you know, that was extremely well said, Kevin.

"But he's also wrong, because like it or not, my words — and those of other liberals — would end up being used to advance George Bush's distinctly illiberal ends."

No doubt. But talking about the details of Bush's incredibly lame pursuit of democracy is fair game. For instance, it would be helpful if America didn't support illiberal regimes such as Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Singapore, and others that I've forgotten. America's ability to lecture other countries effectively on democracy undermined just a wee little bit by the Bush administration's blatent hypocrisy.

You should probably clarify exactly what it is about how the Bush Administration would use your (and other liberals') words. Is it that Bush would screw it up? Is it that Bush has nefarious reasons (oil, natural gas, Likud policy, etc.) for supporting war against Iran and you want nothing of the sort? Is it that you disagree with Bush's approach to Iran up to now and you don't want to encourage him to continue? Is it that you actually agree with Bush on Iran, but you disagree with him on so many other issues that you fear he will gain politically by a confrontation with Iran and thus other issues that you care about will suffer (think Election 2002). A variation of the last point: Is it that his rhetoric on Iran so mirrors his rhetoric on Iraq that you fear all of the consequences of the Iraq disaster repeating itself, including, among other things, Republican electoral triumph in 2006? It's probably worthwhile to think through why your reticence about Bush's misuse of your rhetorical hatred of Iran is more important than your genuine outrage at Iran itself.

Kevin ponders the question: So what is it that Beinart really wants from antiwar liberals?

One obvious answer: Beinart wants us to forget all he did to enable this country getting Bushwhacked, without his having to acknowledge his errors.

Elrod asks whether Kevin "...fear[s] all of the consequences of the Iraq disaster repeating itself, including, among other things, Republican electoral triumph in 2006?"

This comment, and even Kevin's original post, assumes that Bush's approach to Iran has merits. It doesn't. Which sane person believes that not negotiating makes sense? Why do we think we pose a credible threat to Ahmadinejad or the Ayatollahs? Any attempt to sanction or invade Iran would only rally the Iranians behind these assholes.

So the real answer is: we don't trust Bush to do anything right. He'll make a bad situation worse, and embroil us directly in a quagmire like Iraq.

Why is it necessary to look for deeper reasons? Isn't this more than enough?

My recommendation is that you find the courage to climb out of your arrogant, liberal mindset and walk in a few truths. Do something incredibly constructive for a change.

Most Republicans are not the imperialist idiots you paint them as. Demonization of your political opponents does no good. If the far right wing hawks win the day and an ill-advised invasion of Iran happens, part of the blame will be on the heads of the moderate left who let the loud-mouthed, profanity-wielding Kos kids and their counterparts in the despicable, flame-throwing Michael Savage right steal the dialogue so that the only two options were lying down appeasement or full scale invasion.

Don't think that your political opponents can not be trusted with a well reasoned argument. Crawl out from the hatred which labels Bush as some puppet of the far right, and see that he really wants to be the administrator of a sound strategy.

Actually showing that you respect the use of force when done judiciously, and are not ready to hand all U.S. sovereignity over to an ineffectual UN will do wonders for creating enlightening discussion. Who knows, such an effort may lead to a triumph of the Bush administration in preserving peace with Iran, while getting rid of the danger of Iranian nukes.

Would GWB getting the credit for this be such a disaster? I hope you do not put politics above the well being of the human race.

...and John Hansen manages to completely ignore the evidence of the last five years, which is that said Republicans are in fact evil idiots. Someone of us don't have memory holes in our head in which we can disappear all the lies and fuckery of the reign of the morons. Some of us remember being right. On Bush, on Iraq, on every fucking thing.

"Most Republicans are not the imperialist idiots you paint them as."

But they vote for imperialist idiots. Close enough.

"Actually showing that you respect the use of force when done judiciously, and are not ready to hand all U.S. sovereignity over to an ineffectual UN will do wonders for creating enlightening discussion."

Not including two wildly inaccurate slurs of liberals in your argument will do wonders for creating enlightening discussion.

I don't think it's just that liberals are quieter or warier after 9/11 and Iraq. I think there's been a real temperamental shift on both sides of the foreign policy argument. The right-wing realists became right-wing idealists, and the left-wing idealists became left-wing realists. It's not that I as a liberal am frightened that my words would be used against me if I condemned illiberal regimes, although perhaps I should be. It's that those words wouldn't feel true as a guide to action; I'm genuinely more skeptical of being led by grandiose ideals rather than nitty-gritty practicalities.

John/Elrod: Bush has provided mountains of evidence to demonstrate how he approaches international affairs. He whipped up a war frenzy against Iraq using innuendo and fakery, and I don't doubt that he plans to do the same against Iran at some point.

Maybe I'm wrong. But that's the way it seems to me. And since I think that military action against Iran is a bad idea, I'm loathe to do anything that will help him whip up public opinion.

Is it possible that the day might come when I'd support military action against Iran? Sure. But I don't support it right now, and I think it can be avoided. Unfortunately, I don't think Bush wants to avoid it. In fact, I think he's doing everything he can to leave us with no other option. I won't do anything to help him with that.

John Hansen:

Don't think that your political opponents can not be trusted with a well reasoned argument. Crawl out from the hatred which labels Bush as some puppet of the far right, and see that he really wants to be the administrator of a sound strategy.

