October 15, 2004

Pro Labor, Pro Bush

The liberal case for Bush, again. This time by Britain's Oliver Kamm.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at October 15, 2004 04:53 PM
Comments

"Iraqis could not rely on their own government for that protection, because of course their own government was the wielder of that violence. A professed liberal who, in considering that task, is more exercised by the violation of sovereignty or – as Charles Kennedy protested about in the Independent yesterday – the illegality of regime change than the liberty of an oppressed people is a perplexing phenomenon."

Charles Kennedy might be the leader of the Liberal party, but he is not liberal. His support for Saddam Hussein, whether couched in terms of sovereignty or not, leaves him objectively pro-fascist, and thus not liberal.

The times, they are 'ah changin'.

Posted by: FH at October 15, 2004 05:56 PM

"(The coalition forces were)...protecting a people (or rather, peoples) from arbitrary violence and despotism."
Really? So the arbitrary violence that has resulted from this undeclared war is nullified because of good intentions on the behalf of the crusaders...err, that's not P.C. at all...the coalition? And the despotitic government has been removed? Sure, but it was replaced with a pro-American mouthpiece, a man never elected by his people. They have even suggested that elections will be delayed due to violence.

Rumsfeld said "if you can't get 100 percent of Iraq to be secure and certain areas can't vote, well, nothing is perfect..." or something to that effect. If the Shi'ites decide to vote for a fundamentalist gov't like in Iran, will the U.S. allow it to happen? If not, then they are not truly committed to a free and democratic Iraq. If you tell them whom to vote for, they're not FREE.

I think it is plain to see that the argument for invading Iraq is thin and without substance. They've changed their official reason at least 14 times (ie. WMD's, Saddam's rape rooms, spreading liberty and freeing the Middle East, and most recently because Saddam could have gotten his hands on something and given it to his mortal enemies, Al-Q'aida).

All this spin is making me dizzy. I wish Bush could stick with a reason and stop flip-flopping. He must windsurf better than JfK.

You guys much watch an awful lot of Fox News. BBC and CBC here in Canada haven't taken the bait like the major American networks.
[Insert needless propagandic slogan here...]
Long live freedom. Vote Kerry in 2004.
[sorry] :)

Peace,
JB.

Posted by: Jeremy Brendan at October 15, 2004 06:30 PM

Oliver always has something good to say.

Posted by: Eric Blair at October 15, 2004 06:31 PM

"They've changed their official reason at least 14 times (ie. WMD's, Saddam's rape rooms, spreading liberty and freeing the Middle East, and most recently because Saddam could have gotten his hands on something and given it to his mortal enemies, Al-Q'aida). All this spin is making me dizzy. I wish Bush could stick with a reason and stop flip-flopping."

There haven't been any flip-flops or spin. All these reasons were always given, in Bush's speeches and interviews. Why should Bush have only one reason when there are multiple legitimate ones? In fact, if you are going to mobilize hundreds of thousands of troops to invade a country, you'd better have more than one reason.

Oliver Kamm is always good. He's like Hitch without the anachronistic Trotskyism.

Posted by: Yehudit at October 15, 2004 07:25 PM

PS Michael, if you haven't read the transcript of the discussion between Hitch and Sullivan that Kamm links to, check it out. It's very.... invigorating. Hitch backs Sullivan to the wall about the Swifties, that unsentimental bastard.

Posted by: Yehudit at October 15, 2004 07:38 PM

Kamm makes the retroactive case for invading Iraq solely on the basis of humanitarianism. This is understandable, because it's the sole remaining logical stance. It is, however, historically insupportable as a reason to support Bush since Bush did not make such an argument as the basis for his move.

It is also entirely disputable that the humanitarian argument, which, of course, every sane human is entirely sympathetic to and moved by, supports the case that waiting a few more months, or even a couple of years, for a variety of other supporting events, such as UN support and far more international military support, before having invaded in March 2003, would have been any less inhumane and a moral failure than we are being by, at this moment, not invading Sudan, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and a considerable number of other candidates whose humanitarian necessity for relief for murderous regimes is no less compelling a moral imperative. This is not, in fact, as I'm sure you'd agree, Michael, a simple argument, and reducing it to one such as Kamm here, and many elsewhere do, is neither impressive nor compelling, to me, at any rate.

Kamm also authoritatively states that Iran is, right now, nuclear armed. Right now. That's why we can't invade, right now. Because of Iran's nuclear weapons. (Our ground forces being effectively entirely tied up, not to mention our logistics utterly strained, is, however, apparently so irrelevant as to not be worth mentioning; another unimpressive rhetorical approach.)

I'd like to see a cite to Kamm's intelligence sources on Iran's being, right now, nuclear armed. Or ask what he's been smoking.

I read the Hitchens/Sullivan discussion a few days ago, by the way, and found it enjoyable; I found Kamm's case to be, well, worthless. Sorry.

But, then, I'm someone who finds Bush/Cheney's complete incompetence in carrying out their policy -- and as you recall, I supported the invasion, and still feel we need to stay as long as it makes practical sense, and that failure in Iraq would be a terrible thing -- which is why I'm so angry at Bush/Cheney for screwing it up, and I don't understand why anyone isn't -- as well as their consistent dishonesty, to prevail over vague doubts about Kerry's foreign policy which seem to be based more upon unsupported charges and tautological doubt than fact; I may, of course, turn out to regret this in the case Kerry is elected, but that's the risk I'm apparently willing to live with. Better the faintly doubtful, for me, than the endlessly demonstrable awful. That's because, you know, I'm an American optimist. I will vote my hope, not my fear, and not for those who have nothing to sell but fear itself.

Posted by: Gary Farber at October 15, 2004 09:40 PM

" the humanitarian argument, which, of course, every sane human is entirely sympathetic to and moved by,"

When I saw that, I realized that I didn't need to read the rest.

