male white landowners could vote?
Or when only men could vote?
Or when adultury was illegal?
Or when the Japanese Americans were interred?
Or before there were income taxes?
Our country has never been perfect. Not being perfect is not un-American. Striving for a better balance between security and civil liberty is completely American. Disagreement over how to do it is completly American. Unfortunately, being hysterically frightened that your government is more dangerous than AlQeada while pretending other people are hysterically frightened is also completely American.
Ric, the figures I hear in my business are 50k/yr, anyway. PhoneyRoman’s are 15% lower–think I oughtta look at his/her link?
MayBee, you write wonderfully. Are you any kin to Aunt Bee from Mayberry?
PiatoR is stuck on law_jockey….uummm, I mean stupid.