Full disclosure: I was asked to participate in the Denver Post “all-star” blog, but when the thing went live, I was left without a password or login info.
Which, it turns out, is probably a good thing, or else I’d be combating nonsense like this, from David Sirota (who, incidentally, was profiled in the Denver paper when he moved to Colorado. He has dogs, I learned, and is passionate about politics. Which is newsworthy in precisely the same way that, say, an interview with Brad Pitt’s abs might be newsworthy. But I digress):
At the 1984 Republican convention, conservatives moaned and whined about the so-called “Blame America First Crowd.†Now, twenty-three years later, conservatives have become the “Blame the Left First Crowd†as evidenced by Harsanyi’s piece today.
Question: did conservatives in 1984 have reason to “whine” about the “so-called” Blame America First Crowd (who, let’s remember, were so designated for their tendency to, well, trace every problem in the world to “blowback” from some American policy or other)?
I mean, it’s one thing to sneer at the label — and I agree, it’s too general a designation — but is their any truth to the implicit charges (broad as they are) suggested by that label?
Because John Kerry seems to think so — and was willing to say as much “24 years later” in Davos.
So I’ll ask again: is it fair to point out that the “Blame the Left First” crowd, as Sirota calls them, might have actual reasons for criticizing “the Left”? — or is Sirota content simply to draw dubious historical parallels between the conservatives of 1984 and today’s conservatives, many of whom, in 1984, identified as liberals, but found Reagan’s optimism refreshing?
On several occasions now I’ve pointed out how today’s “neocons” bear little resemblance to the “conservatives” of the Bush pere era, whose foreign policy realism is embraced, ironically, by people like Sirota, who would likely react to being called “conservative” the way John Edwards reacts to generic shampoo, or a plate of tater tots. I mean, a “progressive” looking to James Baker for foreign policy advice? Shouldn’t Ramsey Clark prove more amenable?
Similarly, progressive anti-globalization efforts, couched in the patriotic language of combating “outsourcing” (a practice that gives Americans a net positive gain in employment), is but Buchananite nativism shorn of its racist overtones.
Ask yourself: would John F Kennedy today identify more with a Robert Kennedy Jr, who would like to see those who remain dubious over proposed “fixes” for an equally dubious anthropomorphic climate change “crisis” treated as “traitors”, or with someone like Joe Lieberman, who is strong on national defense, and for his troubles, has been depicted in black face by prominent progressives with ties to national candidates, progressives who also note, darkly, how his “Zionism” influences his foreign policy judgments?
After all, everyone knows that the “monied NY Jews” are behind the push to reform the middle east. Right, Gen. Clark?
All of which I bring up only to show that the premise from which Sirota begins is problematic on its face: until he defines “conservatism,” he is painting with a brush that is far too broad to be of any practical use — though rhetorically, it sets up an easy target.
That he has the audacity to try such a maneuver in an essay in which he’s accusing his political opponents of using an equally broad brush to tar political opponents would tend to undercut his own credibility.
Continues Sirota:
Citing a New York Times op-ed by longtime Iraq War advocates Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack in which these armchair generals claim everything is going swimmingly with the surge, Harsanyi says “it’s hard to understand why any morsel of good news from the area is met with such ridicule from certain stations of the Left.â€Â
Really? It’s hard to understand? What – were you just not paying any attention to anything about Iraq the last four years? Did you just miss that day in the newspaper where almost every Washington, D.C. neoconservative think tank scholar including O’Hanlon and Pollack has seen their rosy declarations crushed under a wave of those things called “facts?†In fact, less than 24 hours after the op-ed was published – what do you know! – Michael O’Hanlon is testifying up on Capitol Hill today admitting that his op-ed was a wildly inaccurate overstatement.
I’ll skip over the irony of Sirota’s ostentatious concern with facts — how often have we heard that President Bush called the Iraq threat “imminent,” that there were no connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, et al., that Bush declared “Mission Accomplished”? How often must we point out “long hard slog” and note that Iraq has always been viewed as but a battlefield in a larger global war? — and simply note that, again, Sirota brackets the effects an organized and systematic “dissent” has had on how the war in Iraq is being fought. Domestic political pressure is indeed a force to be reckoned with — and it has practical effects. This, it seems to me, is axiomatic. So why the reluctance to admit such — other than that such an admission leaves war opponents open to a closer examination of their tactics, which, it turns out, aren’t always brimming with idealism, but instead evince cold political calculation and an intent to deceive.
Whether he’s blind to the possibility that a political rupture in the US was part of al Qaeda’s strategy to break our will, marginalize our allies, and “win” an asymmetrical war (we are, after all, a “weak horse” and a paper tiger, according to UBL, a country unwilling to manage any longterm resolve) — or whether he is purposely ignoring the possibility in a quest for short term political gain (and in the service of a political ideology that would like to see the US as hyperpower “humbled” so that it can be folded in to transnational progressivism and a ruling bureaucracy that would undermine sovereignty and do away with such vulgar concepts as “nationalism”), only he knows for sure.
Either way, though, he doesn’t deal with the argument in any rigorous way — preferring instead to simply wave away the suggestion that the left-liberal campaign to undermine the Administration’s strategy for a long-term war on Islamism can have any tangible effect on 1) American public resolve, 2) gathering allies who trust in the promises of that resolve, and 3) emboldening those who are fighting actively to break that resolve, which is the primary strategy of terrorism to begin with.
Which, of course, is doubly ironic, coming as it does from those whose ideology is bolstered by a postmodern worldview in which rhetoric, rather than any set of larger, metaphysical “truths,” is the basis for epistemology.