I see that recent technological breakthroughs have enabled people like Mr. Hansen to check in from alternate universes.

Modern Iran appears to be as much a creation of the West as anything else. 1953 saw the CIA and pig Oil overthrow democracy. 1979 saw the overthrow of the CIA SAVAC torture regime and so on through plans for nukes being offered and actual plants being supplied to the other ' axis' member , the DPRK.
This doofus Beinhart sounds like a right prat - so when are you going to read Chalmers Johnson's , ' Blowback', Drum?
If you wanted to make yrself useful you could call for intervention in Burma but that might involve being less a political mineral and more of a political animal.
If you really are a political animal I imagine you as a small lapdog that has been deballed, debarked, is toothless and has mange. Please get some help.

I myself would be just a little more comfortable about the war on "global jihad" as Beinart puts it, if we were actually fighting the people who actually are jihading us. Anybody remember Al Qaeda? Osama Bin Laden? It's kind of hard to have much confidence in any "war" if the people executing the war don't even know who the enemy is.

I know there is a certain subset of neocon types who are not worried about AQ. I think they are insane. If AQ can pull off an attack like 9/11 once they can do it again. And they can probably do it "better".

So here you are Peter. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are evil people who should be wiped off the planet. That tough enough for you? So why don't we quit enabling the people that refuse to do it. Like the Bush administration.

It all seems to be about domestic political positioning doesn't it?

If Beinart had seriously had a hard look at the case for and against the invasion of Iraq, instead of looking for a position that was politically expedient for Democrats, I suspect he may have come to a different conclusion.

Surely it's as simple as deciding what course is in the US's best interests and then articulating the arguments for it, even if there's a political cost in the short term.

"So Jews are forced to wear badges just like they had to under Nazi Germany. But are liberals like Kevin Drum willing to critize Iran for being Nazis?"

Here we have a textbook case of how the RWNM works. Right-wing operative creates a fake story. A right-leaning mainstream media operation runs it. The story is debunked and the media operation retracts it. Yet (paid) twits like Al repeat it as if it were true.

This is why Republicans can't be trusted: they knowingly lie.

Go figure.

"Demonization of your political opponents does no good."

Sure it does. Making "liberal" a dirty word has done the riht tons of good, mostly be putting money, including blood money, in their pockets.

"an ill-advised invasion of Iran happens, part of the blame will be on the heads of the moderate left"

Good grief, Markos is dangling Bush like a puppet, forcing Bush to prove his manhood by killing bunches of wimmins and chilluns. Again. Poor George.

"Don't think that your political opponents can not be trusted with a well reasoned argument"

Intelligent design and WMD's. Nuff said

"Crawl out from the hatred which labels Bush as some puppet of the far right, and see that he really wants to be the administrator of a sound strategy."

Bush really "wants to be a war President" as he said in 1998. Doesn't where, who, or why, just so the idiot prince can strut on a carrier deck. Sound strategy, my ass.

"and are not ready to hand all U.S. sovereignity over to an ineffectual UN "

I am ready. Rather than the fools and madmen in charge now, I would prefer Kofi Anan and the Security Council take charge of the US. Then they can ship Bush, Cheney, and maybe you over to Brussels for War Crimes Trials. I am totally serious. None dare call it treason? Dare away. The US has been stolen by monsters, has no legitimacy or right to self-determination until the nutcases are out of power.

"Would GWB getting the credit for this be such a disaster? I hope you do not put politics above the well being of the human race."

Same thing. Considering the deficits, wars, arms buildup, indifference to global warming, the Republican Party is the greatest danger to humanity the world has ever known. Much more dangerous and destructive than Nazis or Stalin. The well being of the human race needs the destruction of that Party.

I don't do that often. Was Fun. Felt good.

Go Bob!

Your ability to criticize one of the Iranian regime-- which you ADMIT is horrible-- depends on partisan politics and who sits in the white house. Why should we take anything you say about the war on terror seriously?

the greatest danger to humanity the world has ever known.

Please remind me again about how this is not the type of hyperbole which cuts off reasonable discussion of ideas based on their merits?

Why should we take anything you say about the war on terror seriously?

Good question American Hawk. If Bill Clinton was President, Kevin would be one of the first ones defending any military attack ordered by him.

How about telling the truth as best we see it? That includes the dangers of a nuclear Iran as well as the dangers of an inadequate president. I suspect that connecting the inadequacy of this president to the Iranian situation would help the liberal side rather than hinder it.

Unfortunately, I don't think Bush wants to avoid it.

Get over it Kevin. Its not true that GWB wants war. This is a sad excuse for a comment which if you really considered it carefully, you would know not to be true.

I'm sick and tired of Democrats who criticize Democrats, saying we should walk and talk more like the Republicans, while acknowledging that the Republican walk-and-talk for the past six years has been a disaster. The complaint is so specious and ridiculous, I can't think of anything more to say, except:

Beinart is a horse's ass.

Your ability to criticize one of the Iranian regime-- which you ADMIT is horrible-- depends on partisan politics and who sits in the white house.

Since the Iraq invasion was timed for the 2002 midterm elections, and was used as a club against political opponents in 2002. I would say that the Republican Party's decision to launch this war depended on partisan politics, so what the hell are you trying to say?

This is why Republicans can't be trusted: they knowingly lie.