Posted by: FH at October 15, 2004 10:04 PM

Yehudit

As former lefty what I find absolutely amazing are three things…

First, after I had my "moment of truth" concerning Iraq, it was actually the shifting rationale of the left that caused me to do what would have been absolutely unthinkable even in a post 911 but pre-Iraq world, vote for a man I formerly hated, George Bush (or any Republican), now I am voting straight ticket Republican though that anti-Semite Congressman of mine Jim Moran helped make the latter part of that decision easy. As I read the memes of the left like the gentleman you responded to I chuckle because this President Bush's worst failures will greatly exceed the best case scenarios put forth by the goalpost moving doomsday left before this war ever started. In reality a political party that openly encourages cheating and lying at the polls along with false accusations of repression for the sake of the "effect" as an ends justifying the means is a party I can no longer hold hope for. Certainly they will not hold themselves to account for such things until like the proverbial drunk they hit bottom.

Secondly, Andrew Sullivan ironically is the very person that most reasoned with my senses about reconsidering my political perspectives. Also he is the one that pointed out Michael J. Totten’s and Roger L. Simon’s site where I got the much needed “couch” upon which I could reason things through one and a half years ago. Now Andrew doesn’t even make sense anymore, such a shame his reasoning has become so tortured. I saw him rip Hitchens apart making Hitch look like a flake a little over a year ago, man have those tables turned.

Thirdly and surprisingly I heard today that if each country could vote for President they would all vote for Kerry (that isn’t the shock)… except Russia (by a slim margin) and Israel by an over 2 to 1 margin! As a Jew the later at least gives me something to feel good about as I watch all my friends and family (save 2) vote Kerry… YUCK!

Posted by: Samuel at October 15, 2004 10:09 PM

Gary

You shame my former positions! First you distort the truth, humanitarian arguments were given from the outset, it was the UN and Democrats that demanded us to "lawyer" the case according to the pretexts of the UN. Just because you can rationalize such humanitarian things away doesn't mean this President can, what ugly projecting! Also talking about “other” dangers worse is an insult because if you can’t justify Iraq, you can’t justify anything. Had Gore won, who I voted for by the way, Saddam would still be in power, Kerry is of that same mindset. As stated above the goalposts will never be properly placed for those insincere and with ulterior motives. I am sure I will see at my precinct with the rest of the ends justifies the means Democrats shouting... "Fraud!" just for the effect of it. Incompetence is when a man votes for a war and refuses to fund it. (Kerry) I read people like you and wonder if I can ever go back. DON"T TALK ABOUT PRINCIPLE YOUR SIDE IN THIS POLITICAL SEASON HAS NONE!

Posted by: Samuel at October 15, 2004 10:25 PM

Screw the Oliver Hamm bit, man. Just follow the link to the Meet the Press transcript w/ Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens. I love these guys! Read the conversation they end up having. It's mind-boggling. It really is. Probably the best thing I've read in a very very long time.

Posted by: Grant McEntire at October 16, 2004 03:29 AM

PS...

And congratulations on getting your "The Liberal Case for Bush" article up on Hitchens' website. You should feel very honored, Michael, and I'm sure you do (knowing how much you worship the guy).

Posted by: Grant McEntire at October 16, 2004 04:21 AM

Yehudit,

Hitch backs Sullivan to the wall about the Swifties, that unsentimental bastard.

The Democratic campaign is proof positive that the charges made by the Swifties are not only relevent, but absolutely central to this election. Back in 1971, Kerry orchestrated a KGB authored campaign of lies, smears and innuendo against Vietnam Veterans and the country in order to undermine the war. He is using the exactly the same techniques today.

The Democrats are lying about the war in Iraq in order to undermine Bush. They are lying about voter intimidation and inciting racial conflict. They are smearing our allies. They are fear-mongering about the draft. Kerry's campaign has been an unending litany of false charges, lies, smears and innuendo. This is what Kerry did back in 1971. This is what Kerry is doing today. And he is deliberately tearing this country apart again in order to realize his political ambitions.

The swifties are right about Kerry. Character counts. Kerry is the same man today he was back then. If we don't listen to the swifties, our country will be a terrible price. John Kerry is such a filthy, disgusting bastard that his nomination is a condemnation of the entire Democratic party.

Posted by: HA at October 16, 2004 05:14 AM

“John Kerry is such a filthy, disgusting bastard that his nomination is a condemnation of the entire Democratic party.”

Your language is intemperate---but unfortunately very accurate. John Kerry is indeed a vile man. And I do not say this about any other Democrat who tried to win his party’s nomination. No, my assessment has nothing to do with ideology. I have come to realize that Kerry is evil. Ann Althouse might still hesitate to go that far. Still, she realizes that this man “refuels my mistrust.” Instapundit is to be thanked for providing this following link:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2004_10_10_althouse_archive.html#109786391456197623

Posted by: David Thomson at October 16, 2004 07:39 AM

Gary, there's an old saying "hope for the best, prepare for the worst." I understand the sources of your anger at Bush, even though I think you're making your judgements based on unreasonable timelines; just like rebuilding Europe was a generational task, so will be rebuilding Afghanistan, Iraq, and defanging as many other evil regimes as possible.

I agree with the Ann Althouse piece that David Thomson linked to; for every time Kerry/Edwards promises to remain strong in Iraq, there seem to be three statements that indicate their real instinct is to cut and run.

Sorry, worst case here is that Kerry decides Iraq really is Vietnam, and since the U.S. did the right thing leaving Vietnam, he'll give us a repeat performance. I don't want to chance that.

Show a little nuance. Vote based on both your hopes and your fears.