Or, to put a different spin on things, it is not ironic at all: instead, this sudden appreciation for “facts” over rhetoric is a fraud (recall that we have recently been lectured about the “fallacy of proof”), given that the “facts” Sirota relies upon are often simply the product of a consensus view of truth, while what he dismisses as mere neocon rhetoric is based upon a more considered appeal to the empirical data. Which, insofar as those narratives fail to garner popular support, they are not perception, and so are not reality.
Which, of course, is not to say that the “neocons” don’t occasionally engage in hyperbolic or propagandistic rhetorical campaigns to bolster their case; just that the need to do so is often precipitated by ideological opponents who, as Glenn Greenwald has admitted (though I don’t believe the admission was read into the Senate record), must be willing to lie in the service of what they get to define as larger “truths.”
Staggering, the arrogance — but par for the course when you are doing battle with ideologies that presume to be your superiors. Illiberality and and the undermining of the preconditions for an informed democracy — all in the service of the greater good as defined by Greenwald. And, to be fair, Rick Ellerson and so on.
If anything, supporters of the war would argue that the neocons have proven dismal at combating the rhetorical broadsides from anti-war opportunists.
Yes, Harsanyi, everyone does “want to win – or at the very least stabilize Iraq – if it’s possible†as you say.
Harsanyi may be willing to concede this, but I’m not. I’m convinced there are a number of fringe leftists and prominent progressives who have absolutely no desire to see the US prevail, because they fear US success would set a terrible precedent, and return us to an era where military power as a viable alternative to endless (and largely feckless) paper diplomacy would damage their political aspirations, keeping Americans insistent on maintaining a strong national defense instead of taking the Western European route toward soft socialism and a capacious federal government — an approach that requires increased spending on dubious social programs that have the effect of infantalizing (and, ultimately, balkanizing) the culture, while redefining liberty away from individuals.
Sirota, for his part, would deny this, but to do so is to ignore the palpable glee with which US failures are sometimes celebrated on the progressive left — and the alacrity with which anti-US propaganda is adopted or accepted unquestionably (remember Willy Pete? Haditha? Scott Beauchamp?) — even while US successes are either ignored or treated with abject skepticism.
Of course, there’s an explanation for all that, Sirota assures us:
[…] the reason propagandistic missives like the one delivered by O’Hanlon and Pollack are met with ridicule (not just by the Left, but by the majority of Americans who don’t buy the “we’re winning†meme anymore) is because they are not only so ridiculous that one of their authors backtracks one day later, but because the authors themselves have no credibility whatsoever.
As Glenn Greenwald, Duncan Black and the Center for American Progress shows us,
— now there’s credibilty for you —
O’Hanlon and Pollack were, as mentioned, among the chief cheerleaders of the invasion and lead apologists for the Bush administration when things went south. They have also built up an impressive record of predictions, analyses and declarations that have proven to be entirely factually wrong.
As have, say, Larry Johnson and Jimmy Carter, but that doesn’t stop “the Left” from hanging on their every word like Rosie O’Donnell to a conspiracy theory, or Michael Moore to a Ring Ding.
But note the rhetoric here. “Chief cheerleaders of the invasion” stands in for believers in a certain strategy to combat the spread of Islamic terrorism and reshape the middle east. “Lead apologists” — rather than suggesting that they continue to believe in the strategy — suggests instead that they would support the policy no matter how badly it failed. But the truth is, and as the soldiers who post here tell us over and over, military plans are troubled by the actions of the enemy, and so, in war, adjustments need to be made in nearly every battle, as conditions on the ground dictate.
If the initial plans to allow Iraqi troops to try to pacify the country post-Saddam didn’t work, adjustments needed to be made. And — though it took some time — the current “surge” strategy, which is nothing more than a far more aggressive US counterinsurgency strategy, is meant to address those previous problems.
To support it is not to act as an “apologist” for anything. It is to support a mission that one believes in, while recognizing that along the way, adjustments are going to be necessary, and setbacks are inevitable.
Somehow, perseverance has been re-framed as a trait adopted by “apologists,” while breathless defeatism is a sure sign of virtue.
Up is down. Black is white. Donnie is Marie.
Sirota and his ideological fellow travelers would have us to believe that setbacks herald inevitable failure; which begs the question, why even pretend, by way of endorsement, to give General Petraeus and the counterinsurgency push a chance to work?
Is it because they realize that a preemptive pullout would not sit well with the American people? And if so, can this rush to call the surge a failure — even as the “neocons” at the BBC and the AP are conceding that it is making strides — suggest a desire, on the part of progressives in the run-up to an election, to ensure at least the appearance of a full-scale failure?
Harsanyi would have us believe that because O’Hanlon and Pollack’s giant record of factual failure has been meticulously documented on – gasp – blogs like DailyKos and ThinkProgress, that we should therefore “place more trust in the on-the-ground investigation†of the very pro-war neoconservatives we know have been wrong time and time and time again and who, far from objective, are clearly desperate to do something – lord, please, anything! – to justify their ongoing employment as well-paid Very Serious Foreign Policy Experts at Washington think tanks. I mean, come on – O’Hanlon in just has to be able to keep using his family connections to editors at Washington rags like The Politico to get them to keep referring to him as “one of the nation’s leading civilian authorities on military matters†– and he can’t let facts about his actual record on military matters get in the way of that billing, dammit!.
Well, I rather doubt that David Harsanyi was placing all of his eggs in the O’Hanlon basket.
Question: is General Petraeus a right-wing toadie? Is he sending American soldiers off to die in a campaign he doesn’t believe in? That, worse, he knows cannot succeed? If so — and this is the underlying suggestion by people like Sirota, who would rather us look at people like O’Hanlon as scapegoats while maintaining a pretense of “supporting the troops” — shouldn’t Sirota be concentrating his attention on the military commanders, who are sacrificing lives to save face politically? How is this not murder? And if it is, why not make the case?