This is why people like Tom can't carry on rational discussion. They are quick to generalize about all Republicans. Do you really think what you said has any merit? Do you really think that half the nation likes to knowingly lie?

"George Bush has politicized the war on terror"

The lack of self-awareness in this statement is jaw-dropping. You cannot seriously be trying to convince anyone but the most resolute cocoon-dweller that Bush has politicized the war more than the Left, surely?

"Do you really think that half the nation likes to knowingly lie?"

Half the nation doesn't identify as Republican. Only about 1/3.

I do appreciate you being this thread's concern troll. Without you spewing stupidity like "[you] are not ready to hand all U.S. sovereignity over to an ineffectual UN" we'd be stuck making fun of Al and his sock puppet AH, and that's gotten old.

It's a repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring state that stands for everything I stand against

All true. But what has to be stressed, particularly in the case of Iran, is that there are large numbers of distinctly liberal elements who also detest the Ayatollah there. These (mostly younger generation) can be cultivated, encouraged and supported to the best our abilities (some innovation is really needed here! there are way too many of these a**hats in power worldwide...) to facilitate change from within- which will likely not happen overnight but should be pursued nonetheless. We need leaders who champion policies and objectives that do not necessarily see a "return on investment" within a single election cycle.

Even if the neocons had the best of intentions (I will give them the benefit of the doubt) in changing the regime in Iraq, their invasion method has been proven utterly disastrous. Most Americans agree on this now. This fact can preface any Iran discussion and should be repeated ad nauseum. Any military strike will unite many (most? all?) anti-mullah/pro-westerners against us and push liberalization goals back till who knows when. Only in the exceptional cases (Al Qaeda/Afghanistan) should liberals support the use of force.

Why are we even discussing whether or not to attack a country that has done nothing illegal re. nuclear enrichment?

Why are non-Americans expected to accept a debate in which America, once again, muses and and ruminates whether or not to unilaterally attack a sovereign country?

I have plenty of American friends (including a few ex-members of the US military) and would pretty much classify myself as a regular poster here. I enjoy debating with you all a great deal - yet this idea of military action against Iran does not deserve to be 'reasonably' debated ina 'level-headed' manner.

It deserves to be ridiculed and scorned.

Where is the support for this? Hell - where's the justification for it?

Danger to Israel? The ludicrous lie about the wearing of yellow stars? Why not ask the Jewish members of the Iranian parliament what they would like to see happen. Do they support a strike against their country?

Sorry, but my sympathy is with Iran in this situation. If you attack then you deserve what you get, frankly.

If the US is stupid enough to attack then I worry a great deal about the economic fallout for all of us. You are seriously going to attack a large and united country which sits atop oil and gas reserves which the world economy needs to survive, and which your own Pentagon admits could shut down the Straits of Hormuz?

Madness.

BTW, can someone please tell me the last time Iran attacked another country? I seem to have forgotten.

You cannot seriously be trying to convince anyone but the most resolute cocoon-dweller that Bush has politicized the war more than the Left, surely?

Are you saying the Left commands the war on terror as much as Bush does? That's jaw dropping news.

Other recent examples times for liberals to support use of force in intervention/regime change: Serbia, Rwanda, Sudan to name a few... namely genocide. Should be a litmus test. Not the case in Iran.

The obvious answer is found less in policy than in rhetoric: we need to engage more energetically with the war on terror and criticize illiberal regimes more harshly.

Well, sure, this is true. But if we aren't willing and able to dismantle our own regime that engages in aggressive war abroad and dismantling of the social contract at home, what credibility do we have in criticizing illiberal regimes abroad?

Some will say "The mullahs in Tehran are worse than the Republican in Washington", and I agree, at least in the terms of the immediate conditions under their rule in their respective home countries. But we are far more directly responsible for the government in Washington. It must be our priority to correct it, before we try to export the ideals of limited government by consent of the government, adherence to international norms, etc., around the globe -- especially before attempting to do that through the US government.

If nothing else, because until we have corrected it, we have no vehicle with which to export those ideals, whatever the rhetoric that our leaders may issue. This regime has repeatedly stomped on those values around the world, undermining constitutionalism in Bosnia and elsewhere in practice while supporting it in (e.g.) Iraq in rhetoric, ignoring international norms and institutions, and encouraging and tolerating others doing so where it serves the US regimes immediate interests, at the same time that it demands that certain others adhere absolutely to those some international regimes.

We can't use the US government to advance values globally without first getting the US government to commit to those values. And pretending that the present regime in Washington is at all interested in fighting "illiberal regimes" in any general sense is willful ignorance.

Most of the above comments prove Beinart's point. But I'm sure that the next Dem president won't be following the Kos line so I'm not concerned. It's just sort of really weird that Bush hatred leads people to a blindess about the need to deal with repressive (I'll spell it out - very very non-liberal) regimes.

Kevin, if Bush so much wants war then why is Condi wanting negotiations and why has Bush gone along with the European efforts.

Kevin, if Bush so much wants war then why is Condi wanting negotiations and why has Bush gone along with the European efforts.

It's called impotence.

The red meat base might not like it, or the neocon crazies, but maybe saner heads are starting to be listened it.

FWIW, Floopmeister, Persia's been around for millenia, and nearly never gets around to invading anybody.

It seems weird to an American - hey, we attack people for breakfast! - but Iran seems to be content.

