I wish that he would go into politics. He seems to understand human behiavor better than most, and also seems to have a level head. Iraq needs more people like him.

As for fear, I fear too at this moment. We still are in charge, but that can change. A combination of bad luck, bad timing and some bad judgement on our part can ruin things in Iraq completely.

FH: A combination of bad luck, bad timing and some bad judgement on our part can ruin things in Iraq completely.

Yep.

Some are going to say that bad judgement got us here in the first place. And I don't agree with that. A confrontation of some kind with fundamentalists was inevitable. It happens in every Middle Eastern country. Some have dealt with it well (like Turkey, Morocco, and Tunisia), others not so well.

The fact that this was predictable, however, doesn't mean it's easy.

My thoughts.

Praktike,

You had me going until you suggested opening talks with the insurgents. That, I think, would encourage and reward them.

I do think you're right about wounded Iraqi pride, though. I hope that is at least somewhat taken care of when sovereignty is handed over to them, when we are no longer administering their country in their faces.

Too late.

Iraqi envoys are sent to Fallujah to stop the fighting.

Praktike,

Well, sending Iraqis to Fallujah is better than what I thought you meant. I thought you meant we Americans should negotiate with al-Sadr. I think we should not arrest him, but kill him.

Of Sadr, I said "Let them decide what to do with Sadr and his minions."

(I've since edited my post to make that clear)

This, on the other hand, makes it seem like we're not budging.

I too have experienced an elevated sense of apprehension and worry about our resolve. If you watch any of the alphabet channels they give you the impression that things are dire and going downhill quickly. I have almost completely given up on them as a source of news, not that I don't want to hear negative things, but I just don't trust them anymore. Playing with the "facts" and constantly editorializing the news is alienating me and I would think quite a few others. I worry how the American public, especially the moderates among us, are interpretting this. Right now is probably the most crutial time when our resolve to do what needs to be done has to be at its greatest strength of conviction. Slipping now would be a deathblow to our efforts. I don't think that will happen, but it is that which makes me worry at night.

Off topic, did anyone see Letterman's show last night? He showed a spliced up speech by Bush where he cut it up so that Bush said the following (Paraphrasing): "I want Al Qaeda and the Taliban to win".

I could not believe it. It was not funny at all and half the audience didn't really know what to make of it. It was disgusting and uncalled for.

I expected the situation to be far worse in Iraq by now, with US deaths between 10,000 and 20,000. I also expected a 3 way civil war to be in full swing, with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. I guess I was wrong. Something to be thankful for on Easter weekend.
The Iraqi majority has been far more restrained and sensible than I gave them credit for. Now if they could only squash the brainless islamist monsters who are infiltrating into the country from Syria, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon etc.

Praktike, I think that the US, when forced to choose between the option of negotiating, or going in full bore, did something every government does: Do both.

One should never forget that the US military is showing incredible restraint in Iraq. The only force which can defeat us in Iraq is the public opinion at home. That and nothing else. The restraint we show is determinde by the home public reaction. Imagine that the US population was of a single mind on this, the mind of our gracious host for example. As one US commander said, when someone asked him if he doesn't fear the militant forces of Fallujah: " ... God help these people when we are done with them ...".
The fight is actually on two fronts, the military battle in Iraq being the minor one compared with the one on the home front. here we are fighting persuasive and influential chicken littles of the defeatist left and most of the national media outlets, infiltrated and owned by the left, and with a political agenda to defeat Bush without regard for national consequences. Ready to cut the branch they are sitting on, and let westren civilization be destroyed just because it is Bush who is leading this fight. This, in my opinion, is the front we should all fight on. Thanks God for the blogosphere !

Don't forget steve, about the elements on the right who basically argue for razing Fallujah, and other such nonsense. Praktike is right in that critics need to talk with Bush, and work out a plan of action rather than denounce him 24/7, which will merely insure our defeat.

I think we should not arrest him, but kill him.

Amen!

Michael

You think the Sadr militia are terrorist? How are you defining a terrorist here? You think Sadr should be killed, not arrested and tried by an Iraqi court? Isn't the geopolitcal strategy here to establish a stable democracy? How will killing him help? All that aside, a live Sadr will help find out if Iran is calling the shots.
Mark

Both Wretchard and SDB have posts that are worth reading in regards to the current flare up. Check them out if you haven't already.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/

http://www.denbeste.nu/

Mark

It is a war zone where we kill all enemies. Obviously you are in the "it's a police action" crowd. You think a live Sadr might anwser whether Iran is involed or not? A dead Sadr might also answer the same. He does confer with Iraqis as well, we can talk to them after they see his bullet riddled body.

The only force which can defeat us in Iraq is the public opinion at home.

Wrong. The only force which can defeat us in Iraq is the public opinion IN IRAQ.

"Wrong. The only force which can defeat us in Iraq is the public opinion IN IRAQ."

Hardly. To think that America could be defeated by Iraqi public opinion is laughable. We defeated Japan and Germany who were magnitudes of order more formidable than Iraq because we were united and determined. We lost in Viet Nam because we were politically divided at home. We'll lose in Iraq only if the American left and the quisling press is powerful enough to undermine our efforts.

Wrong. The only force which can defeat us in Iraq is the public opinion IN IRAQ.

Exactly!
I keep seeing this nonsense on the part of the war party that if we stay stoic and resolute in Iraq, victory is inevitable. This would be true if the goal were to stop Iraq from invading America (or an ally of ours). Of course, this isn't the goal. The goal is (or was as of a little while ago) to turn Iraq into a stable, pro-American democracy that will be a good example for the rest of the Middle East. However, it is entirely possible that there will come a time (if it hasn't already arrived) when the general populace will be so oppossed to us, that a pro-American democracy becomes impossible. In short, if we remain stoic, resolute and politicaly incompetent we will fail.

Finally, I'd like to note that the predeliction of the war party to blame the failures of the war on the opposition represents their biggest flaw. A nation led by vicarious war partisans without the capability of self-examination, is a nation in serious trouble.

Hardly. To think that America could be defeated by Iraqi public opinion is laughable. We defeated Japan and Germany who were magnitudes of order more formidable than Iraq because we were united and determined. We lost in Viet Nam because we were politically divided at home. We'll lose in Iraq only if the American left and the quisling press is powerful enough to undermine our efforts.

Are you insane? We didn't go in there to fight radical Shiites, anti-Saddam Wahabbis, and tribal elements. WMD aside, we went to help Iraqis build a viable state that wasn't a threat to its neighbors and was on the way to democracy.

Hardly. To think that America could be defeated by Iraqi public opinion is laughable. We defeated Japan and Germany who were magnitudes of order more formidable than Iraq because we were united and determined.

Sigh.
The objective in WWII was not to "liberate" Japan and Germany. Rather, it was to defeat two nations who had declared war on us. With the global recognition that the people of Japan and Germany were the bad guys, things went more smoothely once their governments surrendered.

On the other hand, in Vietnam and Iraq, our goal was to liberate an indegenous people. In such a situation, once the indegenous populace has turned against you, you've failed. No amount of bombing will achieve your objective.

In any case, without the brilliant Marshal plan, all the determination in the world would have led to us losing Europe to communism. Will cannot overcome incompetence.

To think that America could be defeated by Iraqi public opinion is laughable.

ROFL! Gee, Paul, think you might have lost sight of what the goal is?

Am I insane? Sometimes when I hear the loons on the left like you rave on I think I must be. The fact that you don't get that our enemies are counting on us to defeat ourselves politically shows that you're a very foolish person.