But the truth is, the Democrats have always played carefully with the war, following the polls to determine the nature and tone of their rhetoric. Remember, they were “misled” into the war by Bush (even though they had access to the same intel, and even though that intel matched the intel of prior Democratic administrations); they felt bullied into voting for the AUMF; they only voted for the authorization because they thought it would be used as a bluff; and on and on and on. It is only now, after a half-decade of persistent anti-war agitation and media manipulation, that prominent Democratic leaders feel comfortable enough, based on the polling numbers, to begin demanding immediate withdrawal. Harry Reid has called the war lost.
Does Sirota truly believe that such public proclamations — from the Senate Majority leader, no less — have no real effect on troop morale, the opinions of the American electorate, or the resolve of our enemies? Because if he does, he’s simply ignorant. And if he doesn’t, then he is admitting that there is indeed a rationale for “blaming” the progressive left (to whom Reid panders like a withered groupie) for at least some of the problems we’re having achieving victory in Iraq.
Yes, yes – it’s “the Left’s†fault that most “good news†out of Iraq ends up being lies, and that the people spewing the “good news†have destroyed their own credibility many times over. Because when a war goes bad and the facts get in the way of right-wing propaganda, that’s what conservatives become – the Blame the Left First Crowd.
Perhaps.
Or perhaps “the Left” has earned that animus, and has once again, through their actions, earned a degree of “blame” for undercutting the effort — from weakening public resolve to scaring away potential allies and those Iraqis who cannot be sure of our commitment.
Simply noting that the conservatives make the argument is not enough to counter it — unless, of course, you are among those who believe that, simply by nature of the argument coming from conservatives, it is necessarily both wrong and pernicious.
A cancer, if you will.
****
See also, Waiting for Petraeus.
****
update: Sirota responds — managing to sound both condescending and incoherent simultaneously. And in doing so, he betrays the fact that he either didn’t read my post, or else did some of that “skimming” that worked so well for Jim Henley recently.
This is the best and the brightest? My. How sad.
My rejoinder is here.
Don’t look know, but isn’t that the “Blame the Right at Every Possible Opportunity for Problems Real or Imagined” crowd over there?
He might have saved all of us a lot of time by writing:
“At the 1984 Republican convention, conservatives moaned and whined about the so-called “Blame America First Crowd.†Now, twenty-three years later, we’re still blaming America (specifically the President) for all Earth’s ills, and the conservatives are still calling us on our shit.”
Considering how well things worked out for Sirota’s crowd the last time, it’s surprising that he’s so enthusiastic about their prospects now.
TW: describing wits. No. In fact, quite the opposite.
Wait, the Brookings Institute is now a hotbed of neocon warmongering?
pere, not pare. Zut alors!
/nitpick
” I’m convinced there are a number of fringe leftists and progressives who have absolutely no desire to see the US prevail, because they fear US success would set a terrible precedent, and return us to an era where military power as a viable alternative to endless (and largely feckless) paper diplomacy would damage their political aspirations, keeping Americans insistent on maintaining a strong national defense instead of taking the Western European route toward soft socialism and a capacious federal government  an approach that requires increased spending on dubious social programs that have the effect of infantalizing (and, ultimately, balkanizing) the culture, while redefining liberty away from individuals.”
Here’s where I disagree with you. I don’t think it’s a fringe, but rather an element of mainstream leftist thought. Many of them truly do want us to lose, it’s just that few will openly admit it.
Sorry. No time to proofread. Wife just got back from a trip. Much to do here. Those of you who want to fill in the assertions with supporting links, post them here.
I don’t have time to comb my archives for earlier posts, nor do I have time to Google everything. Appreciate any editorial help.
TW: President denied
I’ll say.
Bravo, Jeff.
Isn’t there a dividing line between the classical liberals (say, Locke, Berkeley and maybe Hume) and conservatives (Burke, Kirk – you know, the good guys) based upon empiricism? I’ve always thought of the empiricists as shearing away from conservatism (or “reality” as some would have it) and then the Hegelians shearing away from the empiricists – and into the surreal.
Anyway, an excellent vivisection. I hope no anesthetic was wasted in the process.
I’m going to have to agree with Scape-goat Trainee on that last point. Yes, stupidity might be an excuse, but even really stupid people can be cynical, self-serving, traitorous cowards pandering to a (number of) terrifyingly destructive ideaology(ies). “Pelosi” comes to mind.
Or, to use one of my favorite phrases:
“Stupidity is NOT a point of view!”
Hate to break ranks here, Jeff, but I think you were a little too harsh on Brad Pitt’s abs.
TW: this guilt
Will just have to take a number.
Please enlighten me. I am a Brit and not completely au fait with your jive/rap argot.
What does the TW: at the bottom of some of the comments stand for?
As PW is concerned with words meaning things, it helps to note that the Left — primarily Ellers McEllerson — is employing certain “terms of art.”
For example, the term “chief cheerleader,” as applied to O’Hanlon, refers to someone who wrote two op-eds on the subject, one of which was published when it was crystal clear to everyone that the invasion was going to happen within days, if not hours.
Similarly, the term “lead apologist,” as applied to O’Hanlon, refers to someone who advocated of a large post-invasion stabilization force, and later wrote:
As applied to Pollock, the term descibes someone who has written “that war was the least-bad choice among a menu of imperfect options” and this:
Not quite “We’ve got spirit / Yes we do / We’ve got spirit / How ’bout you?”, but maybe Brookings pays its neocon cheerleaders by the word.
As for O’Hanlon back-tracking, I’ll want to rely on something a teense more definitive than Yglesias’s paraphrasing.
cwxyzallen,
TW stands for the “turing words” that have to be typed into the captcha box. For whatever reason, they often seem to function as a eerie Greek chorus to the discussion.
tw: class avoided. See?
cwxyzallen –
The “TW” is for Turing Word, the funky words you have to enter in the box just below the comment box. It helps separate the true humans from the spambots to keep them (the spambots, not the humans)from flooding the comments. It doens’t work on advanced AIs like me.
