"Michael Moore is the Ann Coulter of the left."

I would say that this statement is off, only so far that Michael moore has more influence than Coulter. Otherwise, they are both partisan shills who, while funny at times, would leave the world a better place if they just shut up.

I'll always remember Coulter's comment, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

I hate Moore's opinions and mostly agree with Coulter's, but I can't think of anything that Moore said that matches that for mean-spiritedness.

You've hit on a pet peeve of mine. If one is comfortable being described by a particular political label? Then one has to be willing to police that label. Otherwise, one must accept being subjected to that label representing, over time, a set of beliefs distinct from the one's one holds.

That's why, for someone like me, Coulter, Buchanan, Rush, Robertson, Reed...Jeebuz, I've got some disclaiming to do, have got to be discarded.

Folks like Ted Rall, Michael Moore, Markos Zuniga and the like shouldn't be called liberals. Not if the word is going to have continuity with FDR, Humphery, Scoop Jackson etc.

spc67> I wouldn't be as harsh on Kos. I don't agree with him, but I put him above Fat Bastard and Ted the mad cartoonist.

Mike> The Vegas book sounds interesting to say the least. Andrew Sullivan worte an essay about Moore and Coulter, except that Moore is a Fat Bastard, while Ann Coulter is attractive.

As Socrates pointed out, either you're in the forum to establish truths or you're in the forum to try to get everyone else to concede that you and your buddies' beliefs are the established truths. People in it for the latter reason can, as MT says, go get stuffed.

Michael Moore is a left-wing Ann Coulter no matter who says so.

--One big difference between Moore and Coulter, Moore actually had to work hard to get where he was. He actually represents the American dream, without any special advantages he excelled. Coulter of course is a child of great wealth who really never had to work hard for anything.
There is another big difference too. Moore has to work much harder to receive attention from the so-called "liberal" media than Coulter.

Calibar, oh come on. Moore may work hard but media kisses his fat ass. Major corporations publish his book, distribute his films, and pay him big fat checks and allocate perks; Hollywood handed him an Oscar for his faux documentary. Michael Moore represents the American dream by pissing on it publicly and reaping its goodies privately.

You think going to law school and passing the bar isn't hard work? Moore didn't last a semester at state college.

Moore may work hard but media kisses his fat ass.

--really? I thought it was a lot easier for Coulter to get an appearance as a talking head than Moore any day of the week, in the 'liberal' media no less.

You think going to law school and passing the bar isn't hard work?

--sure, must have been real rough, especially with a wealthy papa who put her through private schools. she worked so hard to get into a law school and stay there. wow!
moore dropped out of college, yes. he still had to work much harder than coulter to get somewhere. first he had to leave Flint. I'd love to see Coulter do the same if she were raised in Moore's background. Seriously.

Sigh. I think, by and in large, you guys are missing the point of what Michael said. He wrote that intelligent liberals and conservatives would be better off giving the Moore-and-Coulter types the finger than they would defending their actions. So what do you guys, intelligent liberals and conservatives all, do in response?...

YOU START DEFENDING THEM!!!

There must be some kind of instinctual thing going on here or something. Like a mother's instinct to protect her young, your reactions are naturally to walk through fire for the feeble minds of Moore and Coulter! I don't get it.

Michael Moore occasionally says some pretty funny shit and he's even right sometimes when he draws attention to things. And I particularly love Bowling for Columbine. It was a great little film. But the guy behaves like a child and if I were in politics, I wouldn't come within 3 States of the man (much less parade his endorsement around and share a stage with the guy a la Wesley Clark).

And as for Ann Coulter, I can't stand the bitch and I think she needs a Big Mac in the worst way. But even she too can say some pretty funny and enlightening shit when she's not rattling on about treasonous Democrats or converting the Middle East to Christianity. Yet, again, if I were a Republican, I'd go out of my way to put her at arm's length (and in a program for folks with eating disorders; the compassionate conservative thing to do).

Michael's absolutely right on this and anyone who would think otherwise is beyond me. Mainstream politicians have no problems in drawing clear and concise lines they will not cross when it comes to the ideology of the other side. Yet, they'll run lovingly into the arms of their wingnuts in an attempt to "sow up their base". It's retarded and self-destructive. John Kerry ought not hesitate to say that he wants nothing to do Michael Moore just as Bush ought to be telling us he doesn't give two shits what Ann Coulter thinks about him.

Public displays of unabashed centrism are good for this country. We need more Sister Souljah moments, not less. I'd be willing to bet that if Party-Establishment-Types were quicker to call out the lunatic fringe, more people would be turned on to politics in this country. I think John McCain kinda proves my point.

PS...

Oh, and I almost forgot to ask:

Michael, where does this Marc Cooper person say the last honest place in America is, by the way? If it's Portland, I'm never assuming objectivity on your part ever again. :)

Grant,

Marc Cooper says the last honest place in America is Las Vegas. And he has a point.

By the way, Grant, you rule.

1970 Pontiac Firebird. The car I've always wanted and now I have it. I rule!!!

Grant,
I think its something like the "nobody picks on my little brother but me" syndrome. I know people who will piss and moan about Blair and Labour all day long. But if someone from the Conservatives starts to criticize, then they swing into full blown partisan attack dog mode. This is basically the same thing.

No matter peoples own private opinions they will almost always come to the defence of somebody who is inside their own particular group. This applies in all sorts of situations, its just more noticeable when it comes to politics.

When I was a kid all of the kids in our extended family fought each other like cats and dogs. The only time we could agree on anything was if there was an external threat. At that point it was "close ranks and shoulder to shoulder." If you fought one of us, you fought us all. Some people carry it past family in into the Party.

Semper Fi

Coulter is wealthy. Clearly she stole it. Moore is liberal, so all his wealth is legit. Wealthy people are fascists, unless they are liberal.

I'm sure leaving Flint was the hardest thing Michael Moore ever had to do. No doubt he sits in his spacious apt on the Upper West Side and pines for the days he could go to the Tiny Tap in Flint, have a beer, and not be recognized, be just one of the guys. Albeit a big fat loud one of the guys. Like Charles Foster Kane mumbling Rosebud, Moore will probably expire with Flint on his lips.

"I'd be willing to bet that if Party-Establishment-Types were quicker to call out the lunatic fringe, more people would be turned on to politics in this country."

Yep. Yep.

Half the country doesn't (yet) vote and the supposed experts say that everyone's already decided and all each candidate needs to do is energize the base.

Below is what I dont like about Michael Moore (the liar)... he is very misleading and too much of a Drama Queen about everything! But what I like about Michael Moore is exactally what I like about Ann Coulter(the exxagerater)... they deal with topics and subjects most everyone else is afraid to even talk about. I totally respect that. First

Disney's Michael Eisner said it was "ridiculous" for Moore to say Disney blocked the film for fear of losing of tax breaks in Florida, where President Bush's brother Jeb Bush is governor.

"None of that was ever discussed," Mr Eisner said. "It is totally not true." (so who is lying? my guess Michael Moore!)

Moore told BBC Two's Newsnight he was "shocked" by Disney's decision. (How can you be shocked about something you have know about for over a year?) ...But a Disney spokesman said: "We advised both Moore's agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed. That decision stands."

(... this is probably more like the truth.) Disney made its decision in May 2003 and Moore raised the issue now as a "PR stunt" ahead of its Cannes debut, chief executive Michael Eisner said.

Here is the whole article from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3689121.stm

I saw Michael Moore in NYC's Central Park the other day. Unbelievable! He is so fat his legs are beginning to buckle under the weight of his self-righteous bullshit.

He reminded me of the Star Wars character 'Jabba the Hut', one big blob of decadent, slimy waste.

When Michael Moore speaks of 'stupid white men' he refers to himself as the example.

I wanted to ask him if he was ever interested in filming a 'documentary' that was actually a documentary rather than a 'fiction of a documentary' but knowing he is a reknowned liar, as represented in his 'fictitious documentaries', I did not bother with the question.

I actually think Moore is worse than Coulter.

Coulter writes columns and books and you can either read her or not. She doesn't show up at your work place and start badgering you about seeing the boss.

Moore puts on the spot and inconviences and embarrasses those same working-class schmoes that he purports to both identify with and supposedly 'defend'.

Boy, am I getting sick of people who are sick of other people not being critical enough of people who make them sick.

This is getting seriously tired, people. If you don't like someone, say so. Don't start looking around for people who aren't outraged enough.

It seems no one can mention Moore without commenting on his weight - so here's a fun article for you. Seriously, follow the link, it had me cracking up earlier.

I also have lots of Moore commentary over at my site, though I'm not sure why I've spent so much mental energy on the fat bastard today.

Sam:

No matter peoples own private opinions they will almost always come to the defence of somebody who is inside their own particular group. This applies in all sorts of situations, its just more noticeable when it comes to politics.