Posted by: Mark Poling at October 16, 2004 10:13 AM

HA: John Kerry is such a filthy, disgusting bastard that his nomination is a condemnation of the entire Democratic party.

Cool it, willya? I can only take so much of this kind of talk in here. Besides, you will never ever convince anyone of anything this way.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at October 16, 2004 10:59 AM

Gary Farber wrote:

"Kamm also authoritatively states that Iran is, right now, nuclear armed. Right now....I'd like to see a cite to Kamm's intelligence sources on Iran's being, right now, nuclear armed."

He gives a source, namely John Edwards, whom he quotes as saying:

"you know, we invaded the one of those three [the axis of evil'] that doesn't have nuclear weapons."

Posted by: R.F. at October 16, 2004 01:03 PM

On available evidence, Iran is not yet a nuclear-armed power, though is demonstrably much further advanced than western governments believed a few months ago: I was, as R.F. points out, invoking Edwards's own characterisation of the issue. In order to avoid any possible misunderstanding (though I'm not convinced that a careful reader would have made it), I have slightly rewritten that sentence.

On the other hand, I don't see how I could possibly have made clearer the fact that I believe overthrowing Saddam Hussein was essential for western security and respect for international law. Gary Farber's bizarre opening remark that "Kamm makes the retroactive case for invading Iraq solely on the basis of humanitarianism" is the opposite of what I argue. In the circumstances, I'm glad to take Farber's advice on worthless rhetoric.

Thanks to Michael for the link.

Posted by: Oliver Kamm at October 16, 2004 03:19 PM

Good post, Gary. I hope you are still out there and agree with you completely. It is amazing how anxious the 101st Fighting Keyboarders are to send OTHERS out to fight and die while they sit at the computer and type cute little posts.

Posted by: l at October 16, 2004 07:10 PM

"DON"T TALK ABOUT PRINCIPLE YOUR SIDE IN THIS POLITICAL SEASON HAS NONE!"

Just so we're engaging in calm, reasoned, discussion, and not generalizing.

"Back in 1971, Kerry orchestrated a KGB authored campaign of lies...."

A shame the majority of the country somehow joined the KGB in coming to oppose the war, the way it was being fought, and had a tad of trouble with the veracity of the Nixon (and Johson) Aministrations.

Vietnam was, to put it shortly, a complicated issue, and to indulge in reductionist stab-in-the-back views is a less than useful analysis.

"I have come to realize that Kerry is evil."

I'm glad we're clear on that.

"...just like rebuilding Europe was a generational task, so will be rebuilding Afghanistan, Iraq, and defanging as many other evil regimes as possible."

That, at least, I do agree with, though I'll observe that all we can do is help; it's the Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranians, and so on, who must ultimately do the rebuilding, and finding of their own way. To a considerable degree, we can only help provide an environment in which it is possible for them to do that, and then help them. And, yes, Vietnam does actually provide some relevant perspective.

"Show a little nuance. Vote based on both your hopes and your fears."

Fair enough. Ultimately, in either case, all we can do is hope for the best, and do what we can, if you'll forgive me for being reduced to banality.

Thanks for your response, Oliver Kamm. I've just reread your post (I prefer to note in a piece that I'm putting an addenum, rather than invisibly-to-the-reader rewriting significant lines, but we all have our own, valid, philosophies on that).

It's certainly entirely possible I continue to not read you carefully enough. However, I do continue to not see that you were, in that post, making an argument that the necessity for invading Iraq that month (which is the essential argument, not the generalized case for the virtues of overthrowing Saddam, which is very strong) was by reason of it being "essential for western security and respect for international law" right March of 2003.

What I read your argument, in that post, as being -- and it's perfectly possible I continue to misread you -- is that the reason for such necessity for the invasion to take place that March, and no later, is that "When Coalition forces overthrew that regime, they were doing something entirely admirable: protecting a people (or rather, peoples) from arbitrary violence and despotism."

Now, that sentence, on its own, I certainly agree with 100%. But, as I previously said, that doesn't, at this later date, despite my support for the invasion at that time, and continued hopes for the success for the reformation of Iraq, make the absolute case for the necessity, rather than admirability and desirability, of the invasion taking place in March, rather than perhaps later. If you see the careful distinction I am making. (Those who somehow read this as some sort of muddle-headed, "your side," wimpy, pacificistic, the-UN-is-God, argument may possibly be letting their own prejudices come into play more than they are carefully reading what I'm saying, though I'm in no position to objectively judge.)

For a bit of further discussion of your post, I'll say this about this: "Because Edwards doesn’t spell out his objection to regime change (or if he did, the report does not quote it), we have to interpolate it. It appears from that extraordinary phrase about 'invading a country' that he is making a point about the sovereignty of states."

I'm not a confident of Senator Edwards. I don't know what he had in mind. All I can say is that I read that statement with a different interpolation. I take, in the context of his other statements on Iraq and foreign policy, him as making far less of an issue of sovereignty than you take him. I do not in any way read him as suggesting any sort of absolute inviolability.

I am, however, not prepared to support a lengthy discussion in this comment thread to the point of going and researching his past statements that I have in my memory, rather than by URL; I hope you will forgive me, and I'll allow that there's certainly entirely the possibility that you are more correct that I am.

I take his ""That doesn't mean that that justifies invading a country" with my own interpolation of "right this minute" (meaning "March, 2003, in light of later-known facts").

Therefore, however, I both fully agree with you on this: "A professed liberal who, in considering that task, is more exercised by the violation of sovereignty or – as Charles Kennedy protested about in the Independent yesterday – the illegality of regime change than the liberty of an oppressed people is a perplexing phenomenon."