It’s somewhat an homage to one of your finest countrymen, Alan Turing.
“TW” stands for “Turing Word”, and is used to describe the “personhood” test required to post a comment. Web bots and other computer programs can’t read the images and convert them to words, but people can. A “Turing Test” is something used to distinguish human from machine intelligence.
Sometimes, the Turing words apply to the topic or comment, and the poster includes them in an apropos or humorous way.
TW: Quaestio picturing, whatever the hell that means.
Karl
Thank you.
Although my TWs dont seem to be working.
TW: assumption Finn
does not have the tragedean feel I was hoping for.
Jeff,
here’s a link to the “imminent threat” myth, and here’s Pres. Bush’s so-called “Mission Accomplished” speech:
Darth,
“Quaestio” is a commission to investigate given to a citizen or magistrate. So that’s in the ballpark.
tw: enforced waste. Nah, just taking a break from work.
cwxyzallen, the TW is ephemeral at best and a harsh mistress at worst.
Like, right now, I don’t have anything good to add to the discussion, but I just got this great set. So the next person who wants them can claim them and write the joke.
TW: Druid Democracy
The left, being what it is, can’t help but blame America for the worlds ills. It is nothing new. Since the Bolshevic Revolution, the various strains of the left have been undermining the USAs society built on Individual Rights in order to turn it into a collective workers “paradise”. It really gained steam during the Depression, when people actually thought that Capitalism had failed.
Remember that the founder of the ACLU openly wrote that the end goal of his organization was Communism.
“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goalâ€Â.†Roger Baldwin
and
“Do steer away from making it look like a Socialist enterprise…We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make of this country, and to show that we are really the folks that really stand for the spirit of our institutions.â€Â-Baldwin’s advice in 1917 to Louis Lochner of the socialist People’s Council in Minnesota.
The ACLU remains the darling of the left to this day. It is no coincidence.
In the early years of WW2, before Pearl Harbor, remember the Left opposed US involvment in the “European War of Imperialism”(sound familiar?) as Hitler had a pact with Stalin. This only changed when Hitler invaded the USSR. The next chapter was the Cold War, when the CPUSA was actively aligned with Joseph Stalin and infiltrated American Government as spies and subversives. They also took over the Screen Actors Guild and other unions, which led to the infamous McCarthy hearings. Joe was a turd but he was right.
Then, we had the sixties, with openly radical student groups who sympathised with the NVA Communist regime, forming actual terrorist groups and who reached their apogee with the 68 Democratic convention in Chicago staging a provoked riot with the Chicago Police, the ultimate street theater. The collapse of the USSR left the True Beleivers in the cold, but they have since drifted into various movements masquerading as “environmentalists” or ‘civil rights” groups.
As I said, this is nothing new. David Sirota is merely trying to conduct yet another revision of known history to erase the inconvenient facts that the left has ever been opposed to traditional American ideals of Individual Liberty and Human Rights.
Actually, winning might be problematic according to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.):
Mr Boo,
I am currently feeling silly for having spent 4 minutes continually refreshing the page, only to arrive at
TW: one-tenth King’s
Do you think Mr Turing is deliberately giving us particularly non-pertinent TWs due to some kind of Schroedingers Cat deal?
I was born in 1970. I have difficulty recalling a time when Democrats supported a US war while it was in progress. Throughout the Cold War, they were the accomodationists, the home of the unilateral disarmament crowd, and, in some cases (Kerry, possibly Ted Kennedy) out-right collaborators. They asked if the soldiers sent to free the hostages in Iran could “shoot to disarm”. They sneered at Grenada and Panama, they threw fits during Desert Storm, warned us all about the “dreaded Afghan winter”, and declared our defeat in Iraq when our columns paused to wait out a sandstorm.
The only time I can recall the left supporting a military action was in the Balkans.
And, to be honest, I have a hard time remembering times when the left supported the US in any matter, let alone war. The so-called human rights industry easily generates four times as much shit to throw at the US as it does all the other nations in the world combined. Our culture is crass, our diet is horrific, our very way of life is a sin against nature.
If it were the exception for left-leaning politicians to embrace America’s enemies; if it were the exception for them to dance in glee at bad news and weep at good news; if it were the exception for them to blame us for all the world’s ills, well, then I’d be more charitably inclined. Unfortunately, Lieberman is the exception, their Speaker of the House had tea with Assad, and they gladly caucus with people who express their admiration of Chavez, Castro, et. al.
No doubt there are idiots and poltroons on the right; I can name a few off the top of my head. But in general, a conservative is going to be more optimistic about the abilities and intentions of the American people than a liberal will, and in general a conservative is going to be more supportive of the nation’s interests.
With all that, with what I’ve seen and experienced over the course of my lifetime, I have reason to “blame the Left first”.
I popped down to see what my TW was and now I’m laughing so hard I can’t remember what I was going to say.
TW: agina learns
Jonah Goldberg put the issue in a nice chiastic turn of phrase the other day:
Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.
Heh!
Clyburn is going to be putting ice on those head wounds from the persistant and on going clubbing he will endure from that statement.
I’m guessing his press guy has already shaved his head, put on sackcloth and is wandering the mall muttering about the “end times.”
I actually know Ken Pollack.
This dipshit isn’t fit to carry his jock strap.
What Sirota overlooks is that Harsanyi’s piece doesn’t actually “blame the Left” for anything.
Yep, those neocons are always placing democracy ahead of stability.
Doubtful. He’d have to be held to account for those words by someone beyond the conservative side of the aisle. I’d be surprised if his comment ever appeared on the Big Three or the late-night comedy shows.