I understand the point, but just because Coulter will probably vote the way I vote in the Presidential Election, she's not my family. (If she were, I'd be sending her double-cheese pizzas anonymously. It's the Right Thing To Do.)

Or to put it another way, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

"This is getting seriously tired, people. If you don't like someone, say so. Don't start looking around for people who aren't outraged enough."

That's not quite Michael's point. He's making a broader characterization of the Democratic Party. The Democrats will never have an electable message unless and until they rid themselves of the influence of loonies like Moore.

It's not a matter of "not being outraged enough". It's a matter of whether or not the Democrats can appeal to the center again.

It's also not quite an issue of "defending your own". Sure, Dems may defend Moore because at least he's their wacko, but he and his ilk still have way too much influence on the party's public face. That's a Bad Thing.

Marc Cooper says Michael Moore is the Ann Coulter of the left.

No. Ann's prettier. A might touch too skinny for my taste. But prettier.

And thats about as much mental energy people should spend on either one of them.

Bad comparison.

Moore is not nearly as consumed with vileness as Coulter.

The better analogies are Ted Rall = Ann Coulter.
And Moore is more like a Rush Limbaugh.

Geez, dont I have anything better to do today than assign people to the various circles of hell?
Hmmm....

The big difference of course is that Ann Coulter was fired from the National Review (though, to be fair, picked up by Front Page), and has been roundly denounced by numerous people on the right.

Michael Moore, OTOH, has received an Oscar, has been invited to endorse a Democratic presidential candidate who was considred a "serious" candidate at the time, had his own TV show, gets invited on the big talk shows etc. Conservatives are far more likely to call bullshit on their own "side" than liberals are.

Matt: That's not quite Michael's point. He's making a broader characterization of the Democratic Party. The Democrats will never have an electable message unless and until they rid themselves of the influence of loonies like Moore.

How? Purges of the politically incorrect? Who judges? That's like saying the the republicans should rid themselves of Rush and Ann, or that the right-wing bloggers must distance themselves from Little Green Footballs in order to be taken seriously. It can't be done, and it's a pointless exercise to discuss it.

Makes me think that it's a slow news day in blogistan or something.

Coulter is wealthy. Clearly she stole it. Moore is liberal, so all his wealth is legit.

--nope. she just didn't have to work hard to earn her money, which Moore did. Most working class people have to work hard to become wealthy. Coulter would be wealthy even if she sat around and watched TV all day and slept. end of story.

Coulter writes columns and books and you can either read her or not. She doesn't show up at your work place and start badgering you about seeing the boss.

--that's because she supports your boss no matter what he does to you. Of course she won't show up to challenge your boss.

doubleplus:

It can be done. It's pretty easy. If Ann Coulter starts raving about killing all their men and converting all their women and children to Christianity, fire her from your publcation. If the Senate Majority leader makes stupid comments that seem to endorse segregation and racism, remove him from his post. I'm a quasi-conservative (or not, depending on who you ask) and I have no problem calling bullshit on Rush Limbaugh or on Charles Johnson for trivializing and minimizing prison abuse and torture.

However, whenever there's a similar outrage on the left, a circling the wagons mentality seems to set in and you get a lot of "yeah, it was in poor taste, but blah blah blah First Amendment blah blah blah Right Wing Attack Machine blah blah blah Halliburton/Valerie Plame/Ariel Sharon yeeearrrrgggh!" etc. etc. Another problem is that those associated with the left (though, often it's hard to tell them from people on the far, far right) who are truly vile get a lot of respect and mainstream distribution within left media. Ted Rall's hateful little comic is published in the New York Times. Michael Moore wins Oscars. Markos Zuniga is a big time Democratic Party activist and fundraiser etc. etc. etc.

Michael Moore wins Oscars.

--Michael Moore has made comments like the ones you describe Ann Coulter making? Methinks you are making it up?

Mark Poling,
"I understand the point, but just because Coulter will probably vote the way I vote in the Presidential Election, she's not my family."

I know what you mean, but the principle is the same. It just tends to be a lot more diffuse when talking about political partisanship, particularly when the parties are as large as they are in the US. It can lead to some very strange bedfellows supporting the same candidate. So people are more willing to criticise their own side as they know that there are people there who they have serious disagreements with.

I hesitate to even engage a Michael Moore acolyte, but here is a list of what I would consider to be similalry vile, ugly Moore comments that are on the level of the Ann Coulter mark I cited:

1) His commentary (which he later claimed was satire and later disappeared down a memory hole) that the 9/11 mass murderers picked the wrong target because people in New York didn't vote for Bush, the implication being that a mass slaughter of Bush voters would have been acceptable.

2) His recent statement that the Islamo-fascists and Baathists who are killing Iraqis, civilan aid workers, and coalition troops are like brave, noble "Iraqi minutemen". In the same screed he also rejected the idea of getting UN support in Iraq because he said he wanted as many Americans to die as possible there so we learn our lesson.

Eric Deamer,
Is the left more likely to "circle the wagons" when one of their own does something extremely stupid and gets called on it? I dont honestly know.

People have a tendency to see their opponents as better organised than their own side. No matter how bitterly they disagree in private, people will generally keep those disputes to themselves in front of their opponents. People know about the arguments on their own side, but they generally dont hear as much about divisions within their opponents camp. So as far as they can tell, their opponents are marching in unison towards a particular goal.

Ted Rall's hateful little comic is published in the New York Times.

Cite please. Focus on the time period after, say, March 2.

I assume you're talking about the Print Edition of the New York Times, right?

sam:

You raise a good point. I lazily chose the cliché "circling the wagons", but now I realize that that image conveys a sense of organization or centralized planning that may not be present.

What I mean is this. It would be so easy for liberals to completely cut loose repugnant jerks like Michael Moore, Ted Rall, Markos Zuniga (well maybe not so easy in the last case with all the $$$ involved) and a handful of them do, but, IMO the most common reaction is along the lines of what I said above. It's the classic, yes what they said was wrong, but: the Republicans are worse/it's the Republican Attack Machine etc.

You may be right that it's simply a bias based on them not being "my peeps" or something but I get the impression that the left is much more monlithic in outlook and demands more conformity. There are tons of disagreemnts on the right on abortion, gay marriage, immigration, and a host of other issues. Yet there is the possibility of civil discussion and diverging views are welcomed. Look at how many pro-choice Republicans there are even though a constitutional amendment banning abortion is still technically in the party platform. My understanding is that pro-life Democrats, OTOH, are not respected, aren't allowed to speak at events etc. Most of the left-wing establishment by this point cut their teeth in the 60's and view everything through the prism of activism and organization. "Ex-communicating" someone for going too far is bad for the "movement" and if you do so you're sure to be disavowed or "outed" as someone who was secretly a righty all the time. I see it happen often right here at Michael's site. (Que tbogg's trolls. On second thought don't).

Eric: However, whenever there's a similar outrage on the left, a circling the wagons mentality seems to set in and you get a lot of "yeah, it was in poor taste, but blah blah blah First Amendment blah blah blah Right Wing Attack Machine blah blah blah Halliburton/Valerie Plame/Ariel Sharon yeeearrrrgggh!" etc. etc

I see plenty of criticism of the left by the left (the latest Rall cartoon being an example, the infamous Kos statement being another), as well as a equal amount by the right. What mystifies me are the people who are intent on saying that there isn't ENOUGH criticism, or who go looking in comment sections looking for postings that support their contentions that the left isn't critical enough. Like there's any opinion that you couldn't find support for in a fully-loaded comment section.

I mean, c'mon already. Even Sullivan gets right-wing hate mail when he's is critical of Bush. Should we start waving that around as evidence that the right wing is intolerant of internal criticism?

It strikes me as a pointless thing to discuss, and it smells like the old strawman tactic.

1) His commentary (which he later claimed was satire and later disappeared down a memory hole) that the 9/11 mass murderers picked the wrong target because people in New York didn't vote for Bush, the implication being that a mass slaughter of Bush voters would have been acceptable.

--wow, now we're into reading comprehension issues. Try again. Moore was making fun of the Al Qaeda's presumption that the use of terrorism was a way to make social change, let alone challenge an empire. That was the transparently clear point of that comment. It was a direct criticism of AQ. At no point is there any indication that Moore meant what meaning you attribute to him.
------------------------------
2) His recent statement that the Islamo-fascists and Baathists who are killing Iraqis, civilan aid workers, and coalition troops are like brave, noble "Iraqi minutemen". In the same screed he also rejected the idea of getting UN support in Iraq because he said he wanted as many Americans to die as possible there so we learn our lesson.