Despite all the rhetoric, I still don't see any reason to believe that "fighting terrorism" is a high priority for Bush at all. I'm mystified as to how that perception seems to have taken hold.

Never mind.

My brother would like me to put the latest bumper sticker, "I'm already against the next war" on my car. I haven't, yet.

Better, I think, would be, "Bush, put your thumb back up your butt."

George W. Bush, in other words, has used the war on terror to cover such a multitude of sins that for many liberals the whole idea of focusing the nation's energies on defeating global jihad (whether you call that effort the "war on terror" or something else) has fallen into disrepute.

You know why? Because "defeating global jihad" just isn't that important. It doesn't pose an existential threat to anyone and if the Gulf states were run as well as Indonesia and Malaysia (surely not a high bar) it wouldn't be attracting so many adherents. The US can just wait this one out. There are better uses of billions of dollars.

You sound like Tom Friedman and Greg Djerejian, Kevin -- both of whom have also reluctantly announced that, if the choice comes down to letting Iran acquire the Bomb or letting our current bunch of governing fruitcakes run a war against it, they just might prefer the former. It is definitely Hobson's Choice, though.

My solution to Kevin's problem - "How do I not betray my liberal values by not speaking up against Iran" is to speak up against another repressive regime somewhere. Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc.

Well, maybe not North Korea, cause I could see them being invaded. So Saudi Arabia it is.

I disagree with Kevin. By ceding to Bush and the Republicans the issue of Iran, Kevin and other reluctant Dems allow Republicans to argue that they're the only ones recognizing some of the basic facts, i.e., that, as Kevin says, Iran is a "repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorsist-sponsoring state." So when we Dems are silent on this and other issues of security policy, it amounts to sticking our heads in the sand to avoid discussion of real-world problems. This makes for bad policy and bad politics. It's bad policy because it allows Bush, Cheney, Rummy and crew to craft inept policy, challenged only by Democrats who refuse to acknowledge basic facts, and who therefore lack credibility in putting forward alternatives. It's bad politics because the Dems then continue to shoulder the stigma of not taking security policy seriously. And no, by "taking security policy seriously", I do not mean acquiescing to Republicans and trying to outdo them in sounding tough. I mean entering the policy debate on terms that acknowledge the seriousness of the problem, instead of the too-common tendency to minimize the problem because we fear the Republican solution. Since Vietnam, the Democratic Party has been too prone to doing this, and I fear that the horrors of Iraq will reinforce this self-defeating tendency.

Instead of running scared from the Republicans on security issues, which is what this Democratic tendency amounts to, wouldn't it be better for Democrats to analyze the situation in Iran (and elsewhere), acknowledge the threat, do some hard thinking about solutions, and then put forward their own policy proposals? Why must we always wait for Republicans to take the initiative on security policy, then react in ways that are too often divorced from the basic problem at hand? If we want to lead, we should start by showing that we can.

More than anything, the New Republic is aggressively middlebrow.

It may be that America today is more than anything else aggressively middlebrow.

I want to find some beautiful backwater with a government just functional enough to keep the lights on, but no so functional it won't leave me alone, and just corrupt enough so that if it ever decides not to leave me alone a small bribe will end the bother.

And Beinart is right: there's a sense in which that betrays my own liberal ideals.

No, it's not. It's saying that you wouldn't trust George W. Bush to look after your cats, let alone command the foreign and military policy of the United States of America.

As others have said, Beinart was a Bush-enabler over Iraq. He should know a fuckload better, especially -- as has been noted -- he is making money out of being a crapulent 'liberal hawk' while people of his (prime fighting) age are having their limbs blown off.

The schizoid troll (American Shitehawk is obviously Al the Idiot, or they're posting from the same GOP branch office) misses the salient point, as usual: of course it's partisan.

Republicans plainly can't do war. They are a bunch of malevolent, incompetent venal cunts who, in a less rigged democratic system, would have been kicked out of office and locked in cages. If that's partisan, so be it. One party cannot be trusted, and while it cannot be driven from executive office, it cannot be given any solace.

Congrats on today's David Broder column, Kevin. Recognition richly deserved.

Dating Services
Online Dating services Online
Dating services
Free Dating Services Free
Dating Services
single dating services single
dating services
online Dating Service online
Dating Service
online personal dating services
online personal dating services
Adult dating Adult dating
adult friend finder personals
adult friend finder personals
adult dating
adult personals
dating sites
online dating/a>
adult dating services
adult dating service
adult dating
Adult personals
adult personals dating
free adult personals
adult personal adult personal
online adult personals online
adult personals
adult sex dating adult sex dating
adult dating online adult dating
online
Adult Dating Adult Personals
adult dating single adult dating
single
adult dating personal adult dating
personal
free online dating sites free
online dating sites
dating web sites dating web sites
on line dating sites on line
dating sites
personals dating web sites
personals dating web sites
dating, online dating dating,
online dating
adult personals adult personals
adult Dating
adult personals
personals
Adult Personals Adult
Personals
Free Adult Personals Free
Adult Personals
Adult Dating Personals Adult
Dating Personals
dating services dating services
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult personals
dating sites
Dating Site
adult dating
adult personals
Dating
Online Dating Online Dating
Online Dating Service Online
Dating Service
adult dating
Adult Dating
Adult personals
Dating Sites
Online Dating Sites Online Dating
Sites
Dating web Site Dating web Site
adult dating site adult dating
site
free dating sites free dating
sites
Online Dating Site Online Dating
Site
free online dating free online
dating
online dating services online
dating services
online dating site online dating
site
dating online dating online
online personal dating services
online personal dating services
swingers group swingers group
swingers web site swingers web
site
swinger site swinger site
adult swingers club adult
swingers club
adult dating
adult dating services adult dating
services
free adult dating site free adult
dating site
adult personals dating adult
personals dating
adult dating service adult dating
service
adult singles dating adult singles
dating
internet dating internet dating
internet dating internet dating
dating services dating services
local swingers local swingers
swingers ads swingers ads
swinger wife swinger wife
swinger site swinger site
swingers group swingers group
free adult dating free adult
dating
adult dating site adult dating
site
adult dating services online adult
dating services online
adult dating adult dating
adult personals
dating sites dating sites
adult Dating
online Dating
sex Dating
Dating
Internet Dating Internet Dating
Internet Dating Services
Internet Dating Services
internet dating service
internet dating service
adult personals
dating sites
adult dating
personals
Adult Personals Adult
Personals
Free Adult Personals Free
Adult Personals
internet dating online internet
dating online
internet dating site
internet dating sites
online dating
dating services
personals adult dating
personals adult dating
personals personals
adult dating
adult personals
adult dating service
adult dating services
Dating
Online Dating Service
Online Dating Service
Online Dating Services
Online Dating Services
adult personals adult personals
adult Dating
adult personals
personals
Adult Personals Adult
Personals
Free Adult Personals Free
Adult Personals
Adult Dating Personals Adult
Dating Personals
free online dating free
online dating
online dating service
online dating service
dating service dating
service
free dating services free
dating services
adult dating adult dating
adult personals adult
personals
ADULT PERSONALS
Adult Dating
Adult Dating Site Adult Dating
Site
Adult dating Service Adult dating
Service
adult dating services adult dating
services
internet datinginternet
dating
dating services dating
services
adult dating adult dating
adult dating service
Adult Dating Personals
Adult Dating Personals
Adult dating Adult dating
adult friend finder
personals adult friend finder personals
online personals dating
services online personals dating services
alternative
lifestyle alternative lifestyle
adult dating adult
dating
adult personals
adult personals
dating
Adult Swingers Adult Swingers
Swingers Swingers
Swinger Club Swinger Club
swinger personals swinger
personals
swingers sex swingers sex
ADULT dating ADULT dating
adult photo personals
adult photo personals
adult personals adult
personals
Dating Services Dating
Services
Online Dating Online
Dating
online personal dating
services online personal dating services
online single dating
service online single dating service
internet dating services
internet dating services
DATING DATING
online datings online dating
adult dating adult dating
adult personals directory
adult personals directory
adult personal adult
personal
online adult personals
online adult personals
adult dating adult
dating
adult personals adult
personals
ADULT PERSONALS
personals
Alternative
Personals Alternative Personals
Alternative Dating
Alternative Dating
Dating Personals
Dating Personals
Gay dating Gay
dating
dating sites dating sites
adult Dating
online Dating
sex Dating
Dating
Internet Dating Internet Dating
Internet Dating Services
Internet Dating Services
internet dating service
internet dating service
Lesbian Dating
Lesbian Dating
alt personals alt
personals
adult photo personals adult
photo personals
online adult personals online
adult personals
adult dating personals adult
dating personals
adult photo personals adult
photo personals
adult personals adult
personals
adult personals directory
adult personals directory
gay personals gay
personals
lesbian personals
lesbian personals
alt dating alt
dating
adult personals adult personals
swinger dating swinger dating
adult dating online adult dating
online
adult dating sex adult dating sex
adult dating ads adult dating ads
adult dating
adult personals

lesbians lesbians
gays gays
lesbian lesbian
gay gay

Well, for one, I don't care about the "war on terror" because i think that having a "War" on it is the worst, dumbest, and most despaerate way to fight terror. In fact, you could say that i don't support the "war on terror" because I am...against terrorism.

the only real point to pursuing the kinds of strategies that adhere to such a narrow, clumsy, brutal,and cynical strategic focus as this is that the idea that we're fighting a war could pull people together, rein in exploitive profiteering on the home front and abroad, generate the kind of unity and sacrifice that helped get the US through WW2. You'll notice, that this isn't what's happening. Instead, this rhetoric has been used cheaply and divisively to consolidate political power.

Fighting terrorism has always been much more complicated than making war on it. These people won't do the hard part, the complicated parts, the diplomatic part, the simple good governance and attentiveness parts of the equation, and they've blown whatever power the rhetoric had through an incrdible combination of arrogance and dishonesty. So, would i go on record supporting the bill of goods that they call the "war on terror" as a way to make the world safer and freer? Fuck no.

First, I'd like to say that the infantile bed-wetter who posted all of the spam before my post should "GET A LIFE, LOSER!"

And, in addressing Kevin's thread, liberals should be leading the charge in condemning arms sales and the militarization of Third World countries. It always comes back to bite us - We have done it in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.

You watch - Colombian narco-terrorists will set off a dirty bomb in Los Angeles and the right-wingers will say "Wha? Where did that come from? They hate us because of our freedom."

No, doorknob. They hurt us because we hurt them by arming their people and giving them the tools to harm us.

But why does fighting terror have to be framed as a "war"? For years we have fought terror as a CRIMINAL activity, and many countries (such as Spain) continue to do so. Framing the whole thing as a "war" has been a big part of the problem. If I recall, Kevin's made the same point himself ...

"Unfortunately, I don't think Bush wants to avoid it.

Get over it Kevin. Its not true that GWB wants war. This is a sad excuse for a comment which if you really considered it carefully, you would know not to be true."

Neither Kevin nor John Hanson know what GWB wants. We can however learn from the recent past. What we all do know is that GWB did not do all he could to avoid war in Iraq. Is there any reason to think he has changed?

Gee, Kevin. You're a star! The recognition is well-deserved. Congratulations...

I think Kevin makes a good point about not contributing support to an adminsitration that will just exploit it for illiberal ends. But let's suppose the situation is revered, Democrats are in power & have reigning hegemony. How would Beinart's ideas relate?

There is no dilemma. As citizens of the US we should focus our critical energies on this country and its government. Iran's government - unless they choose to directly confront us - is none of our fucking business. Thinking that our ideals, liberal or otherwise, obligate us to try and order the world to our own specifications is one of the reasons we will soon be a debt ridden, former empirial power with an ugly recent history and much to regret.

I don't have a very good answer for this dilemma. And I'm not very happy about it. Feel free to whack away in comments.

I think most Dems are not anti-war; they're anti-dumb wars. I don't see why being "serious" about national security means whole-heartedly supporting every damn war dreamed up by a politician.

Demonization of your political opponents does no good.

Yeah, John Hansen, demonization of their political opponents has done no good at all for the GOP. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

"As citizens of the US we should focus our critical energies on this country and its government. Iran's government - unless they choose to directly confront us - is none of our fucking business."

Pat Buchanan himself couldn't have said it any better. Pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist is always alluring in difficult times, but isolationism has always proven to be fool's gold. (Please note that I'm not at all arguing for the Bush variant of internationalism.)

The usual TNR crap:

>the whole idea of focusing the nation's energies

A strawman on top of a smokescreen. Fucking idiot, Democrats have lost seats partially because they could be demonized as "sending our tax money on other countries".

The subset of people who actually identify themselves as "liberal" or "left" that are also isolationists is probably the smallest of any group. Real conservatives, most apolitical Americans, and people who call themselves conservatives are where the "I don't care what goes on outside our borders" mindset is strongest.

Sally Struthers is an American joke, particularly on The Right.

So that the Left doesn't want to change the world is a total strawman.

But it's also a smokescreen: By "energies" Beinart continually is found to mean military action, no matter how mcuh he's trying to plaster that over with the book. As somebody above said, it's a political calculation: Beinart has decided that Americans are fascinated by military action, have no patience for anything else, and he wants the glow of their attention.

Meanwhile Iraqis die like flies everyday and not one of them are named Saddam Hussein.

We haven't lost our stomach, at most we don't even know what to say about this fucked-up mess, it's like 3 and 48: no plays in the playbook for it.

Any post that incorporates the phrase 'war on terror' without at least the 'so-called' modifier is a non-starter.

Objectively speaking, there is no such thing as the 'war on terror', whether WOT, GWOT or any other moniker. It's a marketing phrase, designed to maintain a climate of fear in the U.S. - all war, all the time; and to lull the gullible public into giving up their consitutionally protected rights.

Any sane government that truly set out to rid the world of 'terror' would not be doing *any* of the things that the U.S. is doing.

neil wrote: Kevin, if Bush so much wants war then why is Condi wanting negotiations.

floopmeister retorted: It's called impotence.

Agreed, floop, but I'll go further: As Kevin pointed out, Rice's so-called offer of negotiations carried preconditions. There's little reason to believe -- especially from the incomeptent, mendacious and corrupt Bush Administration -- that her offer was made in good faith.

The bottom line: We successfully dealt with the freakin' Soviet Union -- which had actual nuclear weapons presumably targeted at the US -- with a policy of containment and deterrence. There is not one iota of evidence that these policies would not be effective against Iran. Nukes or no nukes, Iran is simply not much of a threat to the US, and I agree with floop that the cowards who claim that it is -- and then insist, like John Hansen, Peter Beinart and Condoleeza Rice, that anyone who wants to discuss must pre-concede the points they want -- deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule. It is they who are not serious about national security.

A further point: Recognition of Bush's mendacity, incompetence and corruption is essential for a serious discussion of America's security policy.

I'm sorry, only one poster had mentioned this previously, but I couldn't resist re-highlighting this:

Crawl out from the hatred which labels Bush as some puppet of the far right, and see that he really wants to be the administrator of a sound strategy.

I can't tell if this is the funniest or most outrageous statement I've ever seen one of our resident conservatards make. Gracious!

What war on terror?

I think what Beinart wants from those he labels as "liberals" (whatever the label now means) is for them to embrace a war on Islam, such as have "conservatives." Though he doesn't have the gumption to say so explicitly. Perhaps he's engaging in the Straussian practice of writing esoterically so that only the "philosophers" really understand his point while we, of the dumb ass masses, are foolish enough to take him seriously.

A measure of just what an intellectual twit Beinart really is, is his need to place people and concepts into those tidy little “liberal” and “conservative” categories.

Kevin Drum: "In my heart, I want to criticize repressive foreign regimes like Iran. But if I do, somebody might twist my words and make it sound like I support Bush. That would be awful. So I won't criticize Iran, I'd rather blog about Plame/Rove."

The one commentator who got it exactly right was Kevin Drum, who runs the magazine's blog. "What do we have to look forward to if George W. Bush is elected to a second term?" he asked. "One word: scandal."

Good job Kevin!

Kevin Drum feels the way most Democrats feel - "I won't criticize Iran because my words could be used to support Bush."

So instead of bashing repressive regimes (Iran, Iraq), Dems have spent the last 5-plus years bashing Bush. Instead of bashing the terrorists, Dems have focused their rage against Bush.

And where has all the Bush-bashing gotten the Dems? Totally out of power.

The Drum Strategy isn't working out too well at the polls!

There's just one thing that bothers liberals more than America losing a war --

America winning a war!

Instapundit today linked to an article suggesting we should support dissenters inside Iran.

Isn't it obvious that blogs which actually engage the Iran issue are more intersting and will generate more traffic?

It's not really that hard to say--as Beinart is wont to do--that Iran sucks but Bush sucks, too.

This is a problem only if one paints with the broadest of possible brushes. Goes like this:

"Iran is an evil, tyrannical, illiberal regime that we must oppose. But Bush is a lying moron, and so this should not be taken as an endorsement of him or his policies."

Glad to see you're thinking about this, though, KD. It's not fashionable to agree with Beinart about *anything* these days.

For example, should I be more vocal in denouncing Iran? Sure. It's a repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring state that stands for everything I stand against. Of course I should speak out against them.

And yet, I know perfectly well that criticism of Iran...also provides support for the Bush administration's determined and deliberate effort to whip up enthusiasm for a military strike....So what to do? For the most part, I end up saying very little. And Beinart is right: there's a sense in which that betrays my own liberal ideals.

No kidding. It makes you look like an opportunistic 'ho' who will do whatever it takes for a vote.

OK, so don't argue about Iran. Pick Egypt and similar. We give them huge bucks, and they are throwing people who believe in liberal principles everywhere a huge bone by acting like thugs. Force Bush's hand. Same thing with Darfur.

What does Peter Beinart want?

He wants us to listen to his advice despite the fact that he has been utterly wrong in the recent past.

He does not deserve what he wants.

Interesting post and thread. I would say that liberals need to articulate a vision for the world and then actively work towards that vision.

For myself I would like a safe and sane world. Being an old fashioned American I believe that everybody is endowed by their creator with certain rights. Among them are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I have noticed that my beliefs are not shared by a lot of fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jews. Fundamentally fundamentalists don't believe the creator endows anybody with rights. The creator might give gifts to special people (them) but not rights.

The question is what do I do about reconcilling my beliefs with their beliefs. Obviously they need to convert. They need to become enlightened.

How do we enlighten them? Well we can flop about fighting a global war on terror. In the short term that approach is ineffective. In the long term it is corrosive of the belief that everybody has rights. Notice that early in the War on Terror John Ashcroft, a good fundamentalist Christian, announced that the state could strip basic "rights" from terrorists because after all they were terrorists. Essentially John took the role of creator for himself, like a good fundamentalist. The Mullahs in Tehran would be proud. So would the leaders of Likud.

In the long term fighting a war on terror will be ineffective. The enlightenment that gave birth to Western Values in general and American Values in particular was a response to the outrageous and deadly wars promoted by religious excesses of a bunch of mad fundamentalist religious nuts who make Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson look down right liberal by comparison. "Fighting a war on terror" is like "destroying the village to save it"--nuts.

No, the answer is to be found in promoting peace and prosperity around the world. I am not a total nut. I know that we have to be able to defend ourselves, but we should defend ourselves intelligently. Our weapon of choice should be enlightenment culture. Ultimately that culture defeated both the soviet union and the Chinese (don't kid yourselves the pigs are walking up right--Western values are assendant in China.) Over the next few centuries those old enemies will fully absorb enlightenment beliefs and they will no longer be as much of a threat as they were.

The same is possible with Islam. Most Jews are already onboard. The toughest nut to crake might be the fundamentalist Christians. After all most of them have been exposed to Christ already but have chosen to ignore him.

We should be aware that a policy of unconditional support for open--and democratic--political systems in the Middle East will result in the election of Islamic regimes that will most likely be hostile tot he United States and its interests. The one country where this might not happen is...Iran.

Democrats can run against the Republicans on security issues by stressing Competence, Pragmatism, and Accountability. These are attributes that the current administration distinctly lacks.

Ron Byers

Nice sentiments.

Perhaps your goals would be better achieved if you (and others) stop identifying people on the basis of their religious beliefs and relegate so called 'faith' to a personal matter.

lib

I don't have any problem with your request. It seems, however, that religious fundamentalists self identify.

"Feel free to whack away in comments"

ok I will. The gist of this article by Drum is that the left would rather turn their head and not be outspoken against a segment of the Muslim society that is systematically killing innocent people worldwide and attempting to bomb their country back to the stoneage all for the sake of "not supporting" GW. I guess this is called enlightened.

Secondly, the outrage of Haditha, and rightfully so if allegations are proven true, expressed by the left seem a bit disengenous at best considering that it was the insuregents do on a daily basis and the left's response is to withdraw. So is it "life" you care about or only your own "life" that you care about? Again, this is called enlightened.

Finally, Ron suggests that it is the fundamentalist Christians who would be the "toughest nut to crack" ignoring the fact that Christians are not systematically killing innocent people or attempting to bomb societies back to the stoneage. This is called politically correct in that it is perfectly ok to take cheap shots at Christians but is not ok to address the radical Muslims in that fashion lest someone might be offended. This is called ignorance, prejudice, cowardice and enlightened.

Kevin, please explain how "the war on terrorism" has much at all to do with Iran.

I'm actually getting weary-- and I suspect the American people are too-- of this war with no end, no borders, no strategy. Terrorism is simply NOT the worst evil facing us today. Europe deal with terrorism (on several "fronts") for decades without invading unaffiliated nations. You might remember, long before Al Qaeda, bombs went off in London department stores and Italian airports. Terror wasn't a theoretical emotion for them as it is for us now-- they actually had to worry about it when they went shopping, though of course it didn't kill more than a tiny fraction of the number killed there in two world wars.

And they survived without deciding "the enemy" could be attacked by invading another nation.

For that matter, nations outside of ours and Europe deal with political strife every day, which has killed far, far more than any terrorist. Why are we so scared of what looks to be, in retrospect, a very minor threat? (Not to discount 9/11 as a tragedy one bit, but can we base the next generation's foreign policy on that one incident... or even worse, misusing that one incident?)

So when we're skeptical of a connection of Iran with terrorism and Al Qaeda, or of Bush's reasoning, we're doing the right thing. But I think we also ought to be questioning whether we really ought to be centering everything in our policy on some "war on terror" that no one can define.

"Crawl out from the hatred which labels Bush as some puppet of the far right, and see that he really wants to be the administrator of a sound strategy."

I can't tell if this is the funniest or most outrageous statement I've ever seen one of our resident conservatards make. Gracious!

No, it's the only thing they got left - tap into Americans' reserevoir of pity for any guy whose heart is in the right place yet fails - and fails because we didn't say "Tinker Bell I believe in you" enough times.

Unlike Iraq, Iran actually does provide logistical and financial support for terrorists that attack US interests.

Wars on terrorism--like jihads--can be fought in many ways, not all of them military. The Democrats can point to the comparative success of the Cold War as an example, and advocate policies on a broad array of fronts to take on the subculture from which Al Qaeda came.

Jonah Lucianne just asserted on the Corner that the libs don't appreciate Beinart's 'heretical reasonableness'.

Now we know the audience that Peter seeks.

Jonah Lucianne's support for Peter should by itself qualify Mr. Beinart to be a pariah within the Democratic Party.

And where has all the Bush-bashing gotten the Dems? Totally out of power.
The Drum Strategy isn't working out too well at the polls!

Haven't read the polls - what is Bush's approval rating, still sub-40?

The problem is that the Democratic leadership in Congress are following Beinart's advice, not Kevin's, and haven't been more aggressive in Bush bashing. The American people respect fighters - and if our representatives believe that Bush is wrong, they need to be actively opposing him.

If the Democratic leadership don't show some guts, then the people - who think Bush is dead wrong - naturally assume that the Dems agree with Bush, and disagree with the view of the American people.

Say it loud, people: Bush was wrong on Iraq, he was incompentent in New Orleans, he didn't protect us on 9/11, and I don't trust him to do what's right for America.

The government for last thirty years failed to protect us from 9/11. 9/11 was not planned and executed in 8 months moron. Radical muslims have been at war with the west since the 1972 Munich Olymipic Games (and probably earlier than that), we just failed to realize it. For the last thrity years they have been killing and bombing innocent people all over the world while our heads were firmly planted. I think yours still is.

Libby: No, it's the only thing they got left - tap into Americans' reserevoir of pity for any guy whose heart is in the right place yet fails - and fails because we didn't say "Tinker Bell I believe in you" enough times.

You're damned right it's the only thing they've got left. With the entire world and more than 70% of Americans agreed on Bush's unbroken record of incompetence, John Hansen abjectly humiliates himself with these "It's not about world-class fuckups; it's about how you lefties keep impolitely pointing them out" posts. He appears to be the only one who doesn't recognize just how foolish it makes him look.

I think you don't realize how foolish you look putting that much credence into the "polls". Didn't you learn that lesson in '04?

Jay again displays his profound ignorance. Fatah and PFLP (perpetrators of most of the attacks in the 1960s and 70s) were secular in their ends.

Using what passes for Jay's logic, we could say that PFLP attacks actually advocated Christian fundamentalism because George Habash was a Maronite Christian.

Jay also omits the fact that the US government under the sainted Ronald Reagan made a policy decision to back the most Islamic fundamentalist factions of Afghan resistance to the Soviets, on the advice of Pakistan's fundamentalist leader Zia al-Haq. From this came Taliban, and indirectly, Bin Laden.

Jay is an idiot!!

I have to disagree with the whole premise about denouncing Iran and lining up for the War on Terror.

First, there are dozens of horribly oppressive regimes in the world (Zimbabewe, Congo, etc). Why is Iran so much worse? And also at this point the US doesn't have much standing about supporting democracy - no one really believes us. And also, let's not forget that when we chose to invade Iraq, the US abandoned any hope of supporting the students in Iran - we gave the oppressive regime a nationalist rallying cry. We had a choice to make and we made the wrong one - now on a practical level there is little or nothing the US can do.

Second, the War on Terror