I hope not to live to see the left win. Imagining them grovel “I’m on your side” as the jihadis saw off their heads isn’t sufficient compensation.
You guys are projecting like a motherfucker. The LEFT wants America to lose? Rob brings up the perfect rejoined to such mindless bullshit but let me put it more succinctly – Iran Contra and Reagan’s unwillingness to fight back against Iran attacks against our interests. Get a grip on reality fellas.
Iran = Iranian
cwxyzallen –
You’re trying too hard, just use the force.
TW: Reichstag heaped
Get the hotdogs and marshmallows!
Unlike, say, Carter and Clinton. Of course, Reagan (and Carter) date back to the Cold War, which is what the Left was focused on losing in the 80s.
tw: gateway standard. No, Dell.
Right, heet. Pres. Dukakis would have leveled Iran to the ground.
Imagine the howls from the right if Clinton had sat on his ass after Iran bombed our embassies and the Marine Barracks. Reagan didn’t do dick.
I’m sorry Techie, but you can’t claim to have a super duper enemy fightin’ record when Reagan sold us out several times. Live with it. Also – Osama bin Laden hasn’t been caught. How ya figure that one, genius?
Yep, that was a mistake.
But how would the left have reacted if Reagan had done otherwise? Well, let’s look at how they reacted to the strike against Libya.
The general tone is supportive. But then there’s this:
Nunn’s point was fair; Byrd’s comment strikes me as precisely what I would have expected — any actual attempt to deal with Iran or Syria would have been met with the reactions we’re seeing today.
And, besides, it wasn’t my point that conservatives have been perfect. It was my point that, if I had to bet, the attitudes of liberals are more against American than for it.
“#
Comment by heet on 8/1 @ 1:58 pm #
Imagine the howls from the right if Clinton had sat on his ass after Iran bombed our embassies and the Marine Barracks. Reagan didn’t do dick.”
Clinton sat on his ass for, what 5, 6, 7 terrorist attacks on our troops and multiple embassies and on US territory.
Try learning some history before posting here again, ‘mkay, asshelmet?
tw: Taft civilly. Well, let Taft be civil, I’ve stopped being nice to the reactionary left.
While I usually don’t engage trolls, heet has pushed one of my buttons. Regan/Iran.
Do you remember a funny little political coalition we used to call the USSR, heet? It was easy to find on a map, being directly north of Iran.
They caused us some trouble, occasionally. You might have heard something.
SB: referable debtor
I love it when a Lefty accuses either me or those like-minded to me of projecting. That’s some kinda’ double meta-projection right there. Like when they accuse people like myself (“Neo-cons” in Leftard speak) of being racist, even though Klansmen register Democrat, and we’re the ones promoting the idea that race doesn’t matter; or how we want America to lose, even though they’ve been beating the war-we-can’t-win drum for years.
Furthermore, ad homs against Republicans don’t really affect most of us, who don’t much identify with The Party (as some do with their own Party). They also avoid answering criticism. Just because someone else sucks doesn’t mean you don’t still suck.
TW: anxiously jusqu’a
This is fun!
A single man, hiding in the uncontrolled — yet jealously guarded — area of a nuclear power, has managed to elude capture.
Any bets on what the reaction would be if the Bush administration green-lighted a strike that killed bin Laden but also leveled an orphanage?
“Also – Osama bin Laden hasn’t been caught. How ya figure that one, genius?”
And we’re supposed to believe that the Left will somehow make this a priority.
Based on…what?
The stellar support you idiots have shown to fighting the War on Terror?
The way your side supported military budgets during the Carter and Clinton years?
What exactly…genius?
Brilliant guys, focus on the STATEMENTS and hypothetical ACTIONS of a few Democrats and ignore the actual ACTIONS of the Republicans. That way, you can engage in some serious mind reading and psychoanalyzing to justify your boring hatred. As for the USSR – let me remind you who passed the budgets that increased military spending throughout the 70s and 80s and thus, according to some versions of history, causing the collapse of the Soviets. Democrats.
A little tip – don’t tell someone to learn history when you in fact don’t know shit.
MMShillelagh,
Your comment, while possibly cathartic, has nothing to do with my comments or Jeff’s original post. It is really crazy sounding, though.
Is everybody else as fed up with heet as I am? It’s bad enough that he’s using cursewords, but having a go at Reagan is just too much.
“the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”
TW: feminine effect
Give heet a break. Obama today said he’d invade Pakistan to go get Bin Laden. Talk about a tough, smart, foreign policy!
Does anyone think Obama knows where Pakistan is located?
Ummm… So Reagan didn’t sell arms to the Iranians? Someone should tell Oliver North his popularity with the fringe is undeserved. He will be very disappointed.
For the record, I don’t hate Reagan. His record is overrated and he was kind of a boob, though. I also don’t hate Republicans but I do have plenty of disdain for wacko ideologues and their followers.
So heet – what, in your infinite wisdom, would have been the likely result in 1984 to, say, the USSR invading Mexico?
Diplomatic handwringing? Or nuclear standoff?
More “what if” idiocy. Come back when you want to discuss actual history instead of your vivid imaginary world.
Which I quote only for this —
tw: vain Versailles.
For one, the border fence would already be built — by the People’s Republic of Mexico.
For another, the heetard would still be cheering.
It’s not idiocy, I’m afraid. The US invading Iran was NOT an option in ’84 – the little bastards had a big, nasty daddy up north that wouldn’t have responded at all well to an invasion, or even a little innocent strategic bombing.
To the point of threatening to kill 1/3+ of our population and rendering large swaths of the earth uninhabitable for a half-century or more.
But WTF – we should have taken the chance, right?
Asshat.
Indeed. Why would anyone ask questions like “What if Saddam is bluffing?” or “What if the Baathists melt away and join up with foreign jihadis.”