--you similarly attribute meanings to his comments that are not there. In fact, if they were there, his veteran friends would attack him mercilessly for such sentiments.

calibar:

Now I remember why I hesitated to even say anything. You've clearly drunk the Kool-aid, so there's no point in continuing this "discussion". Or else you're Moore's assistant and he's making you do this. I wouldn't be surprised. I live in New York and I'm friends with a girl who worked for him and she said he was a coke-addled asshole who treated all his underlings like shit.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

--btw, what is wrong with that statement? it's objectively correct, unless we are to believe kimmit et al's fake estimates of foreign fighters in Iraq. Jeffrey Gettleman of the NT quoted a soldier in Fallujah as stating that he held no ill will against the 'enemy', that if they came to San Diego and took over his town he'd do the same thing, he'd pick up a gun. So, unless you're going to tell me that US soldiers who say that are 'traitors', your case against Moore on the intent of that statement is pretty weak?

Caliber:

Most working class people have to work hard to become wealthy. Coulter would be wealthy even if she sat around and watched TV all day and slept. end of story.

And this is relevant how?

Kerry's grew up wealthy, and married into a Gulfstream. Does that make him evil? Or does it merely make him undeserving of respect, no matter his positions or ideas?

You've clearly drunk the Kool-aid, so there's no point in continuing this "discussion".

--yeah, but Eric, calm down, get the fantasies out of the head, and answer my response, since you clearly took the context of that al qaeda remark entirely out of context. i mean, after all, you are interested in serious debate, not just name calling?

Kerry's grew up wealthy, and married into a Gulfstream. Does that make him evil?

--nope, but Kerry would be the first to admit that he was a child of privilege and would not have the arrogance to claim that he 'worked as hard' to get wealthy as Moore. He did work as hard as Moore, yes, but not to move up economically. That was never really an issue for him or Coulter. To read Coulter you'd think she worked really hard to earn her wealth, so hard that she has the right to attack anyone who thinks they have a right to government help to escape poverty.

calibar:

So you demand a response to your response? How officious and bullying, kind of like when Moore harasses cops who are just trying to do their job or shoves pictures of dead girls in the faces of senile old men. Anyway, there is no substance to your response. You interpret the statement one way (incorrectly, and missing the obvious implication) and I interpret it another (correctly). I don't see where we go from that point towards "serious debate" and I relish the prospect of debating a Michael Moore acolyte about as much as I would wearing one of his sweaty baseball caps after he's finished with a hard day of fulminating. So, can I be dismissed? Pretty please?

Let's back up, Caliber, because this "which side has the ugliest cheerleaders" schtick is getting old. Should Kerry embrace Michael Moore? If you say yes, do you think that will help him win the election, and why? If you say no, same question.

Could someone explain these references to "drinking the Kool-aid" that I keep seeing. Its not just here its in other blogs as well. Is this some US cultural reference that I missed, an in-joke, or what?

calibar: The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

--btw, what is wrong with that statement?

You're on crack. They are the enemy because they are KILLING our soldiers. No one should have to explain something so sand-poundingly obvious.

Sam: Could someone explain these references to "drinking the Kool-aid" that I keep seeing.

I think it's a reference to Jonestown. Jim Jones led his cult of wackos to South America and they all drank poisoned Kool Aid when the cops came after them for assasinating a US politician.

Would this be a good point to mention that in Moore's latest book, he has a chapter devoted to saying pretty much what Michael JT said, IE - the left would have far more credibility if it admits that it's wrong occasionally? He list a lot of stuff the left has been just plain wrong about, and also says that one of the things the left really needs is an Ann Coulter, and that while he thinks she's crazier than a loon, she has more balls than almost anyone he can think of on the left, and nice legs.

MJT:

I was typing up that answer myself then I started to wonder if it's something from "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" by Tom Wolfe. I haven't read that book in so long I can't remember what specifically it would be a reference to in there, but the book certainly had a lot too with cult/religious fervor, which is what the phrase is meant to convey.

Kool-aid:

Yes, it's Jonestown, the idea is that True Believers will swallow whatever their leaders say even if it's obviously crazy, like "All 900 of us should drink this poison Kool-aid so we can commit suicide for our religion."

I always thought the phrase was a reference to "The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test."

"You interpret the statement one way (incorrectly, and missing the obvious implication) and I interpret it another (correctly)." - Eric Deamer

This is an absolutely fabulous statement. Its one made by the Left and by the Right, by the Libretarian and the Authoritarian, by the Christian and the Jew and the Muslim and the Pagan and the Evolutionist.

"My view is the correct view, if you disagree with my view you are obviously deluded, have a secret agenda or love Satan and all his little minions."

This is what is known as Dogma. Yes, I talk about dogma all the time. Yes, you may think its silly. But, Dogma it is. The most dogmatic usually declare the other side to be dogmatic (as we see with Eric). There is no substance in any of his posts, only his opinions and his interpertations. Nothing wrong with that. However, he takes his views, his interpertations and his ideas and puts them forth as the only possible Right ideas (everything else is wrong). Sad really.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Dogmabane

The above are my ideas and may be right, wrong, meaningless or hallucinations brought on by the very nice joint I am smoking at the office.

The above statement may be true, false or meaningless in whole or in part.

Eric,
How would you suggest that American liberals cut loose people like Moore and Rall? Are you talking about the Democrats here, or about liberals in general cutting them loose?

If its just the Democrats, then is there some kind of procedure for expelling people from the party? I'm not even sure if Moore and Rall are members of the party. If its liberals in general, how do you expel someone from an ideology?

I actually do believe that people like Moore do far more harm than good to liberalism. I'm just not sure how American liberals could formally get rid of them.

Michael, Eric, Jim,
Thanks for answering that question for me, it was really starting to nag at me. Yeah, I see what Eric was getting at earlier now.

Sam, Heh, I made a comment to a lefty friend that the Bush Doctrine will spread liberty in the Middle East. The reply? "What's it like having drunk the Kool-aid, Jim?" The phrase does indeed show up a fair bit.

I've noted this meme elsewhere on the blogosphere, and I'm on board with thoughtful liberals and conservatives rejecting wingnut ideologues. (The detour into Moore is OK but Coulter isn't is either ironic or lame or both, tho.)

Andrew Sullivan is collecting lefty condemnations of Rall, which is on point. Click through to some of the links. if i wasn't so cynical, I 'd think a few people actually get Michael's point.

Funny that kool-aid got brought up because I recently brought up Jim Jones a thread or two back. My sense is that the kool-aid reference definitely comes from JJ and Jonestown, and stands for uncritical and complete acceptance of an ideology, in large part because all your new friends are doing it. Opinion by peer pressure.

You're on crack. They are the enemy because they are KILLING our soldiers. No one should have to explain something so sand-poundingly obvious.

--so you're saying the soldiers who say they understand why the 'enemy' is picking up guns and that they would do the same are also 'on crack'?
surely you don't believe that?

Calibar: so you're saying the soldiers who say they understand why the 'enemy' is picking up guns and that they would do the same are also 'on crack'? surely you don't believe that?

Are you saying you would pick up a gun against US soldiers if you were an Iraqi? Or that you sympathize with those who say they would? Please clarify. I'll wait for your response before continuing this discussion.

Would you say the 70 year old woman made to play donkey by the troops was also 'the enemy'? Is there no room for doubt here?

Ratatosk: It's wizards. Satan and all his little wizards.

Compared to Michael Moore, I'm practically a Bircher, and I still think Ann Coulter is usually a shrill harpy.

On the other hand, I'm sure she's much more pleasant to be around in person than Mr. Moore, and not just for aesthetic reasons.

Are you saying you would pick up a gun against US soldiers if you were an Iraqi? Or that you sympathize with those who say they would? Please clarify. I'll wait for your response before continuing this discussion.

--It's irrelevant 'what I would do'. After all, how do I know what I would do? Maybe I'd hide, maybe I'd try to escape to another country, who knows. Maybe I'd pick up a gun? If my brother was sodomised by troops, foreign troops in the United States, I think I would pick up a gun. Would you, if foreign occupying troops in the US sodomised your brother? That is a better question to ask, for it makes the question far less abstract.

Calibar: Would you say the 70 year old woman made to play donkey by the troops was also 'the enemy'?

I don't know who this woman is, but based on your description I'll make a guess: No. Now please answer my question or clarify what you meant by your previous statement.

Remember the First Rule of Holes. And remember that you are NOT obligated to defend crazy statements by other leftists.

sam:

That's a really good question. What I see as a non-liberal is that Moore, Rall etc. are given a lot of distribution and respect within liberal media and a lot of respect within the Democratic party. Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, OTOH, get fired by the conservative media.

Michael Moore received an Oscar, the highest possible award for a filmmaker for best documentary even though his "documentary" was really propaganda filled with distortion and outright lies. Ted Rall's comics are distributed by a major newspaper syndicate and appear in the village voice (both on-line and print), the New York Times (yes, both on-line and print. I saw one pretty recently in the Sunay print edition in answer to someone above) and MSNBC. General Wesley Clark, who at the time was considered a serious contender for the Democratic presidential primary nomination, welcomed Michael Moore's endorsement. Howard Dean, at the time considered an even more serious candidate, welcomed Ted Rall's, or at least his flunkies did. This is the kind of crap that needs to stop.