And yet since I don't consider that the argument Edwards was/is making, I don't agree with your condemnation of Kerry and Edwards on this basis. (Were it clear that you are correct, I would at least also agree with you that they were wrong in that; I certainly do agree with you that people who believe that are wrong, and have said so innumerable times on my own blog, and many other places, though I certainly have no more expectation that you should be familiar with my views and writings than I am considerably so with yours [I've seen some bits and pieces by you, but that's all; apologies, it's a big blogosphere].)

Regarding your revised statement regarding North Korea and Iran: "...other has a substantial military capability that will shortly become nuclear (Iran has been caught with illegally-enriched uranium, in defiance of 'multilateral' and diplomatic approaches): we are too late to stop those developments"

It seems, unless we are again greatly misinformed, too late to stop North Korea's reportedly present situation of being nuclear armed. However, since you have now clarified that you agree that Iran is, so far as we are informed, apparently not yet nuclear armed, I ask, hypothetically, that if we had somehow worked matters to some sort of hypothetically agreeable, yet different, way in Iraq -- a stretch of an hypothesis, I know, but not out of the bounds of possibility -- would we not be now in a vastly stronger position to threaten Iran militarily than we are, alas, in fact now able? Not that we are currently impotent -- but surely you'd agree that if we were in similar military shape as February, 2003, our hand would be greatly strengthened in regards to Iran?

And isn't that at least premise that can fairly be debated?

You're not obligated to respond to my lengthy response here, of course, but I do thank you if you've at least read it.

On a separate note, regarding "FH's cryptic (to me, at least) post that "'the humanitarian argument, which, of course, every sane human is entirely sympathetic to and moved by,'

"When I saw that, I realized that I didn't need to read the rest."

I shall bother to say that I have absolutely no idea what, other than you didn't feel the need to read the rest, you are trying to say. If you feel that the humanitarian argument for invading Iraq, to save the Iraqi people from Saddam, is not one every sane person is sympathetic to, okay, whatever. I think it's a pretty darn good argument, myself; it's simply not clear to me that it's an absolute trump card. But if you're not sympathetic to the Iraqi people's horrific experiences, that's your privelege.

Posted by: Gary Farber at October 16, 2004 07:19 PM

"It is amazing how anxious the 101st Fighting Keyboarders are to send OTHERS out to fight and die while they sit at the computer and type cute little posts."

I thank whomever you are for your compliment, but I must say that I tend to find this sort of criticism invalid. All any of us on blogs are doing is sitting about and typing, at least when we are engaging in that. Certainly there are numerous bloggers and commenters in the blogosphere who have indeed put their life on the line, and served in the military or in danger zones, and that's certainly a heck of a lot more than I've done. As well, the idea that anyone either for or against the war -- and my opinions on it are fairly complex and lengthy, at this point -- has their opinions made more or less valid by their military service is one that I do not in the least agree with, given that I don't believe we live in the polity of Robert Heinlein's (the book, not the excrecable movie) Starship Troopers. (Apologies if you are unfamiliar with it, but I'm making a more or less tautological argument here, anyway.)

Posted by: Gary Farber at October 16, 2004 07:24 PM

Oh, and also, of course, regarding this sort of argument: "It is amazing how anxious the 101st Fighting Keyboarders are to send OTHERS out to fight and die while they sit at the computer...."

The inevitable, and not-worthless rejoinder is that those who didn't support the invasion in March 2003 were leaving those Iraqis who would have otherwise suffered, been tortured, killed, etc., under Saddam, to that fate. In either the war-then, or not-war-then case, Iraqis were going to die; there's no moral absoluteness to be found by either sort of absolute for-or-against side here, and anyone who thinks there is is, um, incorrect.

It's a harsh world. (Vastly less so for those of us in the civilized part, but there's no moral get-out-of-jail-free card, is my point.)

Posted by: Gary Farber at October 16, 2004 07:34 PM

What's striking about Oliver's piece is that it is pure intellectualism - it could have been written word-for-word before the invasion when its consequences were purely theoretical - and it does not address a single factual consequence of the invasion.

Surely, at some point, "it is a good idea in theory" ceases to be the operative criterion.

Really, what degree of wilful ignorance is necessary to type a sentence like this today, as if it were dispositive of the question of whether the invasion was the right thing to do:

When Coalition forces overthrew that regime, they were doing something entirely admirable: protecting a people (or rather, peoples) from arbitrary violence and despotism.

If it weren't so sad and dangerous, it would be funny.

Posted by: Mork at October 16, 2004 09:50 PM

Gary Farber,

Vietnam was, to put it shortly, a complicated issue, and to indulge in reductionist stab-in-the-back views is a less than useful analysis.

There is nothing reductionist about this. The provenance Kerry's Vietnam atrocity charges is very clear. Kerry's congressional testimony was authored by the KGB, put in the public domain at the KGB sponsored Stockholm Conference on Vietnam, and picked up by the Communist Party of the USA who made it palatable to the American public by creating the VVAW front group. And John Kerry was their spokesman. The path from the KGB to Kerry's lips is unmistakable.

Shocking? Yes. Reductionist? Absolutely not. The only reason people don't want to recognize the provenance of Kerry's war-crimes charges is because Kerry is the Democratic nominee for President. The real reductionists are those dismiss these connections on blind faith alone. They simply don't WANT to believe the message so they attack or try to silence the messenger.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp

On Andropov's orders, one of the KGB's paid agents, Romesh Chandra, the chairman of the KGB-financed World Peace Council, created the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam as a permanent international organization to aid or to conduct operations to help Americans dodge the draft or defect, to demoralize its army with anti-American propaganda, to conduct protests, demonstrations, and boycotts, and to sanction anyone connected with the war. It was staffed by Soviet-bloc undercover intelligence officers and received about $15 million annually from the Communist Party's international department — on top of the WPC's $50 million a year, all delivered in laundered cash dollars. Both groups had Soviet-style secretariats to manage their general activities, Soviet-style working committees to conduct their day-to-day operations, and Soviet-style bureaucratic paperwork. The quote from Senator Kerry is unmistakable Soviet-style sloganeering from this period. I believe it is very like a direct quote from one of these organizations' propaganda sheets.