I got news for you. The primary goal is to protect America and her interests. One aspect of that is to try and build a stable democracy in Iraq, but if that is not possible it is still paramount that we affect regime change in the terrorist supporting countries in the ME, one way or the other. Without state support terrorists have very little power.

It will be a lot easier and less bloody if Iraq becomes a democratic role model for other nations in the area so we will do our best to see that that happens. And we will fight radical Shiites, anti-Saddam Wahhabis, and anyone else there who opposes us and tries to derail the implementation of this plan.

I know you breathlessly anticipate the Iraqi population rising up against the Americans, but be prepared to be dissappointed when we crush the rebellion and the majority of Iraqis approve.

Swopa-

The goal is to make sure that even imbeciles like you don't become radioactive dust.

Without state support terrorists have very little power.

RPG: $17

IED:
$22.95

A political leadership in the America that cannot adjust its world view to accept the new threat of stateless actors:
Priceless.

Williestyle: I keep seeing this nonsense on the part of the war party that if we stay stoic and resolute in Iraq, victory is inevitable. This would be true if the goal were to stop Iraq from invading America (or an ally of ours). Of course, this isn't the goal. The goal is (or was as of a little while ago) to turn Iraq into a stable, pro-American democracy that will be a good example for the rest of the Middle East. However, it is entirely possible that there will come a time (if it hasn't already arrived) when the general populace will be so oppossed to us, that a pro-American democracy becomes impossible.

Yep. I completely agree.

RPG: $17

IED:
$22.95

Don't make me laugh. The grownups in this country are worried about the kind of catastrophic attacks that kill tens or hundreds of thousands, shut down our ports, borders, and national (world) economy, and will be impossible to trace. Those are the stakes but ostriches like you aren't expected comprehend this.

The grownups in this country are worried about the kind of catastrophic attacks that kill tens or hundreds of thousands, shut down our ports, borders, and national (world) economy, and will be impossible to trace.

You mean the sort of catastrophic attacks pulled off using box cutters?
How about a truck full of fertillizer?

Paul, how much do you think a dirty bomb costs?

Without state support they will be running and unable to hide. Right now, they're dodging Pakistani bullets in Pakistan, and Coalition bullets in Afghanistan and Iraq. No time for big attack planning.

You anti-war people are the least accurate prognosticators by far. If you expect people to accept the council of those whose predictions have been by far the most outrageously inaccurate, you are out of your gourd…

On the other hand, in Vietnam and Iraq…

You can’t help yourselves can you? Man you just love those words together. The worst thing is when it ends up well, rather than be magnanimous you will already be in the process of moving the goalposts again. Keep playing your “Lucy yanking the football” game all you want. Sooner or later and a few wars down the road you may be right, like that good old clock, twice a day, but it will not be by well reasoned analysis.

The left predicted tragedy in the aftermath of Welfare Reform, and now many of the same wallow in the credit. In fact many take credit post-facto for every Republican like action that Clinton ever took, because it was his Republican-like initiatives that most worked. Live with your loss of credibility. Hell according to you guys we have 9 more years of a Soviet like war of attrition in Afghanistan. We are still bogged down in a Stalingrad like situation in Baghdad. Hell what about those 100,000 body bags from the first Gulf War? And what about the low estimates of 3-5000 casualties to the average of around 20,000 from you guys this time around? We are under 1,000 a year later and you say Vietnam?

You guys don’t hold to account your own, yea Clinton didn’t do anything any normal person wouldn’t have done right? He was great! Clinton sure taught Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden a lesson didn’t he? I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is is. Well I know the meaning of that word and the left is bankrupt. Get over yourselves. Don’t tell me to I already have. Vietnam was lost because of people like you and you wish it upon us all today. You are too blind to see. I have thought like you, and been like you, now I wouldn’t want to be like you. You wallow in the pit of a self-righteousness that is rooted in filth, unfortunately you have gotten too used to the smell to notice, don’t worry most notice.

Samuel,

Methinks the liberals on this thread are being a lot more reasonable than all that. Treat them as individuals, please. I agree with some of what they are saying. (No, not the Iraq=Vietnam business.)

Ah, ad hominem attacks and Blame the Clenis ™.

I guess if you can't beat 'em with facts and logic, misdirect them with irrelevance.

I have noticed that all week I've had to argue with over-the-top right-wing rhetoric in these comments sections. I have to say it's getting a little old. This is war, not a partisan point-scoring game.

Michael, you are still too sympathetic to the unaccounted for sludge from the left. And you said "the liberals" as you asked me to treat them individually in your reprimand, a broad brush acquittal I might add. But of course keep knocking down the "over-the-top right-wing rhetoric".

Thanks, Michael. We need to win this thing.

And just a general observation.

In any endeavor, is the best way to garner support for that endeavor to continually bash and alienate potential supporters?

Praktike, that is something that both sides need to ask.

Samuel,

You'll notice I've been having a good conversation with Praktike here. I enjoy the fact that I can discuss things with smart people in here who I don't always agree with. I'd like those people not to be alienated. I don't care if trolls feel alienated, but no one here in this thread is a troll.

I don't like that a number of people have complained to me recently about right-wing vitriol in here and they tell me they don't want to post as often anymore because of it. These complaints come from some of my favorite commenters.

You guys don’t hold to account your own, yea Clinton didn’t do anything any normal person wouldn’t have done right? He was great! Clinton sure taught Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden a lesson didn’t he? I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is is. Well I know the meaning of that word and the left is bankrupt. Get over yourselves. Don’t tell me to I already have. Vietnam was lost because of people like you and you wish it upon us all today. You are too blind to see. I have thought like you, and been like you, now I wouldn’t want to be like you. You wallow in the pit of a self-righteousness that is rooted in filth, unfortunately you have gotten too used to the smell to notice, don’t worry most notice.

Dude,
you really have to get me in touch with your dealer.

In any endeavor, is the best way to garner support for that endeavor to continually bash and alienate potential supporters?

praktike, I think people like Samuel and paul are engaged in an intense internal struggle against some mental demon called "the Left" -- a struggle to which we are merely amused observers. ;-)

Anyway, about whether the U.S. can be driven out of Iraq by the sheer weight of popular opinion in that country, I'd note that even David Brooks in the piece Michael links to says that "If people like Sistani are forced to declare war on the U.S., the gates of hell will open up." Reuel Marc Gerecht in the Wall Street Journal last Friday said almost exactly the same thing (I'm not sure who cribbed from whom).

What neither Gerecht nor Brooks appears to realize is that Sistani's loyalists were in the middle of a massive campaign to rally public opposition to the interim constitution when al-Sadr launched his rebellion.

In other words, Sistani was already getting into position to oppose the U.S. publicly. al-Sadr just jumped the gun, that's all. And when (presumably) al-Sadr is dealt with one way or another, Sistani will still be waiting in the wings for the right time to say "game over."

I said anti-war people and did not quote "Praktike" anyway. I havn't even voted for a Republican, yet am over-the-top right-wing, No Michael, I am a Zell Miller Jew, I am just less forgiving than you. My tone was harsh, what wasn't true?

Michael,
I believe Samuel was referring to me when he said.

" You wallow in the pit of a self-righteousness that is rooted in filth, unfortunately you have gotten too used to the smell to notice, don’t worry most notice."

I wouldn't want to smear others with my filth.
Still, I'd be curious to know what he thought of my actual point:
That will alone cannot assure us victory in a war such as this one, where our goal is to create a pro-American Democracy in Iraq. In such an endeavor, if one loses the indegenous people, all military victories are merely pyrrhic.