But, you are right there's no way to formally disavvow someone and double plus is right in saying that it gets tedious endlessly looking to see if each individual's denunciation is strong enough.

tosk:

There was actually a bit of substance in your tiresome intellecutally superior schtick this time, but I think if you look back you'll see that I was only talking about a very brief, and pretty simple statement. I may not be as hip and like totally relativst as you, so I'm of the mind that there is an obviously correct way to interpret a simple, direct statement. For instance, if someone says "My dog is named spot" it would be incorrect to say that the meaning of the statement is "my dog is named Fido", unless you're digging on some Derrida while you smoke that joint in which case I can't help you.

Calibar,

We posted at the same time. So you did sort of answer my question.

But you didn't really.

So let's get back to it.

You said: so you're saying the soldiers who say they understand why the 'enemy' is picking up guns and that they would do the same are also 'on crack'? surely you don't believe that?

Yes, any soldier who identifies with the enemy is on crack. And so are you if you identify with them.

I'm referring to this from Dowd today:

"Just when you thought things couldn't get worse, The Associated Press reports from London that "U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey."

Yes, any soldier who identifies with the enemy is on crack. And so are you if you identify with them.

--Michael, reports from journals as varied as WSJ to Boston Globe indicate that the number of soldiers who identify with the enemy is quite substantial. I don't think they're on crack, they've seen things that inform their perspective that are quite different from the green zone.

calibar:

I think I remember one of the quotes to which you are referring and you're taking it way, way out of context. This was in the NYT. The guy did indeed say something about how he would feel were he in the same situation in San Diego, and he may have even used the words "I understand" but it was in the context of something about how focused they were on killing these guys if they had to. It was very clear where his loyalties ultimately were, not so in Michael Moore's case.

It was very clear where his loyalties ultimately were, not so in Michael Moore's case.

--what is this, some kind of mccarthy test now? if you agree with the war and the occupation you are 'loyal' to the soldiers? perhaps it's the opposite? if you support the occupation you are not loyal to the soldiers, at least in terms of their health and welfare? I mean the antiwar movement could play the same meaningless game here actually, 'if you are against the soldiers, you want to keep them in an occupatin situation that will get more soldiers killed'.
I guess I'm supposed to jump when you screech 'BOO!'?

Calibar,

Do you identify with the enemy?

Eric,

I'm sorry that you feel threatened intellectually by someones viewpoint. I don't consider myself superior to anyone, I choose not to believe that I KNOW the truth, I choose to think that what I see and what someone else sees may be different and yet correct.

As for your interpertation of Moores statement, you read a hell of a lot into it. Perhaps he meant it that way, I don't purport to know what goes on in his head, but for you to actually believe that you understand the only true interpertation of his statement, borders on the absurd. Both interpertations of his words have merit, I personally think that yours is quite a bit of a strech, but I could be wrong.

There is a large difference between understanding the statement "My dog is named Spot" and understanding the 'correct' interpertation of a comment that does not directly make a statement. Anytime one must infer, interpert or make leaps of logic, then one should also consider that their view may be wrong, slanted, twisted or otherwise incorrect. Your simple "You drank the Kool-Aid" retort only heightens the lack of support for the argument you make.

Ratatosk

By the way, Calibar, I asked you that question not because you're anti-war but because you say that you identify with people who say they identify with the enemy. I'm just wondering if you need to be one-step removed from this identification process or not.

Do you identify with the enemy?

--I identify with the declaration of independence. Read it and you'll see why that soldier said that if he were in San Diego and foreign occupiers were there he'd pick up a gun. I do agree with his perspective, it makes logical sense. That perspective, which many soldiers have expressed makes sense to me. They would rather be back home it strikes me and many newspapers, be they right wing or liberal confirm that.

I don't identify with the politics of Sadr, if that is what you 're getting at.

If you cannot identify with the enemy, how do you hope to understand and therefore change his idealogy? It's easy to label the enemy Kraut, Gook, Deigo and be done with it. In a territorial war, its perfectly acceptable to simply kill the other side until someone gives up.

This is a war of idealogy, even if we put down all the current insurgents, capture Bin Laden and bring democracy to Iraq, without understanding and changing the idealogy, this problem will rise again.

But then, if you identify with the enemy, its harder to kill them.

Rat

By the way, Calibar, I asked you that question not because you're anti-war but because you say that you identify with people who say they identify with the enemy.

--my sense is you ignore the important implications of that soldier and many other soldiers who have said similar things, to the detriment of the very soldiers you believe you support.

As for your interpertation of Moores statement, you read a hell of a lot into it. Perhaps he meant it that way, I don't purport to know what goes on in his head, but for you to actually believe that you understand the only true interpertation of his statement, borders on the absurd.

--he plainly didn't and it's clear if you go and read the original texts.

tosk:

I don't feel remotely "intellectually threatened" by you. I'm saying that it's clear that you feel intellectually threatened by everyone else because of your need to adopt this tiresome "Only I am truly open-minded. Only I am beyond dogma" crap. Give it a rest. Those statements aren't fully true of anyone. It's condescending and annoying.

Eric,

I certianly don't believe that I'm the only open minded person, or that I'm open minded about everything. I'm not.

But yet, we again seem to not get any sort of actual discussion on the topic from you. It seems you love to make grand statements, then attack the personality of the poster, instead of the content of the post. You interperted a broad statement then decided that it was the correct interpertation and someone elses was WRONG. Yet, you haven't given any supporting arguments, you haven't participated in debate, you've simply ranted.

Now, if personal attacks and ranting without evidence is your bag, go for it.

-Tosk

If you cannot identify with the enemy, how do you hope to understand and therefore change his idealogy? It's easy to label the enemy Kraut, Gook, Deigo and be done with it. In a territorial war, its perfectly acceptable to simply kill the other side until someone gives up.

--Tosk has said something quite important here, far more important than scare questions that are about as abstract as they can get at the moment.
Obviously the easiest way to avoid the importance of what tosk says here is to engage in a continuation of the 'do you identify with the enemy?' questions...or 'to whom are you loyal?'...

Calibar,

Let me address your point in a different way.

I would pick up a gun against foreign invaders in the United States if we get invaded tomorrow.

However. If the US turns into a right-wing totalitarian state and the British show up to free us and reinstate democracy I will not take up arms against the British.

Since Iraq was recently a right-wing totalitarian state and the British showed up (with us), removed the dictatorship, and began serious democratic reforms, I cannot identify with the people taking up arms. They are Baathist dead-enders, foreign Al Qaeda terrorists, and far-right religious lunatics like a gang of Pat Robertsons with machine guns.

This has nothing to do with who owns what land, and it has everything to do with ideology. I support liberal democrats against fascists. Period.

His commentary (which he later claimed was satire and later disappeared down a memory hole) that the 9/11 mass murderers picked the wrong target because people in New York didn't vote for Bush, the implication being that a mass slaughter of Bush voters would have been acceptable.

I didn't take it that way. I took it as heartfelt, a cri de couer, and very revealing of the very mindset that Michael is discussing above. Al Qaeda should not have attacked a "blue state", because they were, to quote Moore, "killing the wrong people". The significant thing about this is that Moore cannot even conceive of an enemy of America. An enemy of Republicans, yes. But someone who doesn't care whether they kill Republicans or Democrats as long as they're American - someone for whom the distinction between parties is trivial and not worth basing their choice of target on? Inconceivable.

From which I deduce that for Moore, the primacy of the conflict with Republicans, the image of Republicans as the enemy, is so central that he's unable to imagine that anyone doesn't think the same way.

For someone with this mindset, naming the enemy is simple. The enemy will never be outside the country's borders. The enemy is, pure and simple, the adversary of one's political faction.

I didn't take it that way. I took it as heartfelt, a cri de couer, and very revealing of the very mindset that Michael is discussing above. Al Qaeda should not have attacked a "blue state", because they were, to quote Moore, "killing the wrong people".

--no, you've completely misread the remarks and any objective rereading of his remarks, his travel diary in the immediate aftermath, were very clearly in stark contrast to your interpretation.

However. If the US turns into a right-wing totalitarian state and the British show up to free us and reinstate democracy I will not take up arms against the British.

--what if they said they were invading the US because it was a threat to Britain and later changed to 'we did it to bring democracy' and then were unable to deliver anything like democracy, but had developed a whole set of new investment rules in the country that would allow Brits to buy out leading industries in the US? And on top of that arrested at random people with whom they could not communicate [let's presume, say, the invaders were Spaniards who couldn't speak English]. Then you saw pictures of their sodomising prisoners who in all likelihood were innocent of any crimes against Americans or the invaders. And one of those was your brother or mother--we can be less abstract? That's the proper context to think of the matter I would think, at least in a way that makes the value of life for Iraqis and Americans equivalent.

They are Baathist dead-enders, foreign Al Qaeda terrorists, and far-right religious lunatics like a gang of Pat Robertsons with machine guns.

--that works for the talking points of the day, but not when we look at what the CIA and military intelligence has been quoted saying, usually but not always off the record, in newspapers as varied as WSJ, CSM, NYT, WP. I don't see how it helps the soldiers you say you support to have little sense of who it is they are fighting.

This has nothing to do with who owns what land, and it has everything to do with ideology. I support liberal democrats against fascists. Period.

--Chalabi is not a liberal democrat. not even close.

And Chalabi has exactly what to do with Totten's hypothetical question?

what if they said they were invading the US because it was a threat to Britain and later changed to 'we did it to bring democracy' and then were unable to deliver anything like democracy, but had developed a whole set of new investment rules in the country that would allow Brits to buy out leading industries in the US?

I hear the black helicopters now....

And I would still like to hear your thoughts on whether Kerry should embrace or reject Moore. Because you know, if Kerry pick Clarke to be on the ticket, this is going to be more than a hypothetical.

Cal,

"--that works for the talking points of the day, but not when we look at what the CIA and military intelligence has been quoted saying, usually but not always off the record, in newspapers as varied as WSJ, CSM, NYT, WP."

Wow, pretty wide spectrum you got there, Cal. Any guess about the political affiliation of the reporters that write for those papers? The Journal has a notorious ideological rift between the editorial and news pages, so don't go there.

There's a reason they say you can't believe everything you read in the paper. We all have our biases, including those of which we are not aware.

People across Iraq are largely not terribly supportive of the U.S. (would we really want them to be, if they are truly to be a model for the region?), but the vast majority are not so violently opposed to the point of taking up arms.

Those with the most to lose in a democracy, the ex-Baathists and Sadrites, surely are, but the rest of the country isn't rising up in insurrection any more than San Francisco, hating Bush, is about to descend into violent revolt here.

I mentioned Socrates above, and there is another thing about him. Socrates only debated sophists when he felt it wasn't obvious enough to everyone in Athens that they were merely sophists. Other than that, he preferred to debate only people who were interested in discovering truths. He wasn't interested in playing whack-a-sophist for its own sake. It's a pointless waste of time, and it's rigged. When I figure out I'm dealing with a sophist, I just ignore him. Though I understand that initially something inside one tells one that the sophist can be brought to his senses if only one launches yet another argument, it just isn't so. A sophist can't be swayed by evidence, because evidence is aimed at truth and a sophist doesn't give a hoot about the truth.

calibar - The enemy (Moore’s minutemen) deliberately targets Iraqi kids, aid workers, worshippers on the highest Shi’ite holy day, UN workers – they deliberately target hundreds of innocent people and they blow them into shreds.

Like all terrorists, they don’t seek to free their people from oppression, they seek to oppress them.

You say If you cannot identify with the enemy, how do you hope to understand and therefore change his idealogy?

What is the ideology that motivates Moore’s Iraqi minutemen? What philosophers are their goals and ideals based on? Who are their friends, and who are their enemies? What’s the history of the movement that inspires them? You know so much about them. Tell us.

I read "Treason", and thought it was pretty shrill...but I found nothing wrong with her argument that the left in this country has at best fumbled, at worst abandoned, it's responsibility to the country on a pretty consistent basis.

Reading the book also goaded me to read "Witness" by Whitaker Chambers, so regardless of the polemic factor in "Treason", it was worth the read.

I watched "Bowling for Columbine". It was trash, and factually incoherent. I am amazed that someone so disgusting on a visceral level enjoys success in a video medium. Then again, Saturday Night Live is still on the air, so I must be outside a sizeable demographic.

I just got done scanning my bloglist. Lileks brought Joe Biden's latest embarassment to my attention; another "what did he know, and when did he know it" throwaway, this time at Rumsfeld.

The democrats have nothing to offer to strengthen or even hold what we've got. Nancy Pelosi would wear a burka on Meet the Press if she thought it would get her points. Once this Iraqi prisoner abuse story fades there's going to be a lot of leftover rhetoric they are going to regret.

I'm too angry to write well; over lunch the thought struck me that in the short term, the disgusting behaviour of the MP's may actually benefit us. Our troops may be dieing, the contractors and Iraqi coalition supporters under threat of explosion or murder, but it will probably be at least a few news cycles before the enemy dismembers and defiles our dead on camera.

They are laughing themselves silly watching us agonize over this paranthesis...and clapping whenever some idiot calls for Rumsfeld to be fired. They know what they must do to win...and it's not defeat us on the battlefield.

CNN has given more airtime to naked terrorists than to mass graves. Go figure.

"I mentioned Socrates above, and there is another thing about him. Socrates only debated sophists when he felt it wasn't obvious enough to everyone in Athens that they were merely sophists."

A. Great point.

B. Isn't the current situation exactly the one in which Socrates was forced to debate them? Being "sophisticated" is now counted a virtue.

Funny aside. Of Socrates, Milton wrote:

"The first and wisest of them all professed
To know this only, that he nothing knew;"

- Paradise Regained, iv. 292-293

Hmmm, sounds like a certain Secretary of Defense...

;-)

I hear the black helicopters now....

--wow, now we're really into reading comprehension problems.

Heh! Thing of it is, I betcha ol' Soc really thought he knew a thing or two.

As for B., I don't know, but I think people can smell a sophist a mile away these days.

CNN has given more airtime to naked terrorists than to mass graves. Go figure.

--naked terrorists? hmmm. you seem to have missed the Taguba report that at least 60% of the prisoners were there due to mistakes made in random raids and lack of translators? duh.

What is the ideology that motivates Moore’s Iraqi minutemen? What philosophers are their goals and ideals based on? Who are their friends, and who are their enemies? What’s the history of the movement that inspires them? You know so much about them. Tell us.

--read the WSJ articles that have done pretty good reporting on the topic. or Christian Science Monitor.

calibar: ...at least 60% of the prisoners were there due to mistakes made in random raids and lack of translators

Could you please quote the part of the report that says that? It's important and it should be here for all to see. Thanks!

Could you please quote the part of the report that says that? It's important and it should be here for all to see. Thanks!

--i'll have to look it up, Hersh has been quoting Taguba stating that, it must be in the new yorker article i'd guess.
btw, did you see Oreilly had on Hersh yesterday? I guess in the Mussolini lobby Oreilly must be a big time 5th columnist now, he he.

From the Taguba report (and this wasn't too hard to find, go to The Memory Hole

Then go to section 24 (U):

"Lastly, detainees accused of committing “Crimes Against the Coalition,” who are held throughout the separate facilities in the CJTF-7 AOR, can be released upon a determination that they are of no intelligence value and no longer pose a significant threat to Coalition Forces. The release process for this category of detainee is a screening by the local US Forces Magistrate Cell and a review by a Detainee Release Board consisting of BG Karpinski, COL Marc Warren, SJA, CJTF-7, and MG Barbara Fast, C-2, CJTF-7. MG Fast is the “Detainee Release Authority” for detainees being held for committing crimes against the coalition. According to BG Karpinski, this category of detainee makes up more than 60% of the total detainee population, and is the fastest growing category. However, MG Fast, according to BG Karpinski, routinely denied the board’s recommendations to release detainees in this category who were no longer deemed a threat and clearly met the requirements for release. According to BG Karpinski, the extremely slow and ineffective release process has significantly contributed to the overcrowding of the facilities."

This is interesting.

I don't understand "no deemed a threat" and "no furhter intelligence value" to mean "innocent."

Based on this language, how do you conclude that 60% of the prisoners were innocent bystanders completely free from any wrongdoing?

This is interesting.

I don't understand "no deemed a threat" and "no furhter intelligence value" to mean "innocent."

Based on this language, how do you conclude that 60% of the prisoners were innocent bystanders completely free from any wrongdoing?

Sorry about the double post.

"They are Baathist dead-enders, foreign Al Qaeda terrorists, and far-right religious lunatics like a gang of Pat Robertsons with machine guns."

At the risk of becoming known as the guy who defends inane, unimaginative theocrats on Totten's blog - about the last place I'd like to be - I think you run the risk here of veering off-topic in a manner not unlike Rush did, and which you rightly called him on.

We can fight the culture war when the real one is under control. Pat Robertson does actually have guns (that pesky second amendment) and I don't see him picking off atheists with them. Not sure why automating them would turn him into a terrorist. Robertson does a good enough job smearing hiself without the rest of us piling on.

The better parallel to our own culture doesn't require a hypothetical - it's the KKK. The Klan actually arose from similar dynamics to the ones that are producing terror groups in the ME, they claim to be "Christian", and they stood and stand (thankfully pathetically now) directly in the path of liberal reform.

I don't understand "no deemed a threat" and "no furhter intelligence value" to mean "innocent."
Based on this language, how do you conclude that 60% of the prisoners were innocent bystanders completely free from any wrongdoing?

--it's hard to imagine that the US army would decide that a person whom they had active knowledge of particpating in armed insurrection against the US occupiers would be 'not deemed a threat' after only a few months of incarceration. That's one obvious answer. 2) They damned sure ain't what you keep referring to as 'hardened terrorists' or it sure is odd they are ready to be released and not considered a threat. 3) There are just too many corrobarating stories being told by Iraqis that confirm this claim, not to mention independent human rights groups that our own government happily refers to with great faith when it reviews the human rights records of our official enemies.

From our own experience with the Klan: considering a certain esteemed senior senator from the great state of West Virginia, don't get your hopes up about de-Baathification happening overnight...

I asked What is the ideology that motivates Moore’s Iraqi minutemen? What philosophers are their goals and ideals based on?

Your answer it that I should read the Christian Science monitor and the WSJ. Ha! Did the dog eat your homework?

Bush does a better job answering offhand questions from reporters. You don't know a Wahhabi from a Wasabi, do you?

You don't understand anything about these terrorist 'insurgents'. But you probably know more than Moore.

ps. - above note to calibar

I think all this misses the most salient bit from Cooper's LA Weekly column. Which was, I think, this:

"Last year, writer Mark Dowie, a founder
of Mother Jones, had a tough time selling
an essay critical of Moore to several
obeisant 'alternative'-press papers that
feared offending Saint Michael. (He didn’t
try the L.A. Weekly.) But Dowie persuasively
argued in that unpublished piece that our
public political discourse was dangerously
descending into little more than a sub-
literate clown show, a comic wrestling
match."

So Dowie, a man with impeccable liberal-left credentials and an impressive editorial record, cannot even get an article critical of Moore published in the liberal-left press? Even when he's arguing that people like Moore are harmful to their cause? That's the problem. This guy helped sink Gore on behalf of Nader (and Bush), just about single-handedly ruined the promising campaign of Wesley Clark, and these people are still afraid to confront him? This is a shirking of principles, a flinching fear of taking on icons, and worst of all, vastly self-destructive to everything they puport to believe in.

Your answer it that I should read the Christian Science monitor and the WSJ. Ha! Did the dog eat your homework?

--nope, i've already done the reading, why should i tell you what is in the text? you have to do your own research i'm afraid.
------------------------
You don't understand anything about these terrorist 'insurgents'. But you probably know more than Moore.

--I could well know more than Moore. I definitely know more than Bush. I knew more than him about the so-called 'wmds' in Iraq and it's clear just from reading reports from reporters who do more than stay inside the green zone that I know more than Bush. After all most of his 'sources' for information are in the green zone and dare not leave that area.

calibar - You have plenty of information about George Bush, but none about Moore's minutemen.

You have very little actual knowledge about their religious beliefs and goals, but you say you 'understand them.

As they say, know your enemy. So who is your enemy?

"I definitely know more than Bush. I knew more than him about the so-called 'wmds' in Iraq and it's clear just from reading reports from reporters who do more than stay inside the green zone that I know more than Bush. After all most of his 'sources' for information are in the green zone and dare not leave that area."

Hate to break it to you Calibar, but your unknown unknowns are showing...

You have very little actual knowledge about their religious beliefs and goals, but you say you 'understand them.

--yup, i understand them just like that soldier i quoted earlier understands them.

Hate to break it to you Calibar, but your unknown unknowns are showing...

--that's as amusing as watching senor and kimmit pretend they know something significant from within the confines of the green zone.

Calibar,

You have repeated several times on this blog that the Taguba report says that 60% of the detainees were randomly picked up "due to mistakes made in random raids and lack of translators."

But the Taguba report says nothing of the kind. It says that 60% were picked up for crimes against the coalition and released, along with other detainees guilty of other crimes, because they were no longer deemed a threat to anyone.

Your little three-point defense of your error is too pathetic to merit a reply.

Why did you misrepresent the Taguba Report? It said the 60% were guilty. You said that it said they were not guilty. Why did you say that? How many of your other posts on this blog are untrue?

"Lastly, detainees accused of committing “Crimes Against the Coalition,” who are held throughout the separate facilities in the CJTF-7 AOR, can be released upon a determination that they are of no intelligence value and no longer pose a significant threat to Coalition Forces.

--that's the 60% reference, no. 1. no. 2, if Hersh were so wrong, funny how no one in the administration has refuted that number? it's been out there for several days now, not a one has stated that Hersh has it wrong.
the translators, i added that in there, go read a newspaper or a CPA report, you'll find constant references to the lack of translators in Iraq, it shouldn't be news to you now. nor should it be news to you that the soldiers lack translators when making arrests, it 's been reported often enough, even on your own beloved FOX news networks.

no longer deemed a threat. interesting. now, they are guilty of some crime, yet released because they are 'no longer a threat'. and somehow they now become terrorists in the mussolini lobby's book.

Why did you misrepresent the Taguba report? It said the 60% were guilty. You said it said they were innocent.

You're repeating your lame three-point reply. It's beside the point. They point is that you misrepresented the Taguba report.

Why did you misrepresent it?

"--that's as amusing as watching senor and kimmit pretend they know something significant from within the confines of the green zone."

I'm not claiming to know anything, let alone pretending. Just saying...

The level of knowledge you claim will only be available to historians.

Speaking of Michael Moore, his Disney-bashing turns out to be a publicity stunt:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901

You know what would be a great publicity stunt? Moore should get Coulter to do a nude scene in his next film. Not with Moore of course. That would be horrifying.

Tosk,

This is a war of idealogy, even if we put down all the current insurgents, capture Bin Laden and bring democracy to Iraq, without understanding and changing the idealogy, this problem will rise again.

What is the ideology? I say it is Islam itself. If it isn't Islam, what is it?

MJT,

Since Iraq was recently a right-wing totalitarian state and the British showed up (with us), removed the dictatorship, and began serious democratic reforms, I cannot identify with the people taking up arms.

Wrong! Iraq was a LEFT-WING totalitarian state modeled on continentaal European socialism that gave us communism and fascism. Almost all totalitarian states since Marx have been left-wing. And if America ever becomes totalitarian, it will also come from the left. You have your radar pointed in the wrong direction. The totalitarian threat will attack you from your blind-spot.

Right-wing totalitarians tend to be monarchists. They're all dead. Even Franco.

What is the ideology? I say it is Islam itself. If it isn't Islam, what is it?

--the mussolini wing strikes again!

American right-wingers are mostly liberals.

American left-wingers ("liberals") are mostly socialists.

European right-wingers are mostly authoritarians.

European left-wingers are mostly socialists.

Where are the European liberals?

Most of the them left Europe at baynonet point to escape National Socialists and Communists, moved to America, helped move the American conservative tradition even more liberal (libertarian) positions and are now denounced as "fascists" by the American Left.

Denunciation is the primary mode of articulation for the American Left. Defensive, self righteous indignation is secondary. Advancing actual ideas is tertiary. And most of them are dubious.

I can't bear the irony, I'm up to hind quarters in it. Michael posts on the idea of both sides strengthening their positions by disavowing wingnut ideologues. A partisan food fight ensues. Unbelievable.

Partisanism is a kind of dogmatism. Dogmatism is the intention to do whatever it takes to make the evidence seem to support one's position. Partisanism therefore impedes the forum's effort to discover what is true, correct, right, etc. It is therefore a sickness in the forum. (That's more Socrates.)

calibar – a quote from one soldier represents the entire insurgency? That's a pretty sad excuse for research.

Now you’re making me clog up Michael’s comment section with links.

To answer the question that you can’t answer - Who are Moore’s mass murdering ‘minutemen?’

According to the Guardian, Moore’s baby-killing minutemen are aided by Iran and Syria

According to the NY Times, Young Saudis are crossing the border to fight in Iraq and the Kingdom cheers for them

A quote: "The difficulty, some experts believe, refers back to a slightly different interpretation of the concept of jihad espoused by the Wahhabi teachings that hold sway in the kingdom. Whereas most sects in Islam view jihad as necessary only when attacked, the Wahhabis view it as a means to spread their religion."

In February 2004, al Sadr threatened to revolt if Shariah law wasn’t implemented in Iraq. Shariah law is a set of pre-medieval laws that would create an Iraq that would make Nazi Germany look liberal (at least in its treatment of women)

Shariah law is what motivates these terrorists to blow up schoolbusses. Their complete contempt for human life is just one indicator of their intent to oppress.

Michael Moore calls these fascists Minutemen and hopes that many Americans will be murdered by them.

Like Coulter, he blames Americans for 9/11. And you defend him.
Again, who is your enemy?

Actually, I don't think that's food being flung...

mary: Michael Moore goes further. He doesn't think this terrorism thing is really a problem. I think his judgement was clouded by his opposition to the Iraq war, but considering how much credence he gives to the "fear factor" to explain everything that he disagrees with, the notion that he doesn't think terrorism is really an issue is all more believable.

Moore is a face. If you told him he could do everything it is that he does but he could never show his face, he would be a completely different person.

bk,
"A partisan food fight ensues. Unbelievable."

It was mostly polite at first, how the hell did we get here?

should I be nicer to calibar? I tried, at first..

In its acute form the pathology of dogmatism descends to simply lying.

I don't see where you've been rude, Mary. As usual, you show yourself to be the info-link lady. I just think you're wasting your time playing a game that's rigged against you. You think you're debating and deliberating with someone, but you're not. I take Socrates's advice and don't play whack-a-sophist, albeit I won't sit still for repeated misrepresentation of documents by a sophist.

I wonder what the criteria were for determining whether or not those prisoners released were a threat or not. Is that anwhere in any of the documents?

'whack-a-sophist' - LOL.

It's funny because it's true.

Mary, keep this in mind about calibar: he doesn't argue, he snipes.

His posts always consist of a single point pulled from a comment, followed by an opposing talking point from the Democratic Underground. In the process, he usually includes an insult.

He ignores any invitation to flesh out his ideas.

When any two posts from him are shown to be mutually incompatible (the situation represents a vast conspiracy/ the situation represents a lack of leadership) he claims you can't read.

In other words, why bother?

Oh, and I forgot the "change the subject" tactic.

This was a thread about divesting wingnuts from movements, remember. Track back and find out where it was sidetracked.

Sam,

Here's the document.

I don't know the answer to your question. There were criminals of various categories picked up. My guess is that in a typical case an Iraqi might have taken up arms against the coalition or looted a store but been deemed later to have been a fairly ordinary bloke swept up by events and therefore not likely to do go at it again.

Mary, I have a post upthread on Socrates's view of whack-a-sophist. It's a funny, accurate term. I think I coined it, but I might have gotten it from someone else in the blogosphere.

Jim,

Thats the kind of thing I was looking for, thanks for the cite.

Mmmmmm, whack-a-sophist.

It's so tempting, yet so unfullfilling. It's like cotton candy, it seems delicious, and then it melts before you can eat it. LOL, too.

I notice those same things...an unwillingness to let certain things said stand unchallenged, along with the concurrent realization that not responding is wiser, even though I can't do it. Crazy people will make you feel crazy.

I'm entertaining the hypothesis that calibar is hypocrite, a well-known troll.

"Denunciation is the primary mode of articulation for the American Left. Defensive, self righteous indignation is secondary. Advancing actual ideas is tertiary. And most of them are dubious."

Wow. When did Ambrose Bierce walk in here?

= )

Good work. I think what we're dealing with here is an epistemology gap of epic proportions. It's not just the Left (in fact, the post-modern Left is probably farther along in questioning it), but even more so the "liberal" establishment in the media, academia, and the long-term civil service bureacracy - three sectors that are, when you think about them, inherently reactive: something happens, then they react to it.

Maybe the problem is not just that we (I'm in academia now, though I've worked on the active side of the gap) think we know too much. Though this could be what produces the "arrogance" Bernie Goldberg notes, it's that we think that level of knowledge, of certainty, can be had at all in life that is the crux of the problem.

Without such certainty, we think it foolish to act and search for rationales for inaction. As it is said of courage that it is not absence of fear but acting despite it; with the neo-cons, their bias toward action is not the claim of certainty in appears to be to those whose certainty threshold is too high. It is the willingness to act despite uncertainty foreign to those who overestimate the availability of such ceratinty.

I'm sure someone here can put the point more eloquently (Zhombre?), but I think I might be on to something.

TmjUtah...

"Once this Iraqi prisoner abuse story fades"...

It's not going to fade. More pictures are coming out. Things are only going to get worse. All that aside, this is already the worst PR disaster America has EVER suffered in the Middle East. Long after we forget about it, they won't. This will probably haunt us for generations over there.

Okay, the Shah of Iran probably tops it. Barely.

" All that aside, this is already the worst PR disaster America has EVER suffered in the Middle East."

Yes, it even beats us helping out the Jews or boming cities.

(Or wait, maybe the Jews are not a factor, after all American IS run by the Zionists...)

Tosk,

This is a war of idealogy, even if we put down all the current insurgents, capture Bin Laden and bring democracy to Iraq, without understanding and changing the idealogy, this problem will rise again.

What is the ideology? I say it is Islam itself. If it isn't Islam, what is it?

This was a good question posted a bit back which I didn't see until now. So, I'll comment on it.

There are two ideologies at war here.

First we have the ideology of the Muslim, who believes that Allah has very strict rules about what people can and cannot do. It is similar to the early BC Era Jewish system in that it is a theocracy, they believe God should rule, period. The Muslim has for centuries been ill at ease with the West and the Christian influenced governments. Many things perpatrated in the Middle Ages were the fault of the Muslims, many things perpatrated in those times fall at the feet of western governments and the Catholic Church. We have become their ENEMY. They have heard the constant association between us and Satan, some believe it.

Second ideology, Americans, and by large the West, believes that democracy is the best form of government. Seperation of Church and State (at least when convienent for whichever party happens to be arguing for or against it), equality, freedom of the individual and personal responsibility, with social assistance.

So to recap: Position One (for some but not all Muslims): Mans Law must be taken from Gods Law. Personal Freedom exists, only as long as it fits with the current interpertation of Gods Law. The West/Christians want to destroy us, they are the enemy.

Position Two (for some but not all Americans): Mans Law is Mans Law, Gods Law is a personal issue. All people are equal, all people are free to persue Life Liberty and Happiness.

Now of course these are ideals/ideas/dogmas even. They are sets of beliefs that either group would gladly impose on the other.

However, imposing Freedom, equality and Liberty has not always worked in the past. Indeed, the french revolution fell flat on its face, because the populace didn't change their ideals and expectations and things fell apart. In order to succeed we need to understand why an Iraqi would pick up a gun to shoot an American. The answer for some of the insurgents may be that they are evil cowards, who want power for themselves. However, at least some of those shooters are doing it because their religion, their culture, their leaders have shaped their reality to see the US as evil. Dead civillians and degrading pictures reinforce that image.

So to understand...

Imagine 1985. The United States is told by the Soviet Union that it is not in compliance with X and it must prove compliance or there will be War. The US tells them to go drink some vodka and soon there is war. The Soviets gain control and start removing many of the laws we were raised to believe necessary. They close churches and burn bibles.

The Americans who would take up arms and become insurgents are no different than many of the Iraqis we fight now. Both groups believe a certian ideology and are fighting the enemies of that ideology. You don't have to agree with their ideology, only understand it and thus hope to change it.

I am a duelist. I fight with live steel rapier, as part of a Western Martial Arts group. When I fight someone, I try to understand their fighting ideology... are they defensive, reactionary, offensive, a show off, do they work with the terrain or do they try to stay on one specific footing. Once I understand these things, I can get a good idea of which fencing master they studied. Once I do that, I can begin to exploit their training.

While this is a very different kind of ideology, understanding the enemy is key (and certianly it takes more to understand it than this post).

Figure out why they're shooting at Americans, from their perspective, then we can begin to figure out how to exploit their mindset to introduce change.

Before you insult someone, walk a mile in their shoes. Then you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

Tosk

Hey, BK, screw yourself. I'm a thousand times better informed and a million times more grounded than that prick calibar.

I eagerly await your apology and retraction, jerk.

Tosk, I think you put it together pretty well.

Rgarding those "god's laws," it's my understanding that shar'ia law isn't actually in the koran, so for THIS set of laws, whether or not the shar'ia laws actually ARE god's laws is not conclusively established. Is this right, or wrong? I don't know for sure.

I know when I read part of the Koran (lost interest) that it began with a clever rhetorical device of claiming that there could be no doubt that the words in it were absolutely the words of Allah, and so above reproach [though not above interpretation :-) ]. If shar'ia law isn't explicitly spelled out in the koran in full detail, then it can evolve, right?

BK,

From my understanding Sharia Law is much more akin to the laws that abounded in 1CE Isreal. Sort of like Traditions of interpertations of Law.

For example (DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE ANTI-SEMETIC):

The Mosaic Law stated that one should not work on the 7th day. The Traditions that later came about included "Not spitting on the Sabbath", "Not wearing sandals that used Iron nails, for lifting the greater weight was 'work' on the Sabbath."

I lived in NYC for awhile and in Jewish sections on Saturday, some buildings had the elevators stop at every floor, because to some... pushing the button was work. Obviously, this isn't the belief of ALL Jews, just some... as Sharia Law (interpertation) isn't believed by all Muslims, only some.

Christians have similar groups. The Puritans had serious Law that was based on interpertation of Biblical Law. Some groups believe that makeup, jewelry, more than 3 pair of shoes and 7 dresses/outfits is against Gods Law. Not everyone believes this, its not supported by the Bible... its a Traditional Interpertation of Scripture.

Of course, maybe Allah came down and gave it to them secretly... just to screw with things. It sounds like something he'd do.

"Psssst! Joshua! Those Cannanites don't follow those laws I gave Moses on top of a mountain... go kill the bastards... hehehehe ahem".

Whoops, maybe that was Eris. Damn her!

Hipocrite,

For whatever it's worth, I knew it wasn't you. You've never come off as a sophist to me. Although pretty abrasive at times (and MT's asked you to tone it down), you've never come off as wanting to bullsh** anybody.

Thank you, Jim. For a wingnut, you're only mostly unscrewed. (tounge firmly in cheek)

Aw, Hipocrite! Now you've done it, I'm tearing up. sniff

I can't help it. Somewhere in the deepest cockles of my heart, I hope that either Moore or Coulter will be struck by lightening, thereby reversing their political polarity from left to right (or right to left in Annie's case), allowing them to find true love in the arms of one another. It would be a love so perfect, so right. They truly deserve each other.

And just imagine the gorgeous kids they'll have...

I always hope that embarrassing sophists like caliber with facts will make them go away. It doesn’t usually work. Unfortunately, ignoring them doesn’t make them go away either.

Tosk –

you said: The Americans who would take up arms and become insurgents are no different than many of the Iraqis we fight now

But would the Americans deliberately target schoolbusses, hundreds of innocent people, aid workers and UN workers. Would their goal be to inflict a theocratic and fascist state on their unwilling fellow citizens? That’s the difference here.

There’s a difference between resistance fighters and terrorists. The tactics used by the most of the insurgents are the same tactics used in other Arab state-sponsored paramilitary conflicts – in Israel, Kashmir, Chechnya, Thailand, etc. This is how they fight wars, because their military forces are so weak. It’s no secret that Iran is sponsoring Sadr.

Under current strict interpretations of shariah law, there is no separation of church and state, apostasy is punished by death, slavery is allowed. It’s not really comparable to even the strictest judeo-Christian laws.

Here’s the effect of shariah law in Nigeria:

Under these sharia dictates, women are harshly subjugated. In northern Nigeria, they have been forbidden to rent houses and barred from riding motorbikes or traveling in the same vehicles as men. Taxi drivers have been caned for carrying female passengers. Zamfara requires all high-school girls to wear a hijab and bars them from wearing skirts and other “Western” forms of dress. State officials have advocated public flogging of those violating an “Islamic” dress code. Prostitution charges have been leveled at women merely for the crime of being unmarried after the age of 13. Judges in Bauchi State have told women to get married immediately or be sent to prison. One judge ordered four of them to pick out husbands from among the men in the court. Women are at a particular disadvantage in these criminal prosecutions since their testimony usually counts for only half that of a man.

Non-Muslims, usually Christians, have become second-class citizens. Their taxes pay for Islamic preachers, while hundreds of churches have been closed by government order. Last week, Sani announced that all “unauthorized” places of worship in Zamfara State would be demolished. Those who exercise their right under the Nigerian constitution to change their religion from Islam are threatened with death, a punishment for apostasy under sharia law. The Catholic and Anglican churches have had to set up protected centers for converts."

But would the Americans deliberately target schoolbusses, hundreds of innocent people, aid workers and UN workers. Would their goal be to inflict a theocratic and fascist state on their unwilling fellow citizens?

Well, if they were named Timothy McVeigh....

McVeigh is dead

McVeigh isn't dead; he's been brought back to life to serve as a rhetorical boogyman.

Mary,

I am not saying that Americans would blow up busses of people. That sort of tactic and thinking requires a very different social environment. There aren't many Christians who are convienced that they'll go straight to Heaven if they just go blow up a few people.

Consider that the English, felt very much the same way about the Revolutionary forces here in the states. They didn't march in lines, they didn't engage in proper battles, they hid in the woods and shot from the trees, like savages, Indians and bandits. The difference was the environment they were brought up in. Americans learned different values and techniques than the British. Ones that the British considered unfathomable.

Let me be clear that I DO NOT THINK ITS OK TO BLOW UP BUSSES, CREATE ANY THEOCRATIC LAW SYSTEM, OR ANYTHING ELSE. All I am saying is that we need to understand that the basic act, believing one is defending ones home, is understandable. The fact that their brains got programmed by a particularly nasty group of bastards, is a different issue.

Tosk

Tosk - if the point is to understand the enemy, than we should do just that. Comparing a bunch of fascist wannabes who are motivated by a political ideology that is entirely different from ours does not help us understand them.

On the other hand, this does.

I don't know if I agree with the conclusion, but I think Hanson's right about the terrorists in Iraq. They are outsmarting us.

As he himself intimated, Calibar was just aping Hersh's misrepresentations of the Taguba report. (Via Roger L. Simon.)

"Comparing a bunch of fascist wannabes who are motivated by a political ideology that is entirely different from ours does not help us understand them."

Who do you think the enemy is then?

Posts here were ripping people for saying that they could understand the actions of some of the Iraqi insurgents. That was blown out of proportion intoio a "Do you support the enemy or our troops?". My point was that one needs to understand why these individuals are acting in such a manner, so that we can figure out how to encourage them to act differently.

Human brains are a lot like computers, the brain is programed to react, act and make decisions based on the way that the brain has been programed. When debugging a computer program, you must figure out why its acting the way it is, before you can attempt to reprogram it.

Of course, you could just destroy all the computers I guess.

As I posted before, we're fighting a combination of foreign fighters, ex-Baathists and a few farmers who have a justifiable grudge against the US (although they spend most of their time talking to Salon and the NY Times)

From Hanson's essay:

"No, the challenge again is that bin Laden, the al Qaedists, the Baathist remnants, and the generic radical Islamicists of the Middle East have mastered the knowledge of the Western mind. Indeed they know us far better than we do ourselves. Three years ago, if one had dared to suggest that a few terrorists could bring down the Spanish government and send their legion scurrying out of Iraq, we would have thought it impossible.

Who would have imagined that Americans could go, in a few weeks, from the terror of seeing two skyscrapers topple to civil discord over the diet and clothing of war in Guantanamo, some of whom were released only to turn up to shoot at us again on the battlefields of Afghanistan? Our grandfathers would have dubbed Arafat a gangster, and al Sadr a psychopathic faker; many of us in our infinite capacity for fairness and non-judgementalism deemed the one a statesman and the other a holy man.

So our enemies realize that the struggle, lost on the battlefield, can yet be won with images and rhetoric offered up to alter the mentality and erode the will of an affluent, leisured and consensual West. They grasp that we are not so much worried about being convicted of being illiberal as having the charge even raised in the first place."

Similar paramilitary groups have been fighting this way for decades, in Israel, the Kashmir, and now in Thailand. They use the same tactics and the same excuses and we still haven't figured it out yet.

We can fight them by recognizing that these paramilitary forces are supported by states like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. We should acknowledge this and stop that support.

Ratatosk,

Oh, re-programming is high on the list. We're going to de-tyrannize their societies, promote constitutional democracy and liberty, and let them go about re-programming themselves. Freedom of thought, speech and information enable reasoning according to facts, and that enables the falsification and subsequent relinquishment of bad ideas. Liberty is the crucial condition in which good self-reprogramming can take place.

Jim,

If you'd do some research on the French Revolution, you'd see that liberty doesn't always equal sucessful reprogramming.

Just a thought

Tosk

I've been equating those two for a couple years, so it's nice to see someone from The Nation do it, too.

'Tosk,

Oh, to be sure. But it has a reasonably good record, and it is the only hope in this case.

If liberty leads them to Terror, then we'll just use our guns again and make them try again, and again. Until they hit on a way of life that doesn't involve killing us. We simply have no other choice, and, given that, nor do they.

If you'd do some research on the French Revolution, you'd see that liberty doesn't always equal sucessful reprogramming.

If you'd do some research on the [insert any revolution here], you'd see that [insert any term here] doesn't always equal successful reprogramming.

Your point?

Because an act is not always 100% successful does not mean that it is the incorrect course of action, or that no action should be taken. The discussion isn't whether attempting to instigate liberal democracy in the Middle East is guaranteed to succeed, it is whether it is the best of a coterie of imperfect choices to resolve the root causes of our conflict with militant Islam.

Tosk,

There are two ideologies at war here.

You haven't introduced any new ideology here. We are left with the fact that their Islamic ideology is in conflict with our Western traditions (whatever labels you want to hang on these).

You don't have to agree with their ideology, only understand it and thus hope to change it.

Indeed. If we don't force change on them, they will force it on us.

Based on what is actually in your comment, we are in agreement. Why don't I think that was your intent? Maybe I'll find out as I read the rest of the thread...