Most Americans understand that there were American citizens who either wittingly or unwittingly served as Soviet agents during the Cold War. It is obvious to me that Kerry was one of them. It is reductionist to suggest otherwise. The only real question is whether he did so wittingly or unwittingly.

One can argue whether Kerry merely accomodationist, or rather pro-Soviet. But one cannot credibly argue that John Kerry's public record from 1970 until the end of the Cold War did NOT serve the Soviet agenda. John Kerry for over two-decades consistently and without exception served the Soviet agenda. Whether it was Vietnam policy, Central American policy, opposition to weapons systems, or gutting our intelligence services, Kerry ALWAYS chose the path that served the Soviets.

Well the Soviets are gone. And who has picked up their socialist anti-American agenda? France. And I don't see much daylight between France's agenda in the war and John Kerry's policies. So when I look at John Kerry's record for over 30 years, I see a man who consistently serves the agenda of anti-American socialist foreign powers like the Soviet Union and France.

I highlighted the name of Romesh Chandra in the above exceprt from the National Review. Why? Because he is still around and organizing anti-American activities as a leader of the World Peace Council:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-pacepa031803.asp

http://www.wpc-in.org/meetings/index.html

The Soviet Union may be gone. But the struggle to build socialism marches on. And the man who served this agenda before has been nominated to lead this nation. If Kerry wins, at some point in the future, historians will look back and wonder how this could have happened in spite of all the warning signs.

Posted by: HA at October 17, 2004 04:34 AM

Oh, this is amazing. Here are the top ten reasons to defeat Bush from the friggin' Communist Party of the USA. I challenge ANYBODY to find ANY daylight between these arguments from the commies and the arguments made by the Democrats. Although I have to admire the restraint shown by the commies. Even THEY didn't make the "Bush is going to bring back the draft" argument. They didn't mention Mary Cheney's sexual orientation. They didn't event mention Halliburton! What does it say about the Democrats that the CPUSA is more moderate than they are? If the Democrats weren't such extreme leftists, I'd say they were completely redundant with the commies!

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/585/2/27/

1. Bush is destroying workers rights and outsourcing jobs instead of protecting the right to organize and creating new jobs rebuilding schools, bridges, roads and hospitals

2. Bush is privatizing Medicare, Social Security and public education with phony reforms instead of enacting health care for all, protecting retirement funds and full funding for public education through college.

3. Bush is bankrupting the Federal Government with giant tax cuts for the very rich and super-funds to the military instead of securing the budget for human needs by taxing the rich and spending on human needs.

4. Bush is rolling back civil rights gains instead of enforcing and expanding affirmative action to end racism in all areas of life.

5. Bush is curtailing women's rights and choice by undermining Roe v. Wade instead of upholding the right to choice and ending the gender wage gap.

6. Bush is abusing immigrant workers in low-wage jobs instead of providing a clear path to citizenship and equal rights.

7. Bush is exploiting and ruining the environment by protecting corporate polluters instead of conserving our natural resources for the public good.

8. Bush's war in Iraq is a disaster for our security and economy. He is pushing for more preemptive wars and for first strike nuclear military policy instead of negotiations and cooperation utilizing the UN.

9. Bush is denying civil liberties and free speech in the name of fighting terrorism instead of repealing the USA Patriot Act and helping cities, towns and states fund firefighters and police.

10. Bush discriminates against Gays and Lesbians with a Constitutional Amendment instead of expanding civil rights and liberties for all.

Posted by: HA at October 17, 2004 05:04 AM

Oliver's argument that Edwards was making a point about the sovereignty of states seems highly implausible to me. "Invading a country" can be used as a statement of fact without "making a point about the sovereignty of states." It's not a particularly "extraordinary phrase" (to use Oliver's terminology), and offers a fairly convenient, compact description of events that transpired. (I guess you could say "invasion" is a loaded term, but there are plenty of examples of pro-war statements which use similar terminology.)

Posted by: Guy at October 17, 2004 09:06 AM

HA: Oh, this is amazing. Here are the top ten reasons to defeat Bush from the friggin' Communist Party of the USA. I challenge ANYBODY to find ANY daylight between these arguments from the commies and the arguments made by the Democrats.

You don't know much about the history of the CPUSA, do you? They've been playing this game for decades to try to recruit people. There's nothing amazing about it. It's an old trick of theirs and it fools NO ONE. Well, except maybe for you.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at October 17, 2004 10:16 AM

MJT,

It's an old trick of theirs and it fools NO ONE. Well, except maybe for you.

They haven't fooled me. I'm not joining.

Posted by: HA at October 17, 2004 05:56 PM

1. My soul is full of charity, and I now rather regret its having caused me to give Mr Farber the benefit of the doubt in my initial response. I have not "revised my statement"; if I had I would certainly acknowledge my initial error. I have stated my own judgement IN ADDITION TO that of John Edwards in order to remove any possible excuse for Farber wilfully to misinterpret me. I am sorry in the circumstances that I took the trouble to tailor my post to do him the favour of spelling out what no competent reader would have misconstrued in the first place.

As it happens: no, the notion that we would be in a better position to deal with Iran had we left Saddam in power is not open to debate. On Iran, we tried the multilateral and diplomatic route proposed by John Kerry - involving the foreign ministers of the UK, France and Germany - only to find that Iran carried on with procuring enriched uranium regardless.

Incidentally, "interpolation" does not mean "interpretation".

2. "It is amazing how anxious the 101st Fighting Keyboarders are to send OTHERS out to fight and die while they sit at the computer and type cute little posts."