Obviously, someone had problems with the analogies section of the SAT. Or have they done away with that?
I’m not arguing Clinton did a great job combating terrorism. He certainly could have done more if it wasn’t for certain partisan witch hunts, though.
Oh god then it’s partly my fault cause I was so like ok with the partisan witchhunts then. What have I done? Oh god.
“he was kind of a boob…”
Lyndon Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Mike Dukakis
Walter Mondale
Bill Clinton
Oh, I see, mojo. It’s all about the ballsy kickass and take names foreign policy! Except when it comes to Reagan. Then we gets us some nuanced chess. See any disconnect?
“I’m not arguing Clinton did a great job combating terrorism. He certainly could have done more if it wasn’t for certain partisan witch hunts, though.”
Yeah…good thing Bush doesn’t have to worry about all those certain partisan witch hunts…
What if heet had some common sense?
Just askin’.
I don’t have that much imagination, Jim.
I admit it. I’m too stupid to follow most of what you wrote but I do know one thing… If you “Monied Jews” would simply get rid of all that Jew Gold that you’re hoarding.. maybe by giving it to some poor goy working slob like me, it would go a long way toward relieving the appearance of impropriety… I’m just sayin.
(Let me know if I need to set up a Paypal account)
tw: 1910 indicating .. Hmm earth passed through the tail of Halley’s Comet that year… Coincidence?
OK, then, the ACTIONS of Democrats and the left:
o Cut off support for the South Vietnamese government
o Gutted the US intelligence apparatus, imposed ridiculous regulations on same
o The Carter presidency
o Opposed actually doing something with those budgets you’re touting
o Opposed SDI, as well as just about every weapon system we rely on today
o “October Surprise”
o Comparing US servicemen with “Nazis”; taking it as a given that US soldiers in general are guilty of war crimes (see Kerry and Murtha for examples)
o Draconian restrictions on exploiting US energy sources. Clinton, for example, declared a massive coal deposit to be protected land, making it illegal to exploit and it’s politically impractical to remove that designation
o One of the most frequent visitors to the Clinton White House: Yassir Arafat.
o The 2000 election fiasco. Someone more interested in the good of the nation would have conceded (see the 1960 election); a party that was actually interested in fair elections would actually be in favor of ensuring all votes are from eligible voters, rather than blocking efforts to do so. Not just major damage to the domestic political scene, but to the image of America being a cohesive entity
o Pelosi in Syria, talking to Assad while Democrats in the US were openly stating their refusal to speak to the President
o Constant declarations of US defeat in Iraq
o A willingness to believe the reports of anonymous sources with dubious associations over the public statements of American officials
That’s the list I can come up with off the top of my head. I’m sure by the time I post this, others will have added their share.
Yeah, that’s what held him back.
*snort*
(Gotta wonder, though, why the people shrieking over “extraordinary rendition” weren’t shrieking when it was introduced. And just what the hell Sandy Berger destroyed.)
Oh, those warmongering Dems:
Ironically, heet, a number of people here would readily admit that the retreat from Beirut emboldened the jihadist movement. As did a number of US actions dating back to the 50s.
But we were also fighting the Cold War, and Reagan found that the more pressing concern at the time.
Was he right?
I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t get your point. You act as if nobody here would argue with anything Reagan did.
Silly, and demonstrably off the mark, given that I’ve written about the Beirut retreat being one in a series of missteps — though the mistake was strategic, not born out of some Carter-esque wobble.
The record will reflect that about the only time Clinton ever took action just happened to coincide with his impeachment. And that involved bombing a site that Clinton believed linked Saddam with al-Qaeda. But whatever.
I give up. Ya cain’t fix stupid.
Also – Osama bin Laden hasn’t been caught. How ya figure that one, genius?
As Hawk Harrelson would say…”He gone”. But, I suppose as long as his head isn’t on a pike stuck somewhere along the Mall, he’s alive, cunningly leading our enemies to blitz the US homeland!
Of course I remember the troll who came in and told us Osama was in freezer on Bagram Airfield. When I informed him I was the XO of the garrison there for the first half of tour and there was no such thing – he simply informed me that I didn’t know everything that had been built there… heh. Ah, me.
TW: assumed Gomez. Actually not.
That’s fine, Jeff. Reagan thought what he was fighting the good fight. My point is that you can’t ungenerously assume the worst intentions of an amorphous left (or pick and choose their fringe comments) and then ascribe a deep strategic plan behind every fuckup your own side makes.
Does Carter’s watching the USSR install a regime in Afghanistan and helping Khomeini (in alliance with the Marxist Tudeh) oust the shah count as history? Who can ever forget the mighty blow struck by Carter in boycotting the Moscow summer games. Now there was an example of real ‘schock and awe’ that would remain unmatched until Clinton’s launching of the dreaded Camel Butt Seeking Missiles at the height of the Monica crisis.
You still don’t get it, do you Rick?
‘Tain’t based on an assessment of their intentions. It’s based on observation of their actions. Most particularly, their actions since 9/11, but also including their attitude towards the Cold War.
All heet and no light, as usual.
No wonder Rick isn’t getting it, heet. You just aren’t communicating. Maybe, just maybe, less saliva and more actual thought and effort into your comments might do the trick. Possibly I forget that it just isn’t worth the effort; it certainly shows.
“Tear down this wall Mr. Gorbachev!” Great piece of timing, that. And don’t forget Grenada. Say. what DID those Grenadans want with the longest runway in the western hemisphere?But who, on the left, stepped up when a crisis was brewing. Get our troops out of Kosovo! Mr President.
tw; one-tenth intoxi. Oh. I’d say much more than that. 1.2 at least.
heet
As Jeff said…
“Is it because they realize that a preemptive pullout would not sit well with the American people? And if so, can this rush to call the surge a failure  even as the “neocons†at the BBC and the AP are conceding that it is making strides  suggest a desire, on the part of progressives in the run-up to an election, to ensure at least the appearance of a full-scale failure?”