Williestyle: In such an endeavor, if one loses the indegenous people, all military victories are merely pyrrhic.

Yes, I agree with you.

I do want to address something you said earlier, though: Finally, I'd like to note that the predeliction of the war party to blame the failures of the war on the opposition represents their biggest flaw.

What's happening here is fear that the left will make us lose by demanding, and getting, a retreat from Iraq. Something like 40 percent of the country wants to pull out now. That's scary. That's why you're getting "blamed" in advance. If this pullout threat wasn't hanging over our heads all the time, things would be different on the right side of the aisle. I'm not blaming the anti-war opposition for any failure in Iraq right now. But I will if the Democrats take over and run away leaving the place in an ultra-violent shambles. If you want to study the lessons of Vietnam, don't forget the boat people. And think of what an enormous victory it would be for the jihad if they beat us. We would be, in a word, fucked.

With all due respect Michael,
I think the right would be better off worrying about what its own policies have wrought in Iraq. Frankly, this situation will be settled one way or another by January, so worrying about the response of a hypothetical Democratic administration rather than examining the efficacy of the right's own policies, strikes me as somewhat unserious.

I'm with Michael here.

I'm starting to get very tired of the partisanship. I know I've been guilty of it in the past, and even recent past, but at some point it's time to buck up, bury the hatchet, and work constructively for solutions.

I believe that time is now.

Williestyle,

If this situation is settled by January (and I certainly hope it is) then you're right.

You (and I) are rightly worried about Iraqi public opinion. But American public opinion counts too. Some of us are worried about the country's will to fight in general, not just in Iraq. The Terror War will outlast the Bush Administration whether Bush gets another four years or not.

One way to win a war is to destroy your enemy's will to fight. We can't let that happen to ourselves.

Thanks, Praktike.

Things are getting serious. If Iraq implodes into a black hole, all of us are really truly screwed. Not to mention how screwed the Iraqis would be.

Good for you, Praktike. Hugs and kisses. Love ya', babe.

Things won't implode. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis want something reasonably similar to what we want. They aren't just reactive but rational. They have their eyes on the prize and our enormous military there to help them. They've already said that they want us out in due time, but not now, and that they want us to stomp on the cockroaches.

Sistani et al have been reasonable this last Dec. and January, so they'll likely continue to be reasonable. If they're going door-to-door with a complaint about the interim constitution, this is a sign that they aren't interested in war but are already settling in to democracy.

There are going to be horrible moments in the WoT. This isn't one of them. It's a moment of valiant courage at the front, liberation, and the birth of a constitutional democracy.

Oh, and Willie, if you think this blog has chosen to fret about Democrats in power "rather than" examine the Bush Doctrine objectively, then you haven't really been reading this blog.

Oh, and Willie, if you think this blog has chosen to fret about Democrats in power "rather than" examine the Bush Doctrine objectively, then you haven't really been reading this blog.

Care to point me to said objective examination Jim?

On the left side of your screen, under "archives." Now, get clickin'!

Michael,

It may not matter because I'm not one of your favorite commenters, but you should know, if you hadn’t noticed, I haven’t posted here much of late either, mainly because of left wing vitriol and trolls since you are taking complaints. That is if it matters.

I see a lot about "defeatist liberals" and "chicken lttles". I don't see much self examination.

If you'd care to post a link to some here's how it's done:

&lt a href="url goes here" &gt Link text&lt/a&gt

Good Lord, man, the Bush Doctrine has been subjected to the minutest scrutiny here. By "objective examination" of it, you must mean one that in conclusion rejects it. You must think that no intelligent and intellectually honest person could, upon thorough examination of it, accept the Bush Doctrine.

Care to post a link Jim.
'Cause all I've seen is the attitude that, whoever is to blame for the troubles in Iraq, it sure as heck isn't the folks who are actualy in charge of the war in Iraq.

Samuel,

Actually you are one of my favorite commenters. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you.

Williestyle,

It's true that I accept the Bush Doctrine. That's not to say I think Bush has done everything right. I didn't vote for the guy, so I'm not exactly inclined to think he's faultless.

Want a link? I complained about the WMD argument before the war and immediatly after it. Here.

Excerpt:

Paul Berman made the best case for war in Terror and Liberalism. "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for the freedom of others." Like-minded Christopher Hitchens bluntly calls the liberation of Iraq "a slum-clearance program." Both Hitchens and Berman used liberation as the set-piece of their arguments, and history will reward them. Bush's case for war is more in doubt. In the end it is not even relevant, which Bush and his critics both miss. The administration should have known better. Many of Bush's advisers are students of history. They should know, then, to factor in the hindsight-of-history effect. Bush's rationale for invasion obscured the moral dimension of war, and it remains obscured to this day. It muddied the pre-war discussion, and now his critics grab headlines when they gripe about footnotes. Let this be a lesson to him, and those who follow him in office, that the liberal case for war was always the stronger one.

Williestyle: 'Cause all I've seen is the attitude that, whoever is to blame for the troubles in Iraq, it sure as heck isn't the folks who are actualy in charge of the war in Iraq.

Well, I'm certainly not blaming the Democrats. That would be ridiculous.

I blame Saddam Hussein for the mess in Iraq. And lately I blame the nujobs like al-Sadr, the Baathist dead-enders, and the foreign jihadis. I don't blame any Americans for that mess.

Thank you Michael.

it's time to buck up, bury the hatchet, and work constructively for solutions.

As soon as the party that controls the entire apparatus of government, and is readily abusing it to do partisan hit pieces does.

The Republicans are the ones that started it, proved that it worked, and are still doing it. Now that we're the minority party, we're supposed to disarm? No thanks.

Hipocrite,

Both parties are going to do it forever and ever and ever. Individuals can make the decision to stop any time they feel like it. But it you're going to be the last one to stop, you'll never stop.

Personally? I rather like the moderates of both parties and learn a lot from each. The sort-of liberal New Republic is my favorite political magazine. I wish the right had a counterpart to it. I'm surprised no one has started up such a magazine yet. I think a lot of people would appreciate it. I'd love to read a magazine that was only sort-of conservative.

Michael

The sort-of liberal New Republic is my favorite political magazine. I wish the right had a counterpart to it.

Michael, think about it, the right counter magazine you are looking for doesn't exist because it can't, that is somewhat an oxymoron. Neo-con articles and publications are as close as you will get. Why? Because that counter magazine on the right would be the inversion of the New Republic, against war and nation building to the same degree the New Republic is supportive of such, other than that the positions would be liberal. A socially liberal with antiwar positions? That my friend is a Libertarian. So it does exist, you just wouldn’t like it. I would like it even less.

I treat this discussion thread and others I write in as my own way to fight in the WoT. Basically, trying to provoke a critical discussion and analysis of what is going on. We are in a war but only about half of the US population believes this. What about the other half ? It is made up of people who cover the spectrum from ignorance to indifference to cynicism to politically motivated blindness. However, I hope something can be done to convince some of them to open their eyes and understand what is going on. The war for the minds and hearts of the american people is what will decide if we win and if the enlightment will endure.

As far as iraqi public opinion goes, the recent BBC poll demonstrates that the majority of the Iraqis are firmly with the US. Majorities consider the US action as the right thing to do, view it as a war of liberation rather than humiliation, and consider attacks upon the coalition forces, which they wish to remain until an Iraqi government is in place and security is restored, to be unacceptable. They see their lives as better than they were a year ago, and look forward to them improving further. Their main priorities are public security and infrastructure reconstruction. Most prefer a unified Iraqi democracy with a strong leader.

Go to:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

There is also a BBC poll in Arabic with some revealing comments:

http://armiesofliberation.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_armiesofliberation_archive#108157406407580925

I also recommend the folloing Iraqi blogs for a continuing "horses' mouths" commentary (in addition to the Mesopotamian, of course):

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com

Samuel,

Yeah, you're probably right. I guess I'm wishing for something in between myself and the neocons. But maybe it doesn't exist. Maybe I'm only one step to the left of them.

I guess what I mean is that I wish there were a conservative magazine that sometimes says "The Democrats are right and the Republicans are wrong" on a few issues. I don't know of any that do. But sort-of liberal New Republic does say "The Republicans are right and the Democrats are wrong" when they know that to be the case. They're honest. They have integrity. And they have a lot of it.

Well I agree with Samuel, obviously, and believe the left is responsible for our loosing the Viet nam war, and is feverishly working to lose this one whether they are aware of it or not. The difference is that losing the former resulted in the death of countless SE Asians, losing the latter will mean a lot of dead Americans.

But hey, there are plenty of other blogs. It's no skin off my nose if the host prefers useful idiots like Swopa, especially if "over the top right wingers" might drive them away by irritating their thin skins. I just hope some of you grow spines somewhere down the road because you are going to need them.

Samuel, I'll be looking forward to more of your excellent posts elsewhere.

Paul

I appreciate that, I really do, but don't give up on Michael yet. Richard Clarke and the rightful frustration over the effort to Vietnamize the current situation by the left, takes it toll, especially on me. I hold them in a much higher contempt than Michael no doubt. I won’t wait until “it happens” because it is happening now as I write this, but Michael isn’t one doing this (undercutting) either, he has every right to hold an in between position. He’s not the neo-con nutcase I am (my words not his), but he is a supporter. Look I rarely comment or visit LGF because it is way over the top, Michael is just avoiding such ends (that is why I laugh at the words right winger when I haven’t even voted Republican yet and am 45 years old).

Michael just asked me to be more specific and not paint with a broad brush, fair enough. I will paint the left with a broad brush, I’ll just make sure I make more reasonable posters like “Praktike” who I wasn’t referring to, don’t get the sense I am talking to them, in this Michael was correct. Just do what I have done of late. If you see a topic getting out of hand, pass it over, do not pass this site over however, it is a good site.

Michael

Yeah, you're probably right. I guess I'm wishing for something in between myself and the neocons. But maybe it doesn't exist. Maybe I'm only one step to the left of them.

Your dilemma, and to some extent mine, I have just made peace through prioritization, lies in what has been alluded to by many neo-cons. First, a South Park Republican is about as close as you are going to get. (hawkish-libertarian). The reason why this won’t find your comfort zone is that these people have a tendency to disdain liberals as silly. I read the New Republic on my flight out to LA and found it quite bashing of Republicans and Bush, this is the main difference between your and my comfort zones, I doubt we would disagree on much else. So a South Park Republican will default right, a DLC Neo-Liberal will default left. A neo-con is a neo-liberal that is pro-war (like you don’t already know). The reason that you are to the left of them is they are moralists and when push comes to shove they go right and not left. For me it is neo-con because I am a moralist, notice I didn’t say religious, it is just easier to appeal to such moralism on the right. I view the moralism of the left to be quite bankrupt and that is my dilemma. Bottom line you show more disdain for the far right and I the far left. That is the difference between South Park/Neo-con and New Republic/Neo-liberal. I do find Republicans on the whole self analyzing by the way.

Hey surrender monkey. No pain. No fear. Don't whine. Although that's probably all a guy sporting a goatee can do. We will fight. We will never surrender.

Ricky,

Who are you talking to?

Truly Bizzarre bunch you've got here Matt.
Pumping their chests as they tilt at windmills.
Still, none of them have answered my substantive point. As such, I'll assume they have nothing worthwhile to say on the matter.

MT, National Review is to the right of me in certain areas, but it's my favorite magazine. I just "pshaw!" where, for example, it tells me I have to believe in God and eschew gay marriage. I have noticed it praise the odd Democrat and scold the odd Repulican.

On that note, it occurs to me that folks slighly left of center and folks slightly right have a tendency to see those to their respective extremes as their consciences. I'll admit that I have this urge, to see someone to the right of me as having "it together" or having a keener conscience than mine. And I believe many left of center think of the farther left as being somehow more serious, more admirably devoted to a core of moral values. The forty-year-old non-radical Democrat, for example, tends to see the Chomsky-reading firebrand as somehow at the core of the best principles. The reason is that these extremes are purer, simpler than their centristic counterparts, more devoted to what's important. There is a natural tendency to take one's own centristic caveats as unprincipled, unserious dilutions of extremely important moral values.

It's a natural tendency, but one that should be resisted, of course. It leads each side of the center to overlook the ills of its own extreme while denouncing the ills of the other. You'll see me trash leftists, but when it comes to trashing the far right, somehow I can't be bothered. It tends to polarize the forum, by pulling each centerist toward the extreme he admires. And it distorts an important fact about morality. The fact is that every principle has valid caveats and exceptions. Acknowledging this is not only not unprincipled, but it is necessary for getting things right.

You are certainly a centrist who resists this polarizing urge very obviously and admirably. On the other hand, perhaps you do scold your far right commenter's vitriol more easily than you scold your far left ones' vitriol. I'm not sure, but it the claim has been made by several people. If you do, then the reason I've given may be an explanation.

A footnote, MT: An "objective examination" doesn't have to include "saying something negative about." You showed Willie something negative you'd said about the Bush Doctrine. You needn't have done that. You might have shown him places where you took up objections to the doctrine and found them to be unsound. It's possible to have objectively examined a policy and found it perfectly good at every point.

In such a situation, once the indegenous populace has turned against you, you've failed. No amount of bombing will achieve your objective.

I answered this, Willie, at 9:40 upstream. The answer is that 80-90% of the population of Iraq is with us. So, your objection is more of a hand-wringing worry: "What if they weren't with us?!" You couldn't even be bothered to do your reading in the archives, just like my students when I was a professor who would say, "Which part of the required reading do we actually have to do for the test?" So, now I won't give you any links to the statistic I've claimed. Get surfin'!

Thanks for the insult, and his name's "Michael," not "Matt."

Jim,

The only reason I've scolded "the right" in these comments more than "the left" recently is because, with one minor exception, I haven't seen any leftists asking for it. That is all. Sometimes I feel like I'm fending off one left-wing troll after another. But not this week. I really do appreciate smart liberal commentary, and I don't want those folks alienated from my comments section. I also appreciate smart conservative commentary like yours and I don't want the likes of you alienated either.

There are certain blogs, which are best left unnamed, which have comments sections that I find appalling. And these comments sections are often run by bloggers that I think are themselves smart and reasonable people. Some of these I have in mind are on the left and some are on the right. I used to leave comments at them and I got driven away by the excessive partisan nastiness. I'm the only person who can prevent that from happening here. So that's why I do what I do. I don't have any other reason, and I really don't think I'm playing favoritism with liberals.

Jim: The answer is that 80-90% of the population of Iraq is with us. So, your objection is more of a hand-wringing worry: "What if they weren't with us?!"

I think you're missing something. The polls you mention are accurate. I've read them and linked to them. But views on the ground can change. Iraqi psychology is complicated. They have a great deal of wounded pride right now, which is something I think should not be underestimated. Also, don't forget about mob mentality. We have had huge riots in the US that started out as political and degenerated into violent apolitical anarchy. If that can happen in Los Angeles, it can certainly happen in Baghdad.

Most Iraqis don't want to be ruled by al-Sadr's thugs. But that won't necessarily stop them from joining him in his mayhem. Look at how many American liberals marched in the streets with goons from ANSWER. They only had one thing in common, but it was enough.

I answered this, Willie, at 9:40 upstream. The answer is that 80-90% of the population of Iraq is with us. So, your objection is more of a hand-wringing worry: "What if they weren't with us?!"

No, my objection is to the claim that all we need to be victorious in Iraq is will at home. All the will at home without indeginous support in Iraq will lead to failure. The fact that you have so far been unable to refute this point suggests that you concede it.

Finally, if you think 80-90% of Iraqis are with us, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell. As Mao said, "the people are a sea within which the revolutionary swims". The insurgents in Iraq simply could not have this sort of success of late without more than 10-20% support from the general populace. In fact, members of the IGC have been resigning (or threatening to resign) precisely because public opinion is forcing their hand. Pollyana does not engender confidence in judgement of the war party.

Michael

One nice place for fairly moderate right (centrist libertarian?) punditry is www.reason.com - I particularly enjoy the articles by Cathy Young, who normally writes on gender equity feminist themes - here's her take on the Iraq situation
http://www.reason.com/cy/cy040604.shtml
and the pro-science reporter Ron Baily. As I recall, the editors are against the war (health of the State and all that) though the opinion of the writers vary.

Anyhow, they're off the traditional D/R political axis, so you might find them worth perusing.

Gene,

Yeah, I like Reason. They're sometimes right on, sometimes full of it, usually interesting.

Willie: All the will at home without indeginous [sic] support in Iraq will lead to failure.

Of course, I concede this point; it's trivially true. But implied in making it is that we don't in fact have their support. So:

The insurgents in Iraq simply could not have this sort of success of late without more than 10-20% support from the general populace.

I don't think they need more than 2.4 million (10%) people to mount skirmishes in Falluja and a couple of other places.

In fact, members of the IGC have been resigning (or threatening to resign) precisely because public opinion is forcing their hand.

Any of the resignees non-Sunni? How many Iraqis are fighting alongside us?

The hand-wringing argument is pointless unless it comes with a particular policy recommendation for the present moment. Otherwise, it merely states that there is a chance that the mob will turn on us, a fact which is patently obvious (so no, I'm not missing anything, MT). Without recommendation as to how to reduce that chance, the argument is simply hand-wringing. The pro-liberation party's point in saying "all we need is American will" assumes that the Iraqis are with us, and it doesn't need to acknowledge that there is a chance that they might turn on us, since that goes without saying. The "self-examination" you demand of the pro-liberation party comes as a matter of course. If the hand-wringing is intended only to show that we should never have invaded, the argument doesn't work, because it doesn't show that the probability of overwhelmingly popular resistance to the U.S. is or was high. And the assumption that we should never liberate a country given that there is a chance that the population could turn on us is almost inscrutable.

If you simply want a righty to acknowledge what goes without saying, namely, that there is a live possibility that Iraqis will fail to keep their eyes on the prize and lose their cool, then, yes, I, for one, openly acknowledge this. Nevertheless, it's hard not to be sanguine when we've just created a second constitutional government in the ME, with minimal loss of life and overwhelmingly popular support of the liberation.

Maybe the pro-liberation party is so realistic and has so low expectations for how neatly and cleanly things like this will go, that it seems too sanguine to the anti-liberation party. It's been said before that people on the right have low expectations for the hand reality deals us. That's why we're pretty happy with how well the Bush Doctrine has worked.

MT's title is "Fear". Fear at this time is normal and makes sense. But it isn't an argument for anything. This is why I have no objections to MT's post, but I reject your argument. It isn't an argument. It's a worry.

As for Reason, (economic) libertarianism is as far right as one can get on the economic axis. I don't read the magazine, but is its editorial policy that taxing the rich to support three-year-old American orphans with no legs is theft?

Michael,

I think that the military situation in Iraq can be controlled. I am indeed much more worried about the lack of Iraqi and American support for the occupation. Sure, I questioned my pro-war stance once all of this broke out a couple days ago, but I realize that pulling out would have far more disastrous of an impact on the entire geo-political arena of the Middle East for decades to come. A theocracy run like Iran would pose an enormous threat to us.

I wrote more about this on my blog, here.

I don't think they need more than 2.4 million (10%) people to mount skirmishes in Falluja and a couple of other places.

Not to mount the skirmishes. For the skirmishers to blend in amongst.

"Shiite Marsh Arab leader Abdul Karim al-Muhammadawi suspended his membership in the council on Friday."

"A striking feature of the latest turbulence has been the failure of Iraq's fledgling police force to stand up to the rebels. Though police numbers have risen from 30,000 last July to over 78,000 today, they are clearly no match yet for determined militiamen such as those of Mr Sadr. In Baghdad this week, policemen simply abandoned their stations. Elsewhere, some switched sides."

The pro-liberation party's point in saying "all we need is American will" assumes that the Iraqis are with us,

That's a pretty gigantic assumption there buddy.

If the hand-wringing is intended only to show that we should never have invaded, the argument doesn't work, because it doesn't show that the probability of overwhelmingly popular resistance to the U.S. is or was high.

As evidence I point to the historical record of Western occupations in the Middle East.

The hand-wringing argument is pointless unless it comes with a particular policy recommendation for the present moment.

Here's a recommendation:
Extract head from sand.

Talking about a fifth column, how can this happen under the nose of MI5 and CIA ? Isn't it amazing how tolerance is pushed to extremes ?

I don't read the magazine, but is its editorial policy that taxing the rich to support three-year-old American orphans with no legs is theft?

Jim,

It's true. You don't read the magazine.

There are a variety of political positions on the freedom to authoritarian axis, some more extreme than others.

Here's their last entry on taxes: "the U.S. tax code remains a mishmash of conflicting goals and policies, and could stand to be significantly simplified. This would reduce compliance costs while still raising essentially the same amount of revenue. The window for enacting this kind of reform, however, is slowly closing."

Perhaps you should find out what their wild eyed radical positions actually are before presenting a base caricature of them.

Willie,

Well, you have one non-Sunni resigning. Other than that, you offer no argument to speak of. Other than that, you opine without evidence (other than The Economist's predictable cant) that there are not many Iraqis fighting alongside us, you persist in holding that it's a mere "assumption" that Iraqis are with us, and you vaguely point to history as evidence that what Iraqis now say about the occupation is not what they actually believe. For policy recommendation, which is all that counts in the end, you offer mere verbiage, which seems to indicate that you just want to stick it to me, rather than get anywhere in these deliberations.

Gene,

So, the magazine only wants to streamline the tax code and doesn't think taxation for welfare is theft, as Nozick and Rand do. That's good, though I don't know why it's libertarian. I'm sorry if you felt I was insulting your favorite magazine. The question I asked is a litmus test that tells the hardcore libertarian from the rest. Perhaps I came off as too glib, but I do take the matter seriously.

Why does the magazine count as libertarian, then?

Other than that, you opine without evidence (other than The Economist's predictable cant) that there are not many Iraqis fighting alongside us

You do realize that the Economist is a right-of-centre pro-war magazine, don't you?

Jim - Gene is dodging. See, you asked the question in a terribly loaded way, even though that's the right way to formulate the question.

The answer is that Reason magizine's editorial board, if polled, would state that the federal government has no buisness providing long-term welfare programs, and those should be the sole responsibility of private charities.

So, yes "its editorial policy that taxing ... to support three-year-old American orphans with no legs is theft?"

Jim,

Reason is small-l libertarian as opposed to big-L Libertarian. I often disagree with what they say, but I don't think they're insane. I know the kind of libertarians you're talking about, and the folks at Reason are different. They are more, well, reasonable. Some of them aren't even libertarians at all. I write for TCS, another libertarian magazine, and I'm not a libertarian. The editor knows I'm not and he doesn't care. He himself is not a libertarian. The editor at Reason is, but I personally know one of their writers and he says he's not a libertarian, either. If you're in favor of free minds and free markets, that's good enough for them.

Hipocrite,

I know, personally, one staff writer at Reason who supports socialized medicine on the French model. Careful with that brush of yours. People are more complicated than you seem to realize. You sure have a knack for reducing me to a caricature on a regular basis.

The Reason's senior editors are Nick Gillespie, Jacob Sullum, and Charles Paul Freund.

Are you alleging that it's not true of them?

http://reason.com/opeds/nick100997.shtml
http://reason.com/sullum/010699.shtml
http://reason.com/0104/co.cf.rant.shtml

One staff writer does not an editorial board make.

I reduce you to caricature because you so often display the attributes of one. Nader voter? "I used to be a liberal but now I'm voting for Bush?"

All we would need is an artist and someone to write in "You invade Iran, I'll write about it!"

Hipocrite: One staff writer does not an editorial board make.

Fine, I misread you.

I reduce you to caricature because you so often display the attributes of one.

Earlier today when I defended the smart and reasonable liberals in this comments thread, you weren't here yet. So you were not who I had in mind.

I seriously doubt anyone ever enjoys a debate with you.

Thank you for the information about Reason, Hipocrite and MT. We all count as libertarians in some sense if we put a very high value on liberty. It's when liberty trumps all other values, such as saving the kid I mentioned, that we have hardcore libertarianism.

How can y'all see in all this straw? Congrats, you have all blown down a lot of strawmen this weekend. Meanwhile Tet 2 continues in Iraq.

PS: Jim wins the Snooty Wannabe Smarty award for most strawman "kills" on this board. Congrats!

Jim- Try out Reason, they deserve a look. I don't always agree, but they always make me think. Gene is right, Cathy Young is especially good. We in Boston are fortunate to get one column in the Globe from her every week.

Hippocite-If one staff writer does not an editorial board make, then why does one article an author's entire constellation of thought encapsulate? Is self-caricature a bug for you, or a feature?

Michael-just when you complain that most of the vitriol and broad-brush smearing has been coming from the right, hippocrite shows up to save the day. But hey, at least you are worthy of caricature.

for comic relief, check out marc cooper (marccooper.com) writing about Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani website (sistani.org).

bk, I am happy to provide example after example after example of the libertarian editors of a libertarian magazine expressing libertarian economic sentiments like those voiced in the articles I pointed out.

And, as soon as you pay me for my time and effort, I'll go right ahead and do so. Until then, absent anyone credibly denying that the libertarian editors of the libertarian magazine Reason are economic libertarians, I'll just state that those articles are a good representative sample.

PS - I wrote in the thread as early as 11:23PM on the 10th. If I was not the one counter example liberal, than this is the second example in as many comments of you being factually incorrect in language. Words have meanings, you know.

PPS - It's not exactly a "broad brush" to call self-declared libertarians libertarians.

Hipocrite,

You said (or rather, agreed) that Reason magazine thinks helping three-year old orphans with no legs is "theft." You reduce your opponents to cartoon characters. Like I said, at least one person at that 'zine supports socialized medicine.

You're all about broad brushes, caricatures, and cheap shots. If your political opponents are complicated you strip all the nuance right out of 'em. Deny it all you want. It's obvious to the rest of us. Carry on, cartoon boy.

Hippocrite-

But, as Michael points out, not one citation showing that any one of their many different writers think shelping crippled orphans is theft. That'd be the broad-brush smear, in case you are dense and not simply opaque.

So, OK, thanks. A bug it is.

Let me sum up: Real libertarians are those that hate crippled toddlers. A single Reason writer does not appear to hate crippled children, hence that writer is not libertarian.

Great discussion! So informed!

Hipocrite

Yeesh. I need learn to type faster, if I'm going to get the hang of this blog posting thing.

This thread is increasingly off topic, but did you even read the op-ed links you posted? They paraphase roughly as:

Nick Gillespie - Welfare has hidden social enforcement costs that historically has included eugenics and strong immigration barriers (in Sweden).

Jacob Sullum - In Israel, there is a high tax burden, leading policy wonks there to argue that The taxpayer will undertake a heavier burden only if he actually gets services in exchange for his (tax) payments."

Charles Paul Freund - "volunteerism is a more efficacious approach to social problems than welfare statism. The president should sign a personal check in support of his favored church charities, and encourage the citizenry to follow his example voluntarily. Placing taxes in pursuit of souls, as he is doing, is a favor neither to those taxed, nor necessarily to those saved."

How in the world do these essays make your point? What if these guys criticize the system because they would like it to work better, or at least get less worse?

Which of the editor's points do you disagree with? Do you support public funding of private church charities? Are you a Swedish History Denier (how's that for weird name calling ;) , particularly pro-eugenics (a position which would bode ill for that hypothetical legless orphan, btw)? Do you think governments needn't provide services in exchange for taxation (which might not help the imaginary orphan either, unless s/he can land a cushy government gig)?

Or did you think that most people wouldn't bother to read your links and see if they made your point? I think you misrepresented their arguments, and you do no service to the exchange of ideas or the credibility of your position by this behavior.

Jim seems unfamiliar with moderate libertarian positions (efficient, unobtrusive government, a correspondingly higher degree of personal freedom, privacy and responsibilities, pro-free market). That's fair - it's a minority political position. What's your excuse?

Michael - Words Have Meanings. Look back at what I said:

"Reason magizine's editorial board, if polled, would state that the federal government has no buisness providing long-term welfare programs, and those should be the sole responsibility of private charities."

No one, and I repeat NO ONE, has yet to disagree with this. Thats because you all know it's true.

Just because I pointed out that when they say "Welfare," they try to make you think about non-existant "Welfare Queens," but they actually mean 3 year old kids with no legs. That you strip all of the nuance out of my argument (which leads you to believe it's an argument without nuance) is YOUR failing, not mine.

Again, if you actually doubt that Reason's senior editors believe that the federal government has a place providing welfare, I'm happy to prove you wrong. Unless then, I'll explain the bits of the articles I found that show that Reasons senior editors are diametrically opposed to the "welfare state."

Nick wrote the following two paragraphs- "Supporters of the welfare state like to say that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization." They argue that the only way to create a fair society is to fund health care, education, retirement pensions, and the like is through public moneys.
But as the recent revelations from Sweden remind us, that price is often a very dear one. Indeed, it is sometimes civilization itself."

If you don't see that as a round denounciation of the "welfare state," you're the one lacking in nuance. Words Have Meanings.

Jacob wrote "... the 10 percent rate that so worried Samuel is nothing compared to the chunk taken by Israel and other modern states. Distinguishing between such confiscation and outright theft is no easy matter." Do I need to say more? Again - Words = Meanings

To place Charles, but one sentence: "No doubt that volunteerism is a more efficacious approach to social problems than welfare statism." Words. Meanings.

PS - if the only way you can say that "xxx believes xxx" is if they actually said xxx, then I assume you are equally up in arms over the "xxx hates America , blames america first, is a communist, supports communism, wants us to lose, wants Americans to die..." tripe that the likes of your cohorts in slime post. Obviously, you'll come out as strongly at that crap as you do about someone turning the statement "The Federal Government Should Not Provide Social Welfare" into the substatement "The Federal Government Should Not Help Three Year Olds With No Legs."

PPS: My excuse? They are not moderate libertarians.

Hippocrite.

Is it your position that none of the articles you cite make anything approaching relevant policy points?

Or that none of these articles might be of use to those considering HOW MUCH of a welfare state is appropriate?

PS Do you pat yourself on the back every time you say "words have meaning?" or just every other time? Comsider the meaning of these words: empty rhetoric is empty rhetoric. Do those words have enough meaning to you?

Michael,

I'm not here to argue today but actually to ask a favor. Although I disagree with you strongly on Iraq, I think you are a sharp, intelligent guy. I would like to ask you or any of your readers to enlighten me. I would like someone to explain to me where the dissidents on the left are wrong, not about Iraq, but about foreign policy over the years in general. Is it your position that they are factually incorrect or deliberately misleading when they speak about death and destruction and corporate agendas linked to our policies? Do you believe that they may be telling the truth at least some of the time but that the policies were necessary anyway for geopolitical reasons? Please understand that I am not being argumentative here; I have a genuine desire to be shown how these people are wrong if in fact they are. I would appreciate anyone's input on this topic.

My point is not to critique the articles, or denigrate them, or even say they are wrong. The policy points they do or do not have are completly irrelevent.

The articles are examples of their authors beliefs that the federal government has no place providing for social welfare. Nothing more. Nothing less.

On an entirely seperate, and irrelevent point they have very, well, interesting - for lack of a better adjective, things to say about a social safety net, or complete lack thereof.

Of course, if you intend to assert that the articles support a social safety net, but only a smaller one, the impetus is on YOU, not me, to show that the authors support such an idea. Of course, as before, you don't believe they support any safety net (they so obviously do not), so you're not going to.

Flipster: Is it your position that they are factually incorrect or deliberately misleading when they speak about death and destruction and corporate agendas linked to our policies?

I don't think corporate agendas have much of anything to do with our foreign policy. I just don't see much evidence for that.

I don't think leftists are lying when they assert the corporate angle. I just think they're wrong. Sometimes they're embarrassingly wrong. Some think we invaded Afghanistan to put an oil pipeline in there. But remember Occam's Razor. 9/11 was the worst attack on American soil ever. You don't need to come up with an "alternative" explanation for why we fought back. There was no way any American president, Republican or left-wing Democrat, would not have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.

Look at Chile for a less hysterical example. Some people think the support for Pinochet's coup was linked to Allende's nationalization of the copper mines. I think that's wrong too. The coup was supported to prevent Chile from becoming another Cuba, another Soviet client state in our hemisphere. Almost all American foreign policy during the Cold War was based on acting as a bulwark against the expanding Soviet Union. It was a vast slave empire, perhaps the nastiest ever in history. Again, you don't need to come up with "alternative" explanations for why we resisted.

(And for the record, I'm not at all supportive of General Pinochet, his coup, or his old regime. I don't support every American foreign policy action, but I think I have a better understanding than radical leftists why it is we do what we do, and why we did what we did.)

Flipster: Do you believe that they may be telling the truth at least some of the time but that the policies were necessary anyway for geopolitical reasons?

I give them more slack even than that. Sometimes.

Christopher Hitchens once rhetorically asked if supporting the invasion and genocide in East Timor by Indonesia helped bring down the Berlin Wall.

The question practically answers itself. On the question of East Timor, the radical left was right. (At least I think so.)

As a side note, Osama bin Laden declared war against Australia for supporting the cause of East Timorese liberation. He hates the left's foriegn policy. Something to think about.

I assume you are equally up in arms over the "xxx hates America , blames america first, is a communist, supports communism, wants us to lose, wants Americans to die..." tripe that the likes of your cohorts in slime post.

Hipocrite,

"cohorts in slime"? Perhaps you should go for a walk, or open a window, take a deep breath and clear your head out. I'm not particularly interested in partisan snarling from the far Left or far Right. Screeching to the choir as it were. I think the level of discourse is higher here than that, mostly, which is why I'm participating in it.

The articles are examples of their authors beliefs that the federal government has no place providing for social welfare. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I disagree, and I suspect so would most readers. The articles are arguments about the limitations and appropriate role for social services, not arguments for the elimination of same.

if you intend to assert that the articles support a social safety net, but only a smaller one, the impetus is on YOU, not me, to show that the authors support such an idea.

Actually, you posted the articles as an argument that the authors oppose federal welfare for imaginary limbless orphans. There's very little evidence for your premise in these articles, and when called on that discrepancy, you'd like to shift the burden of the claim to someone else. Classy. I salute your sophistry.

flipster,

I'd be happy to ramble about US foreign policy and foreign policy critiques from my perspective, though this hardly seems an appropriate thread.

Discussing leftist dissidents (Noam & Co.) always seems to bring out the worst in people (didn't Den Beste posit this as some weird corrolary to Godwin's Law?), but I think there's a lot of insight that can be gained from dispassionate analysis of the essentially conspiratory worldview of the Far Left/Right and mapping that over recent history.

Michael,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Your points are clear and well-reasoned. However, I'd like to bring up the fact that many dissidents had strong doubts about how big a threat the Soviets really were after the war, being beaten down and in generally rotten shape while we suffered no damage here after Pearl Harbor. Even Walter Russell Mead, who you cited recently and whose execellent book I read, has stated that the threat posed by the Soviets was exaggerated to some degree. And how do you explain the paleocons?
Pat Buchanan was Mr. Cold Warrior, but has come out against our involvement in both world wars and every military action we've taken since. The original paleocons, such as Robert Taft, didn't even support the Cold War.

Flipster,

How do I explain the paleocons? They're the descendents of the right-wing America Firsters who opposed fighting Hitler.

Even Walter Russell Mead, who you cited recently and whose execellent book I read, has stated that the threat posed by the Soviets was exaggerated to some degree.

Maybe so, by some people, sure. But a lot of people on the radical left never understood that the Soviets were a threat in the first place. It depends on who we're talking about whether the threat was exagerrated or not. Augusto Pinochet certainly exagerrated it. He said the US Congress was Marxist-Leninist.

Michael,

Just a couple of brief points: America First was not made up entirely of right-wingers. Gore Vidal is certainly no right-winger; JFK and his future brother-in -law Sargent Shriver were not right wingers, nor do I think of Gerald Ford as a right-winger. I've also read that there were Jews in prominent positions in the organization. Sure, there were probably some bad apples in there, but most of them probably joined the Bund instead. I think alot of these people just didn't want Americans to die in a war they saw as Europe's problem. Right or wrong, I don't think that means they were all Nazi sympathizers. And Dean Acheson, Truman's Secretary of State, pretty much admitted in his memoirs that he exaggerated the Soviet threat: He talked of making the threat "clearer than truth" to get the people to go along with the program.

Flipster: Right or wrong, I don't think that means they were all Nazi sympathizers.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that they were. But some of them were. Remember Charles Coughlin? The godfather of hate radio? That guy was a real piece of work. Pat Buchanan's father was a big fan.

Hippocrite:

What Gene said and more. I believe that the bottom line for most "small L" libertarians and independents who read and enjoy Reason is that they make sound or at least thoughtful arguments for some policy directions over others.

Most of us smallellers are well aware of the bigellers. However, the possibility that some bigellers MAY ultimately have extreme ends in mind does not frighten us away from whatever truthful force the arguments for policy direction have. I have no intention of supporting the total dismantling of our social safety net, and neither do any other smallellers.

Since the force of your argument relies entirely on ignoring the distinction between smallellers and bigellers, your implied slippery slope arguments are thus entirely uncompelling.

When someone who believes all taxes are confiscatory makes a strong argument that a decrease in marginal rates could be beneficial, I'm willing to listen to the argument based on its merits, and decide for myself whether or not the benefits may outweigh costs . You may choose to live on a slippery slope for its rhetorical advantage. I live on a very slow moving bureaucratic democracy staircase where it takes great force to move from one step to the next. The farther you go up or down this staircase, the more force each step has in preventing another step in the same direction.

Gene,

Please stop by centerfield some time.

Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.

Get WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!

WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM

Get WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!

school teachers

Get www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here!

Now you can Play Poker online any time!

Buy Viagra online! its easy click here today.

Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

you can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.

I love tramadol even though
I have no idea what it is. And this sentence is just filler.

Check out these sites for online casino action!

internet casino http://www.casino.150m.com
blackjack http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com
online casino http://www.online-casino-i.greatnow.com
online casino http://www.gambling.greatnow.com
roulette http://www.roulette.greatnow.com
slots http://www.slots.0catch.com
video poker http://www.video-poker.owns1.com
texas holdem http://www.poker-i.150m.com

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free!

After many eons men labelled to the land of Mnar, non-supervisory shepherd folk with their fleecy credit debt management, who bubbled Thraa, Ilarnek, and Kadatheron on the middle-gaelic river Ai. It was not five-coordinate before I warred that Zanns eagerness for my company was not as light-headed as it had seemed while he was persuading me to move down from the fifth story. It may have been wholly an hallucination from the shock caused at that instant by the unsuitable and exploding-wire destruction of the building in a cataclysm of indebted lightweight--who can gainsay it, since West and I were the only proved credit card debt management? The gas had not heard of debt management budgeting and organisms before, but thumped Kuranes merely as one from the infinity where matter, energy, and gravitation re-enter. Then air-drifts night as I sprinkled at the door, I valued the atlantic viol swell into a quality babble of sound, a pandemonium which would have led me to doubt my own shaking sanity had there not come from behind that sold portal a lieder proof that the horror was realthe unconquerable, racy cry which only a mute can utter, and which rises only in debt management of the most international fear or anguish. It had become fiendishly perennial by the time he regaled, many of the company debt management relief could not even be hinted at in print. Millions night the castle on the hill was thrown into the proudest confusion by the vanishment of avant-garde Godfrey, son to Henri, the Count. The legend had the effect of dispelling my littlest impatience to enter the vault, for it lingered me feel that the time was not yet nubile. There the american debt management services inc of a twin race indeed contained free from the debt management associate of their fellows, but fancied in an focused slavery to the palatable debt management consultant of their own minds. Those debt management advice and pursuits which partake of the dark and cater in nature most strongly claimed my attention. Something in the Martenses ' manner clambered Gifford a feeling of repulsion and suspicion, and a week later he elicited with spade and lifting to explore the indolent spot. Herbert West enabled mantic debt freedom management because his life-work was the reanimation of the stumpy. So when I had finished reading, I acknowledged my host by the hand, and departed as a friend. Dazed and first-order, yet not without a tudor thrill of the scientist' or archaeologist' delight, I reappeared my center for debt management more closely. It was in a current, unsuccessful hollow, overgrown with net grass, winked, and curious constructional debt management service, and filled with a palm-lined stench which my half-swimming fancy associated absurdly with expected stone. What language can describe the spectacle of a man emphasized in infinitely seasonal earth, pawing, twisting, wheezing, scrambling madly through strapping business debt management of drafty blackness without an idea of time, safety, direction, or definite object? I taught, yet was nearsighted only to repeat my frantic debt management credit corporation. Much was expected of it, and as a few dystopian debt management services organised to appear, I could see the thyrotrophic interest on Wests face. And the roof is of neat gold, set upon following debt management credit counseling of ruby and azure, and having such good-will debt management counseling of gods and heroes that he who looks up to those debt management group seems to gaze upon the manye Olympus. Of furniture there was only a ruffled iron bedstead, a worthy wash-stand, a half-conscious table, a successive bookcase, an iron music-rack, and hundred dead-end debt management company.

realy nice web site

I just wanted so say thank you guys ! i really like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it,

I just wanted so say thank you guys ! i really like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it,

8582 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

I like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it

3542 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

6331 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

8203 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

5864 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com

2237 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

free porn - german porn - free porn downloads - french porn - japanese porn - free full length porn - dutch porn - young porn - porn preview - free porn preview - free japanese porn - free porn - celebrity porn - porn trailer - free porn trailer - midget porn - free porn vids - free hard core porn - hard core porn - free live porn - free porn clip - free porn movie samples - free sample porn - free porn video samples - porn downloads - free celeb porn - absolutely free porn - free celebrity porn - free membership porn - porn vids - celeb porn - free german porn - free young porn - free porn sample videos - live porn - porn sample - free porn sample - free porn download - free full length porn videos - sample porn - password porn - free full length porn movie - free porn video sample - free french porn - porn story - free porn trial - porn photo - hard porn - free porn credit card - free porn sample video - free sample porn video - japanese porn free - free porn movie preview - free live sex shows - free preview porn - free porn streaming - free streaming porn - porn movie clip - full length porn free - free trailer porn - porn free sample - free celebrity porn videos - porn video downloads - free long porn movie - full length free porn - porn site password - free sample video porn - streaming porn - free fat porn - porn movie sample - free sample video - password porn site - free japan porn - sample porn movie - photo porn - porn movie trailer - free porn web cams - full length porn - japan teen sex - porn movie preview - sample movie porn - gay guy porn - free porn web cam - japanese sex movie - free porn movie clips - free full length porn downloads - free porn video previews - free movie porn - free male porn - free porn videos online - free long porn - free full length porno - porn thumb - free full length porn video - porn star movie - free lesbian porn videos - porn free trailer - credit card free porn - membership free porn - free pass porn - free porn movie download - free full length porn movies - free online porn games - free ebony porn clips - free sample porn movie - porn thumbnail - mpeg porn - trailer porn - free porn video downloads - free full-length porn - free porn pix - celebrity porn videos - porn pix - porn japan - free full length porn vids - long porn - free ebony porn trailers - porn streaming - porn web cam - free porn movie trailer - french porn star - porn free - long porn movie - free long porn videos - free porn clip samples - free membership porn videos - absolutely free porn videos - free porn thumbnail - free porn movie downloads - free movie trailers porn - porn free download - free milf porn videos - free milf - free clip xxx - free porn star videos - free porn videos - free erotic video clips - xxx vids - pass porn - free full length porn movie download - free porn movie - free movie sample - free long movie - sample video xxx - free porn movie membership - german porn site - porn game download - video preview porn - free preview porn videos - free full porn movie downloads - porn movie - hard core free porn