The only sense I can make of this dreary cliche is that its author believes decisions on when to deploy military force should be left to the military alone.

3. "Really, what degree of wilful ignorance is necessary to type a sentence like this today, as if it were dispositive of the question of whether the invasion was the right thing to do...
If it weren't so sad and dangerous, it would be funny."

No, don't get it. Its author is quite right to pick me up on not stating the factual consequences of the war, though. It caused Libya to give up WMDs in some apprehension, so we have now dealt with two rogue states on this issue.

4. " "Invading a country" can be used as a statement of fact without "making a point about the sovereignty of states." "

Except that we weren't invading a country: we were excising a tyranny that was ruling over a country.

Posted by: Oliver Kamm at October 18, 2004 04:45 AM

P.S. On point 2 above, I meant to add that of course leaving decisions on when to deploy military force to the military alone is incompatible with the notion of a democratic state, in which the armed forces are subject to civilian control. I don't expect much in the way of analytical precision from the more excitable anti-war campaigners, and my expectations are hereby confirmed in this exchange.

Posted by: Oliver Kamm at October 18, 2004 05:04 AM

Oliver Kamm wrote:
4. " "Invading a country" can be used as a statement of fact without "making a point about the sovereignty of states." "

Except that we weren't invading a country: we were excising a tyranny that was ruling over a country.

Oliver,

The term "invasion of Iraq" has been used by both sides of the debate for sufficiently long that ascribing some special intention to Edwards's use of it is a stretch. The guy was using terminology that's common in public discourse to describe a particular event. If you want to argue that the term in general is inappropriate for this event, go right ahead; that's not a debate I'm particularly interested in.

As it happens: no, the notion that we would be in a better position to deal with Iran had we left Saddam in power is not open to debate.

The Iraq campaign has either consumed or tied down a lot of global resources (economic, manpower, diplomatic, etc). At least some of those resources could potentially be reallocated to deal with the Iran problem. It's not obvious that the Iran problem would be easier to deal with with Saddam still in power, but the debate is far from closed.

Posted by: Guy at October 18, 2004 07:58 AM

You know you're surfing in bizzaro world when...

"The path from the KGB to Kerry's lips is unmistakable"

Posted by: ooof at October 18, 2004 08:19 AM

No, don't get it. Its author is quite right to pick me up on not stating the factual consequences of the war, though. It caused Libya to give up WMDs in some apprehension, so we have now dealt with two rogue states on this issue.

Right. And every Iraqi is now freer and safer than they were before the invasion, including the 15,000 dead ones, there are now fewer Islamic terrorists in Iraq, and generally, and there is no other use to which we could have put 200,000 troops, $200 billion and the attention of our government ... like for example killing and capturing real, live terrorists.

"Wilful ignorance" was right.

"It is amazing how anxious the 101st Fighting Keyboarders are to send OTHERS out to fight and die while they sit at the computer and type cute little posts."

The only sense I can make of this dreary cliche is that its author believes decisions on when to deploy military force should be left to the military alone.

This is not an accusation that I would care to adopt as my own, but its import is obviously not what Oliver conveniently imagines it to be.

The charge is that if a man of military age honestly believes that our safety depends on the use of military force, they ought to be prepared to participate in its use. To the extent that they are not, one might fairly ask how sincerely they believe what they say.

Posted by: Mork at October 18, 2004 04:10 PM

"...I now rather regret its having caused me to give Mr Farber the benefit of the doubt in my initial response...."

I regret that somehow what I wrote gave Oliver Kamm reason to be offended and feel this way.

"...for Farber wilfully to misinterpret me. "

I'm sorry you feel your mind-reading skills are up to such a declaration; if I have given you reason to feel justified in such rudeness, I'm also sorry. (I do feel I should apologize for having originally said "I found Kamm's case to be, well, worthless"; that was unclear of me, and vastly unnecessarily rude; I meant merely that I found it of no worth in convincing me; that's all; so I do apologize to you, Oliver Kamm, for having been rude in saying that in my original statement.)

"I have not revised my statement...."

blink

The words there today are the same as they were on the day Michael linked to them? Well, I guess I can't prove that they're different, but my memory says so, and you yourself say above "In order to avoid any possible misunderstanding (though I'm not convinced that a careful reader would have made it), I have slightly rewritten that sentence."

So I don't know what to make of this. You rewrote it, but didn't revise it. Um, we seem to be understanding English differently in some way. I don't mean that in some sort of "gotcha" way. I'm just baffled.

"As it happens: no, the notion that we would be in a better position to deal with Iran had we left Saddam in power is not open to debate."

It's unclear to me how "not invading in March 2003" translates to necessitating "left [leaving] Saddam in power." There are a great many months between March 2003 and October 2004, I'm sure you're aware. My point was that the military power we can presently bring to bear on Iraq is greatly less than that available in February 2003; are you asserting disagreement with that statement?

"Incidentally, 'interpolation' does not mean 'interpretation.'"

Thank you for that helpful advice, which my years of experience as a professional copyeditor left me unaware of.

"It caused Libya to give up WMDs in some apprehension, so we have now dealt with two rogue states on this issue."

That's a statement that is rather contested, as well as asserted, by many experts. I don't presume to know the absolute truth, but I am in admiration of your surety.

"Except that we weren't invading a country: we were excising a tyranny that was ruling over a country."

This strikes me, I'm afraid, as a rather silly semantic exercise, but clearly we'll disagree on that. I'd prefer to do so politely, by the way; I see no reason we can't respectfully disagree, but that's not entirely in my hands. I do invite you to simply inform me if you feel I am being less than polite or respectful to you, rather than pursuing other rhetorical stances.

"On point 2 above, I meant to add that of course leaving decisions on when to deploy military force to the military alone is incompatible with the notion of a democratic state, in which the armed forces are subject to civilian control."