“you can’t ungenerously assume the worst intentions of an amorphous left…”
Then show us where on the left is the evidence that they are not amorphous in their desire for full scale failure.
Where are the lefts’ strategies for victory and success? Where is the political will to produce a strategy other than the West cowering under our beds and hoping that the mass murder that will follow a withdrawal of US troops is confined to Iraq?
[…] […] invokes Michael Moore’s name for no apparent reason, and then lazily refers readers to this guy [that would be yours truly], who makes the argument that essentially says that because – […]
Oh, I got Kerry’s Winter Soldier testimony and McGovern’s ‘give peace a chance’, and Carter’s ‘wring hands for America’, and the Church committees evisceration of the CIA, and the Dem Congress passing the Boland amendment in aid of the Sandanista’s and Carter’s lip prints on every leftist dictator in the worlds butt and Clinton’s further defunding of the CIA and the left’s objective support of islamic terrorists fairly well. I might have missed the odd tidbit now and again but I can hit the most treasonous points without heading for Google.
I’m pretty sure I ‘got’ what Jeff meant:
I also ‘get’ the fact that the left earned the scrutiny of HUAC in the ’50’s and gets off far too easily today. But perhaps that’s just too much ‘history’…
Heet says:
“I also don’t hate Republicans but I do have plenty of disdain for wacko ideologues and their followers.”
It’s too bad we don’t have Howlin’ Howie Dean to kick around as a candidate any more. Man, I miss that guy. Comedy gold, he was.
I keep trying to figure this one out. Is he like the head vampire? if we destroy him then all his AQ children will go *poof*!
TW: salaries simply
oh fine, tw, but surely there are other people with money to fund them.
Maggie – There are many on the Left that would argue that once Osama has been killed, that we will have succeeded.
But you can flip the script and use it every fucking time you decide to stop by and shit on the rug. Uh huh.
Nope. I’m pretty sure you sycophants are not getting it. It’s too bad so many people who claim to have an objective opinion are so far up their own asses. I’m not confident your coming years in the wilderness will do anything besides exacerbate your delusion.
heet is really bringing the heat today. Hell, after reading what he has written, I am going to change my registration to Democrat tomorrow morning, and start a campaign to draft Dean for President again. YYYYYEEEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH !!!
JD is REALLY not getting it. Show me where I said the Dems are superior on national defense? I’m just not dumb enough to claim something ridiculous like “Republicans have a history of traitorous thoughts against America!”
“Show me where I said the Dems are superior on national defense? I’m just not dumb enough to claim something ridiculous like “Republicans have a history of traitorous thoughts against America!â€Â
heet – I will type really slowly for you. I made no reference to you having said such a thing. If you insist on setting fire to that strawman, have at it, as it shall pose no challenge.
Where did you learn your social skills, dumbshit?
So you’d change your registration because of Dean? You are fucked up.
Comment by heet on 8/1 @ 1:39 pm #
You guys are projecting like a motherfucker. The LEFT wants America to lose? Rob brings up the perfect rejoined to such mindless bullshit but let me put it more succinctly – Iran Contra and Reagan’s unwillingness to fight back against Iran attacks against our interests. Get a grip on reality fellas.
Reagan was busy, rolling up the Left’s shining gulag on a hill, the Soviet Union. He had to pick his battles with care.
Don’t sell yourself short.
Jeff G – That old saying (I will proceed to butcher it) about brevity being the soul of wit fits nicely with that rejoinder.
heet – Let me type, even s l o w e r . . . I w a s m o c k i n g y o u . I h a v e n o i n t e n t i o n o f c h a n g i n g p a r t i e s. I w a s m e r e l y p o i n t i n g o u t
t h a t y o u r d i s c o u r s e w i l l n o t b e
c h a n g i n g a n y b o d y ‘ s m i n d.
I, for one, have blamed Reagan repeatedly for failing to respond in Lebanon, on these pages and others. I have repeatedly stated that, stacked upon Carter’s fecklessness, Reagan’s failures set up the problem we face today.
So what is it you’re advocating, heet? You want to attack Iran, or invade Pakistan?
Oh. Christ. Almighty. No shit, Sherlock.
Pablo, it does not surprise me in the least that you don’t get it, even after I went ahead and made my point clear by typing it out and everything.
heet – we get it. you do not like wingnuts. Is this some kind of therapy for you? A way to vent for your anger management classes?
What’s heet saying here? That because the Right has made tactical errors, they’re substantively no different from the Left, which has ached in its bones to capitulate to every significant enemy America has had since 1972?
Something like that, Jeffersonian.
That, and that he’s better than everyone he’s ever come across, regardless of party affiliation.
Perhaps he can challenge Scott Beauchamp for the title of “next greatest living philosopher poet.”
heet, you really should just shut the fuck up. You’ve got nothing to offer, save bile, as per your usual.
I think Beauchamp was aiming to be the next “people’s poet”, in the tradition of Rick-with-a-silent-‘P’ from “The Young Ones”.
This is no shit.. This A-rab comes into my appliance store a few years ago. Tall skinny guy in old nightshirt with a big ole beard and a head scarf thing.. I figured he was like a bum or a nut or taxi driver or somethin and was about show him my boot when he goes right to our top of the line Traulsen commercial chest freezer.. $10K a pop and says “I would like to purchase 3 of these, please.” (in that kinda funny sounding foreigner way) No haggling.. No tryin to Jew me down.. uhh.. I mean.. you know what I mean.. and he opens this briefcase and it’s filled with brand new USD $100 bills.. Real ones, I checked.. with bands that read “Bank of Saud” or some crap with a bunch of squiggles.. Any, his money is as green as the next guys so I take it and says.. “great.. I can deliver them tomorrow..where do ya want ’em ?” (and here’s where it gets weird..)and he’s like.. “Deliver them to : Bagram Airfield ATTN: Blackwater Security, Secret Underground OP CENTER, Level IIIB Cold Storage, Parvan Province, Afghanistan… So now I’m really curious and I says ” so what are you gonna store in these things” and straight faced he deadpans “Osama bin Laden”.. Man, my freakin jaw just dropped open when he said that but then he busts up laughin and makes that fish sign like I’m a total gullible idiot and says “shit.. Everyone knows the Triple Canopy guys are holdin him at their place in the Baghdad Green Zone..” and just turns and walks out…
and that’s no shit…
tw: says manum … wtf?
You know what heet is?
Any mom knows….it’s the whiney neighborhood tattletail… the kid who finds every fault, every misstep of all other other kids and runs to tell what ever Authority in hopes his tales will destroy the reputation of those he’s tattling on and give him an advantage with Authority.
It’s a bankruptcy of morality and a paucity of soul that grips heet…and defines much of the contemporary Left. Their so-called champtioning of “egalitarianism” is based on reducing every human to his/her most coarse. So they spend inordinate time trying to reduce people who don’t or won’t play their games.
The Federalist Society put Reagan in the #8 spot… “near great”, yet heet (and his ilk) reverts to the “boob” sneer that encapsulates the hatred Reagan ingendered in the Left…because he just wasn’t bothered by them. It makes them as invisible as the enraged tattletail who is ignored by the kids he is trying to get in trouble.
The Left is illiberal and authoritarian, and that’s not even counting their pathological fear of reasonable contrarian arguments against their secular Sharia plans for the US.
Darleen – Prof. Caric notes that you are an inauthentic descendent of slaves, and then restates that wingers are sexist, racist, and homophobic. Just in case you were wondering.
Ouroboros – warn us next time. I had, emphasis on had, a mouth full of a freshly made mocha.
Judging from the posts today, heet is blowing through a Starbucks gift card like there’s no tomorrow.
TW: seven-year case…means a whole lotta Java
Darleen, I see your perfect mind has, uh, made up it’s mind. You and Babs, two peas in a pod.
“Nope. I’m pretty sure you sycophants are not getting it. It’s too bad so many people who claim to have an objective opinion are so far up their own asses. I’m not confident your coming years in the wilderness will do anything besides exacerbate your delusion.”
You want to hear about my past years in the wilderness, heet? You might find it interesting, because I was a hard core progressive ACTIVIST! during the Reagan years, and I hated that old sonuvabitch with a passion. I remember thinking the Lebanon bombings were completely justified, our arrogant Imperial asses deserved it. I felt an abstract sorry for the troops, yeah, but honestly enjoyed the egg on Reagans face. I also protested damn near everyday American involvement in Central America, and remember thinking at the time we were backing those fuckers in the White House in a corner, they couldn’t keep fighting the cold war and Central America and the Middle East all together, we were going to get them to fucking bail somewhere by God, and then we would build from there.
I wish I could delude myself into thinking it was no big deal, but delusions seem to work best on the young.
Heet has to ignore alot of well documented recent history to spew his brand of stupid here.
It’s like equating the guy who shoots at the enemy and misses with the guy who sells the Germans the plans for D-Day. What an idiot.
TW: soon increasing – without a doubt
If it was “documented” by the likes of Howard Zinn, one might understand the slight tension created by aspersions cast upon the Left’s committment to
Rodinathe United States as embodied inDas Kapitalthe founding documents.JD
Thanks for the headsup… I went back and read good Prof Cancer’s non-sequitor reply. Not one substansive answer to my challenge to AA, just spewings about how *I* gave up my “moral authority” as a descendant of slaves when I dared side with non-leftists.
Geez, and he gets PAID to “teach”????
Heet
I argue substansive points with people who want to engage in good faith.
You’ve proved yourself unserious on both points.
I wonder if you’re housebroken.
heet. You’re misnamed. I think ‘tepid’ is much more apt.
tw; nullifiers pawn . I spoke too soon. Fits you like a neoprene bodysuit.
“#
Comment by heet on 8/1 @ 2:58 pm #
Oh, I see, mojo. It’s all about the ballsy kickass and take names foreign policy! Except when it comes to Reagan. Then we gets us some nuanced chess. See any disconnect?”
Well, no, because Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union.
Can’t get much more ballsy than that.
Fucktard.
I got my first condescending response from a troll! How fun! (They only call you by name when you get to them.)
Heet, you’re a silly one. I hope you stick around; kinda’like an ugly friend that makes you look good, you’re making me feel sane.
Jeff, Could you call this the “If the shoe fits..” post?
Why yes, I called him a genius and dropped Clyburn on him.
Terrible, ain’t I? Or perhaps it’s the leftist policy of just deleting that which destroys your argument. Like this fucknut did.
Makes you pine for a delete button, doesn’t it, Timmah!?
Shit, wrong thread. Apologies.
Just to assuage your worry, the one I wrote in response to you (much like the one I posted here) was also rejected/deleted. Apparently, neither of us is up to the “civil discourse” which Mssrs. Goldstein, Sirota, and Harsanyi;)
Oh, well, for snark, we’ll always PW, or Darleen’s place or the times you post anonymously at Caric’s site. I can’t quit you, Pablo!
are those peas on that pizza?
oh. nevermind.
No, Jeff’s comments are gone too.
This is who they are and this is what they do. Funny how your dumbass comment stands here, but got deleted there, ain’t it?
tw: article hostages
[…] to make similar arguments in the New York Times – driving David Sirota into a kind of virtual apoplexy during which he accused the pair of being neocon stooges and rhetorical double agents — […]