Just for the sake of emphasis, I wish to so note again that this is a point we are in complete agreement about.

However, at risk of your finding me disagreeable again, Mr. Kamm, rather than simply disagreeing, I do find myself rather in agreement with "Mork" when he/she/it said regarding your original post that "it could have been written word-for-word before the invasion when its consequences were purely theoretical."

This is striking to me. I, as I've noted, and as Michael is familiar with, supported the invasion -- beg pardon, the excision -- and continue to hope for the best outcome. I simply have come to take a greatly critical view of many of the ways President Bush and his appointees have gone about it. I see nothing unreasonable about continuing to defend the, ah, excision, though I also think that the case for alternative responses, or at least different timing, has been strengthened, in light of hindsight. However, what I find incomprehensible is discussing the invasion as if everything has gone splendidly, and there is simply nothing to possibly criticize, be surprised by, or find fault with, in the administration of the post-invasion environment.

Not being a mind-reader, I have no idea what you actually think of this, and having read comparatively little of your writing, perhaps you've written your own criticisms elsewhere. Perhaps you tactically simply don't want to grant that there's been anything imperfect in said post-invasion administration. I don't know. I will be happy to listen to any clarification you might care to make on that. Based simply upon that one post, and your comments here so far, however, you've given me the (perhaps entirely false) impression that everything has gone precisely to plan, and nothing but congratulations all around are in order.

If you care to respond, I shall look forward to that.

Just out of curiosity, would you disagree or agree if I suggested that, whatever his faults (and I stipulated here, by the way, that Kerry had some quite foolish and mistaken notions in 1971), the notion that John Kerry was, in 1971 and thereabouts, a "KGB agent" is -- and I fear I phrase this impolitely -- lunatic?

Posted by: Gary Farber at October 18, 2004 08:25 PM

"My point was that the military power we can presently bring to bear on Iraq is greatly less than that available in February 2003; are you asserting disagreement with that statement?"

Darn letter thieves. I meant "...bring to bear on Iran," of course.

Posted by: Gary Farber at October 18, 2004 08:29 PM

In support of Mork's point about intellectualism, I offer this alternative "reality-based" analysis:

http://moveonpac.org/gore5/

[snip]
Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a veteran of both the Heritage Foundation and the Reagan White House, wrote recently in Salon.com, ?Serious conservatives must fear for the country if Bush is re-elected?based on the results of his presidency, a Bush presidency would be catastrophic. Conservatives should choose principles over power.? Bandow seemed most concerned about Bush?s unhealthy habits of mind, saying, ?He doesn?t appear to reflect on his actions and seems unable to concede even the slightest mistake. Nor is he willing to hold anyone else responsible for anything. It is a damning combination.? Bandow described Bush?s foreign policy as a ?shambles, with Iraq aflame and America increasingly reviled by friend and foe alike.?

The conservative co-host of Crossfire, Tucker Carlson, said about Bush?s Iraq policy, ?I think it?s a total nightmare and disaster, and I?m ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it.?

William F. Buckley, Jr., widely acknowledged as the founder of the modern conservative movement in America, wrote of the Iraq war, ?If I knew then, what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.?

A former Republican Governor of Minnesota, Elmer Andersen, announced in Minneapolis that for the first time in his life he was abandoning the Republican Party in this election because Bush and Cheney ?believe their own spin. Both men spew outright untruths with evangelistic fervor.? Andersen attributed his switch to Bush?s ?misguided and blatantly false misrepresentations of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The terror seat was Afghanistan. Iraq had no connection to these acts of terror and was not a serious threat to the United States as this President claimed, and there was no relation, it is now obvious, to any serious weaponry.? Governor Andersen was also offended, he said, by ?Bush?s phony posturing as cocksure leader of the free world.?
[snip]

Posted by: ts at October 19, 2004 12:15 PM

Oliver? Care to address any of this? The notion that Bush has directed the war so well he shouldn't be challenged on that?

Posted by: Gary Farber at October 24, 2004 08:12 PM

In our civilization, and under our republican form of government,
intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from
the cares of office.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Posted by: Party Poker at November 4, 2004 02:06 AM

Honk if you hate bumper stickers that say Honk if ...
Loan http://www.epaycash.com

Posted by: Loan at December 16, 2004 04:37 AM

I can feel for her because, although I have never been an Alaskan
prostitute dancing on the bar in a spangled dress, I still get very
bored with washing and ironing and dishwashing and cooking day after
relentless day.
-- Betty MacDonald
Payday Loans http://www.paylesspaydayloans.com

Posted by: Payday Loans at December 17, 2004 06:45 AM

thnx

Posted by: alveo at December 19, 2004 11:45 AM
cool blog - thanks for the service

online casino

Posted by: casino at June 29, 2005 12:26 AM

good day

Posted by: directory at July 9, 2005 09:55 AM

online viagra sale
try viagra online
order viagra online
buy viagra online
order cialis online
free levitra online
cheap meridia online
buy xenical online
order propecia online
or visit our online casinos
and find the best casino online

Posted by: online casinos at October 8, 2005 01:41 PM

asc
kraob
eves
akupunktura
freesz
puz
oppin
freeti
sfworks
jidds
faho
poepo

Posted by: epart at December 23, 2005 07:59 AM

liming 07年08月30日

wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow power level
wow power level

rolex replica
rolex replica
beijing hotels
beijing hotels
shanghai hotels
shanghai hotels
rolex replica
rolex replica
china tour
china tour
hong kong hotel
hong kong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
great wall
beijing travel
beijing
beijing
china tour
china tour
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
猎头
猎头
货架
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
搬家
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
搬家公司
北京律师
营养师
营养师培训
喷码机
铸造模拟软件
激光快速成型机

搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
google排名
google排名
监控
监控
激光打标机
软件工程硕士
集团电话
集团电话
激光打标机
激光打标机
打包机
打包机
拓展训练
塑钢门窗
网站设计
机票
机票
网站建设
数据采集卡
美国国家大学
在职研究生
呼叫中心
交换机
激光打标机
激光打标机

磁控溅射台
磁控溅射台
淀积台
淀积台
镀膜机
镀膜机
匀胶机
匀胶机
溅射仪
溅射仪
刻蚀机
刻蚀机
pecvd
pecvd
去胶机
去胶机
康王
康王
康王
康王
康王
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健
喜来健

Posted by: 三红西水 at August 30, 2007 01:30 AM

乐乐城
SEO排名
SEO社区
SEO优化排名
SEO日志
网络营销
SEO博客
SEO博客
龙翔
SEO
凌枫博客
空谷
空谷博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
空谷博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
博客
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
空谷
博客
博客
博客
空谷博客
博客
空谷博客
博客

Posted by: SEO博客 at November 12, 2007 09:41 PM

货架
货架
货架
货架
货架
货架公司
货架公司
货架公司
货架厂
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储货架
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
仓储笼
钢托盘
堆垛架
钢制料箱
物流台车
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼   
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
仓库货架 
阁楼货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
仓储货架 
重型货架 
货架公司 
轻型货架 
堆垛架 
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
托盘 
铁托盘 
铁制托盘 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
求购货架 
货架求购 
货架制造 
贯通货架 
货架 
悬臂货架 
仓库货架 
阁楼货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
货架公司 
中型货架 
仓储货架 
轻型货架 
仓储货架
轻型货架 
角钢货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
货架公司 
中型货架 
货架制造 
悬臂货架 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
求购货架 
货架求购  
货架公司 
轻型货架  
仓储货架 
中型货架 
货架厂 
重型货架 
仓库货架 
阁楼货架 
货架 
悬臂货架 
货架 
模具货架 
托盘 
钢托盘 
托盘 
钢制托盘 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
仓储笼 
折叠式仓储笼 
堆垛架 
钢制托盘 
仓储笼 
模具货架 
仓库货架 
货架厂 
仓储货架 
货架公司 
货架   
仓储笼 
登高车 
手推车 
塑料托盘 
货架  
货架 
货架 
轻型货架 
货架 
中型货架 
货架 
重型货架 
货架
阁楼货架 
货架 
悬臂货架 
货架 
模具货架 
托盘 
塑料托盘 
钢制托盘 
仓储笼 
货架
货架 
货架公司 
货架厂 
仓储货架 
货架厂家 
托盘 
钢托盘 
钢制托盘 
木托盘 
轻型货架 
中型货架 
重型货架 
模具架 
中型货架
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
仓储笼
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
折叠式仓储笼
折叠式仓储笼

Posted by: huojia at November 14, 2007 08:15 PM

wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
股票
翻译公司
翻译公司
同楼网
机票
电话会议
电话会议
会议电话
会议电话
协同办公
协同办公
人材派遣
12497;チンコ 攻略
人材派遣
12450;ル12496;イト 求人情報
12480;イエット
エン12466;ー12472;リン12464;
転職
中高年 転職
派遣会社
合宿免許
出会い
おなら
フランス語
婚約指輪
競馬
CRM
搬家公司
北京搬家公司

代孕
试管婴儿
捐卵
代孕
代孕

wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
rolex replica
World of Warcraft Gold
rolex
beijing hotel
beijing hotel
china tour
china tour
great wall
great wall
beijing travel
beijing travel
beijing
beijing

灭蟑螂
rolex replica
beijing hotel
beijing hotel
china tour
china tour
great wall
great wall
beijing travel
beijing travel
beijing
beijing
rolex replica
beijing hotels
beijing hotels
shanghai hotels
shanghai hotels
china tour
china tour
翻译公司
翻译公司
婚庆
婚庆公司
北京婚庆
北京婚庆公司
数码片夹
数码影像
数码彩扩
心脏病
商务网
保洁公司
保洁公司
塑钢门窗
ups电源

窃听器
窃听器
手机窃听器
手机窃听器
试管婴儿
试管婴儿
捐卵
捐卵
代孕
试管婴儿
12502;ライ12480;ル
競馬 予想
お見合い
识别
识别
OCR
OCR
手机词典
阿拉伯文识别
韩日俄文识别
汉字识别
光学字符识别
光学字符识别
即时翻译
即时翻译
蜗轮减速机
减速机
齿轮减速机
丝杆升降机
减速器
性病
尖锐湿疣
搬家公司
搬家公司
光盘印刷
光盘印刷
猎头
猎头

机票
性病
尖锐湿疣
搬家公司
アルバイト 求人情報
パチンコ 攻略
ダイエット
競馬
ブライダル
競馬 予想
お見合い
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wrath of the Lich King
wrath of the Lich King
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling

招商网
注册香港公司
注册香港公司
hong kong hotel
hong kong hotel
beijing tour
beijing tour
上海机票
上海机票
上海打折机票
上海打折机票
上海特价机票
上海特价机票
国际机票
租房
租房
北京租房
北京租房
搬家公司
北京搬家
北京搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司
搬家
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司

Posted by: usr at November 22, 2007 06:37 PM

Trying to be impressive!deeply wonderful here!
runescape items
Maple Story Mesos
MapleStory Gold
Maple Story Items
guildwars gold
gw gold
guildwars items
gw items
runescape items

Posted by: rsloads at December 17, 2007 09:35 PM
Post a comment













Remember personal info?






Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member



Testimonials

"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

"Terrific"
Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere


Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com


News Feeds




toysforiraq.gif



Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button

totten_button.jpg


Tip Jar





Essays

Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn