> My guess is that the messengers of withdrawal f
> from Iraq can avoid being shot only if they pair
> it up that message with a truly persuasive and
> inspiring plan for fighting the overall war in a
> better and more winnable way.

So:

1) Radical Republicans launch an unwinnable "war" against a tactic, and along the way topple one of the bugbears of the neoconservatives. Oh, and also implement the "stir up the hornets nest" theory that the neocons also love, and raise oil prices to the benefit of...
2) As predicted by many many people, mostly "liberal" but some old-fashioned conservatives as well, the invasion of Iraq is a disaster.
3) W and Rumsfeld make it worse by "staying the course"
4) As described by the NYT this Sunday past, Rove and Bush develop a new strategy: run out the clock for 29 months and dump the problem in the lap of the next President
5) Grown-up Democrats called in to clean up the mess (again!)
6) DOLSTCHOSSLEGENDE!!! You can feel it comin' baby!

The Democrats in general, and the Presidental candidates in particular, had _best_ spend 2007-2008 making the case that Iraq is a shit bed that it isn't possible to unshit, that it is the Radical _Republicans_ fault, that there will be no "win", and that the Radials need to be sent back to the political wilderness for 200 years.

If not, if we get a flip-flopping President Hillary in 2009 with a "plan for victory", well, look for President Jeb in 2012 and "liberals" headed to political prisions shortly thereafter: complete victory by Rove.

Cranky

DISCLAIMER: Kevin donated to the Wes Clark for President campaign.

I know it's easy to say this, but: for the good of the country and the good of the party, someone better figure out how to do this.

Feel free to do it yourself, Kevin, instead of assigning everyone else homework. You're as bad here as the Dem politicians that you always complain about who talk endlessly about what needs to be done instead of just doing it.

Then again, I spend all my money on Santorum. Both kinds.

Wow, Kevin, did you ever prove that the Democrats' mealy-mouthed alternative is worse politically than the simple (albeit stupid) stay the course.

But I also question everyone's political memories here. Yes, McGovern was a liberal, but he was also the first victim of an incredibly well-financed, unscrupulous political attack machine. A corageous war hero was ripped apart by a President who hadn't served - sound familiar?

And the continuing attacks from Democratic "friends" on "McGovernites" obscures that reality.

But there's an alternative: persuading the American public that there's a different and more effective way to fight radical jihadism, one that relies more on economic engagement and public diplomacy and less on mid-20th century notions of fighting wars against uniformed armies. Unfortunately, most Dems don't know how to do this, and their prescriptions end up sounding mushy and unconvincing.

And for good reason. There is no better way to fight the terrorists than the way George W Bush is fighting them. The best way to fight the terrorists is by preemptively attacking them first rather than having them attack us first. We're fighting them in Beirut and Baghdad so we don't have to fight them in Boston and Birmingham. Your prescription of "economic engagement and public diplomacy" is nothing more than the typical left wing plan of offering therapy and understaning for the terrorists. This failed when Bill Clinton offered it, and it's only going to fail more if we try it again.

But even worse, any liberal plan to fight the terrorists can't be trusted because of the angry left's attack on Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman was the strongest supporter of the view that we have to take the war to the terrorists rather than sit back and wait and now the angry left is launching a inquisition on him to kick him out of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party need to destroy Kos and the angry left's insurgency on the Democratic Party if it wishes to regain the trust of the American people that they can be trusted on the War on Terrorism. If Lieberman loses, the American people will know you care more about appeasing the terrorists than killing them.

Democratic politicians should assert the GOP is not winning the war on terror, and reduce that war to the war against Al Qaeda. After all, Osama is still a free man.

Reducing the US presence in Iraq is thus the right war to win the war on terror.

I think that is the general frame which should be used.

I don't think the messenger will get shot. If conditions remain the same in Iraq in 08 as they are now--and I hope they're not--and the repubs haven't adapted, a democrat who aggressively, and with thinly veiled, contempt, condemned the Bush administration, the campaign itself would provide enough of a platform for the message to get through. The candidate would have to say he/she would not preclude the use of robust military force in any other situation.

Here it comes: Iraq is on the cusp of becoming a democracy, which will unleash the fourth wave (see Huntington). Liberals are afraid that their opposition to the war will make them look like the deluded fools they are. As such, they SAY Iraq isn't going well, to try and influence public opinion against spreading democracy. Talk about putting party before country...

At the same time, the loss of Vietnam, followed by America's humiliation in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, were unquestionably part of the Reagan resurgence too. It's not as if this is just a myth made up by later generations of Gipper enthusiasts.

Sure it is. Reagan, despite all his cowboy tough talk, did negotiate with terrorists -- after all, the first part of his harebrained Iran-Contra scandal was ransoming American hostages from Iran -- when he wasn't outright capitulating to them (running from Beirut with his tail between his legs after the Marine barracks bombing).

And, of course, Reagan was master of the current GOP tactic of using the military as politcal window-dressing (Grenada, anyone?), a tradition Bush and Rove continue to this day, even as they shortchange veterans' benefits.

The GOP's alleged advantage in national security is 100% marketing, nothing more. Given that the current debacle in the Middle East can be laid squarely at the door of the Republicans, it's high time for the Democrats to challenge their bogus branding. If there's a lesson to be drawn from Bush's disastrous presidency, it's that Republicans simply can't be trusted with national security.

We can win more by our good example.

But if we have our heads shoved square up our butts and shout Stay the Course!, it doesn't make a pretty picture.

"It's very unlikely that this means the American public is ready to support a broadly dovish foreign policy"

I have no idea where you got that partciular straw men, Kevin. Please name one leading Democrat who you would describe as "broadly dovish."

Most Democrats I talk to are interested in seeing the murderer of 3000 Americans punished. Unlike Bush, who is frankly not that concerned about him.

Whew, Al's post is like a fresh breeze of air coming from another planet. Hizbollah's centered in Southern Lebanon. Who are "we" fighting in Beirut? What does defeating Hizbollah have to do with the US war on terror? Wouldn't peace between the Israelis and Palestines contribute more to US security than another war in the Middle East? Doesn't Al know that terror attacks have gone up since Bush has been president?

Here's some ideas

An Alternative Foreign Policy

Here’s my two-pronged strategy:

1. The Doctrine of Retaliation

The U.S. reserves the right to treat any country which sponsors terrorism against U.S. citizens or our allies, or which provides direct support in any way to groups or individuals that do so, as legitimate targets for swift and decisive military retaliation. The U.S. reserves the right to target foreign leaders and military installations in any nation that is complicit in such conduct. The U.S will not invade or occupy foreign nations, but it reserves the right to cripple the military and organizational capabilities of any overtly hostile regimes. The only reason large numbers of ground troops will be deployed is for peace keeping and humanitarian missions or to repel hostile aggression. (For example, if Iran continues to fund Hezbollah and Hezbollah continues to attack our ally Israel than the U.S. has the right to target the leaders of Iran along with Iran’s military capabilities.)

2. Democracy and Human Rights Promotion

Having established the clear boundaries of what policies or actions will result in military retaliation by the U.S., the U.S. government and its people want to make clear that we empathize with the plight of all those who live under autocratic rule and are denied basic human rights. The U.S. openly invites all nations to the negotiating table that are willing to sign non-aggression pacts with the U.S. and its allies and promote democracy and human rights within their respective countries. Such conduct will be rewarded in the strongest terms in the form of large sums of development aid, preferential trade agreements, increased security guarantees, cultural exchanges, assistance with institution building; everything that can be done to accelerate the entry of these nations into the community of advanced democratic societies.

This two-pronged approach provides clear incentives to the governments and citizens throughout the Arab and Muslim world (and other regions as well). Citizens who vote for regimes with expansionist and extremist ideologies must recognize the potential risk that this poses to their safety and the stability of their societies. Citizens who are currently denied a say in their government have an added incentive to push for reform, given both the positive potential benefits and to avoid the potential risks if their governments continue to pursue hostile actions against the U.S. and its allies.

As to the Iraq War, which is clearly not consistent with this new foreign policy vision, the first step is to admit unequivocally that it was a mistake. While the U.S. and its allies had the right to pressure Saddam, renew inspections, and even strike at Saddam’s military capabilities, we did not have the justification to invade and occupy the country for the sake of regime change. In addition, we invaded without a clear plan, anywhere near the required number of troops or allies, and we completely underestimated the sectarian tensions that would rip the country apart once Saddam was toppled. Our current strategy is entirely counter-productive because we are helping to prop up a government that is fueling the militias and carrying out a large portion of the sectarian violence.

At this juncture we must view our mission as minimizing the civilian casualties and promoting humanitarian assistance, while at the same time, continuing to try to broker a peace deal among the warring factions. Abandoning Iraq completely would be morally wrong since we have helped to create this dire situation. We need to make clear to the Europeans that we will not be in Iraq indefinitely and that a massive civil war near their border is not in their interest, and therefore, they should help establish an international peace-keeping force. Only after we admit that the war was a strategic miscalculation will this possible. If necessary we should work with the Iraqis to divide their country in order to prevent all-out civil war. The bottom line: we must acknowledge that now we are in damage control mode, trying our best to do right by the millions of Iraqis who have been caught up in this catastrophe.

J.S.

http://voicesofreason.info

Kevin wrote: "Mark Schmitt is skeptical of the common notion that, just as it did during the Vietnam war, opposition to the Iraq war will hurt Democrats at the polls [...] recent polls on Iraq display an enormous range of opinion, including widely divergent responses to very similar questions."

According to pollster John Zogby:

Let's just look at the numbers from my most recent national poll (July 21). Overall, only 36% of likely voters told us that they agree that the war in Iraq has been "worth the loss of American lives", while 57% disagree. But the partisan splits are more revealing: only 16% of the Democrats polled said the war has been worth while 82% disagree and only 26% of Independents agree the war has been worth it while 72% disagree. On the Republican side, 64% said the war has been worth it, while 23% disagree [...] about one in four Republicans have now pretty much given up on the war.

[...] Indeed, the polling numbers were pretty clear what Democrats and Independents wanted in 2004 - and the fact that they didn't receive the opposition to the war they were looking for from their standard-bearers is the main reason that they lost both the Presidency and did not pick up seats in either house of Congress.

Overwhelming majorities of both Democrats and Independents, as well as one quarter of Republicans, believe that the war in Iraq has not been worth the loss of American lives.

Opposition to the war will not only not "hurt Democrats at the polls", but on the contrary, the vast majority of the electorate is looking for candidates who will run against the war.

On the other hand, Republican candidates who run on "staying Bush's disastrous, dishonest, corrupt and incompetent course" cannot even count on all the Republican electorate's votes at this point.

By 2008, presidential candidates of both major parties will be doing their best to position themselves where Dennis Kucinich was in 2004.

A way to talk about a model for Iraq may be devolution, as when Britain devolved some governmental functions to its' constituent regions and Scotland and Wales got their own parliaments, and the St. George's Cross came back into vogue.

And the way Czechoslovakia became two countries with no friction.

How about instead of "withdraw from Iraq," the message is that Dems need to "invade Washington."

I think that's the ticket.

Samuel Knight wrote "Yes, McGovern was a liberal, but he was also the first victim of an incredibly well-financed, unscrupulous political attack machine. A corageous war hero was ripped apart by a President who hadn't served - sound familiar?"

Nixon did serve. According to the Wikipedia article on Richard Nixon: "During World War II, Nixon served as an officer in the Navy. He received his training at Quonset Point, Rhode Island, and Ottumwa, Iowa, before serving in the supply corps in the South Pacific commanding cargo handling units in SCAT. There he was known as 'Nick' and for his prowess in poker, banking a large sum that helped finance his first campaign for Congress."

We can win more by our good example.

Which is why I've been arguing that the US policy of encouraging Israel's overreaction in Lebanon is not in the US national interest.

I think you're overlooking two things.

One is, a part of the reason the Dems were tarred as weak on national security was that they/we were identified with the RADICAL anti-Vietnam-War movement, and that turned a lot of people off.

Dems = hippies = flag burners and draft-dodgers

Of course, that was a caricature, and it was played up shamelessly by the early RWNM, but I think it also had a lasting effect in defining the "personalities" of the parties with respect to national security.

The other thing I think you're overlooking is that an essential part of fighting terrorism, as shown by the success of the British against the military wing of the IRA among many other examples, is POLICE WORK.

Cut off their funding, cut off their access to weaponry, track down their leaders, infiltrate their organizations, and keep at it. It's not glamorous, it doesn't yield good TV (or big profits for weapons manufacturers), but it's proven to be effective.

No policy for fighting terror is complete without it. And frankly, it sounds tough -- we're gonna get Tough On Terror, and we're gonna do it in an effective way, like our friends the Brits, rather than following nitwit theories by people with no military experience who have accomplished nothing more than getting 3000 of our troops dead.

Doesn't Al know that terror attacks have gone up since Bush has been president?

The Al-bot doesn't "know" anything. It's a machine.

Nixon as Sgt Bilko! Now it all makes sense.

Well, Joel, they don't consider the National Guard as military "service" either.

Withdrawing from Iraq is not just "dovish:" it's about as realpolitik as things get. Anyone saying otherwise is either deluded or lying.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

I think this post is dead on - the way to win and install a foreign policy that works better and kills fewer people, and that will be more to the liking of the more pacifist wing, is not going to be to trumpet that wing's message and declare the Iraq fiasco a vindication of a swing toward pacifist isolationism. But that is how the debate often seems to be shaping up:

Sawicky today fending off a wacky Peretz but with a dubious argument (as it relates to foreign policy):

We need not fear a resurgence of liberalism in the Democratic Party, though its ascendance is far from assured. I'd say we ought to fear more the absence of such a renaissance.

SecularA,

KD doesn't really dispute the poll numbers, but rather feels that they represent skin-deep opinions that could peel away easily.

Al,

Dem's have simply never argeed with Bush that "taking the fight to the terrorists" required invading Iraq, whereas Republican's wholeheartedly accepted it.

A way to talk about a model for Iraq may be devolution, as when Britain devolved some governmental functions to its' constituent regions and Scotland and Wales got their own parliaments, and the St. George's Cross came back into vogue.

And the way Czechoslovakia became two countries with no friction.

A more realistic way to talk about Iraq would be a nascent, bloody civil war that the US is powerless to stop.

Alas, as Israel is learning by its failure to stop Hezbollah's rockets despite the IDF's continued destruction of Lebanon's political and civil infrastructure, this abject, bloody and very public failure shatters the myth of military predominance both nations shared -- a perception the loss of which neither country can afford.

"And the way Czechoslovakia became two countries with no friction. " No friction? Has cld been in a submarine for the past three years? Sheesh.

How about instead of "withdraw from Iraq," the message is that Dems need to "invade Washington."

The people have the power/To wrest the world from fools.

Too bad they won't use it.

Kevin recites another internalized Republican myth: "At the same time, the loss of Vietnam, followed by America's humiliation in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, were unquestionably part of the Reagan resurgence too."

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was promoted by CIA intervention in Afghanistan during the Carter administration, with the clearly foreseen result being to bog down the USSR in their own "Vietnam". Arguably the Soviet's Afghan quagmire -- a direct result of the Carter administration's policy there -- was a major factor leading to the collapse of the USSR.

From a 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [...] We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would [...] The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

I think that Kevin and Cranky are groping for a realistic policy that involves admitting mistakes and relying less on wishful thinking in the future. The problem is that the first Dem to truly articulate such policy options will never be nominated for president. It still needs to be said. Considering that the odds on getting nominated are low in any case, cant some articulate Dem start speaking truth in a logical manner and take the political fall? A short term political crash hasnt sent Howard Dean into the widerness.

Things will have to get a lot worse for the American electorate to embrace harsh medicine. If the bill for the war starts coming home (it is currently paid for by cash influx from China, Japan and the oilstates), maybe Americans will want to get out faster.

Poker genius Nixon in the South Pacific,

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/811/ltnixonca1944nb6.jpg

(Quiz: who in this picture is not really one of the guys?)

Way different things in 1972:

1) Social division, particularly race, was at a boil - Nixon's campaign very effectively played on that
2) We're talking an incumbant president here - not a Congressional race - Dems did fine in House and Senate races in 72
3) McGovern had a horrible campaign - deep divisions at the convention, inept management, a change in the VP along the way
4) Nixon had major successes in foreign policy in 72 - the opening to China, major treaty with the USSR - one of his ads actually featured the Soviet national anthem!
5) He held out the promise of peace and withdrawal in Vietnam - there was a drawdown on troops, so the end seemed to be in sight

How this compares to the debacle in Iraq, a different set of offices up, and the rest of the disaster in the country at the moment I'll leave to the grasping at straws crowd in DC and the media.

The problem, of course, is that Americans do not want compromise, they want submission. Americans are unconcerned with other's legitimate complaints and only want to enforce their hysterical needs for absolute security and market dominance with military force.

The US has not yet properly taken responsibility for its wars in SE Asia. The US needs to apologize to Viet Nam and provide war reparations.

The US needs to acknowledge its role overthrowing Prince Sihanouk, installing Lon Nol and creating the environment possible for the Khmer Rouge Holocaust. The US should pay war reparations to Cambodia.

Admit the use of military force in anything but a direct threat to the Republic is wrong. Very wrong. Another step that should be taken is to try those responsible for the killing. Why McNamara is not serving a life sentence similar to Rudolf Hess is disgusting. Next, hang the generals. The war crimes Nazi generals were hanged for have been equal to the war crimes committed in Viet Nam and Iraq. This may not help Democrats, but it will help the the nation if its national criminals are held responsible and punished. Making them heros makes the situation worse and reinforces the public's nationalist Chauvinism.

Most Muslims who blame the US and advocate violence against it are rationale people with legitimate grievances. I am not talking about al Queda, but about the oppressed Palestinians and Arab/Persian oil slaves. The US has never acknowledged the legitimacy of those grievances for reasons of international politics and its corporate business interests.

Hezbollah is fighting to have Lebanese prisoners held for up to decades by Israel released and for Israel to end its occupation of land that properly belongs to Lebanon. These are legitimate grievances.

Iran wants the US to stop threatening its security, release its frozen economic assets, and have its markets open to commerce. If the US should also guarantee Iran's security, say from Israeli attack, then Iran would become an ally rather than an antagonist.

Mature and thoughtful politicians should be able to argue compromising with Iran and Hezbollah costs almost nothing but would provide enormous benefits. Benefits to the economy and energy supplies. American attitudes of appearing strong and never weak prevent the kind of reaching out required to provide peace. Corporate demonizing of McGovern has served the warmongers of both parties well.

The girl standing next to Nixon, cld?

>> I know it's easy to say this, but: for the
>> good of the country and the good of the party,
>> someone better figure out how to do this.

> Feel free to do it yourself, Kevin, instead of
> assigning everyone else homework.

Agreed. If Kevin is going to fall for that Rove frameshop, the least he can do is bring an actual plan to the table. I for one would be quite curious to see it, given what I understand is the actual situation in Iraq today.

Cranky

Hostile:

You forgot about a U.S. apology / reparations for Hiroshima and Nagasaki too.

Hostile,

Yes, I suggest Democrats run on your agenda.

You know, Nixon appears to be grabbing at her ass.

LOL, Al. Someone should ask Lamont his position on Hostile's agenda (right after we figure out if he is for immediate withdrawal from Iraq or not ; )

Kevin, please, how about some threads on John Conyers' report? It's at http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/iraqrept2.html
(& there's a link that lets you download it as a Word document at the bottom of that page.)

> think that Kevin and Cranky are groping for a
> realistic policy that involves admitting
> mistakes and relying less on wishful thinking
> in the future.

Nicely put. We as Americans have two huge problems facing us: the Iraq situation, and the energy situation. If we keep living in a Rovian fantasyland I suspect the years from 2015 on are going to be very unpleasant. Someone needs to be honest about this. I agree it might be a sacrificial task, but how do you get the traditional media to take that person seriously (cf Kucinich's record of predictions vs. more "conservative" candidates).

However, when Kevin uses phrases such as "pair up that message with a truly persuasive and inspiring plan for fighting the overall war in a better and more winnable way." then I get the impression he is hoping for a Rambo-style intervention that makes all the problems in Iraq go away in a big cluster bomb of smoke. Hint Kevin: liberators aren't supposed to be "winning" 3 years after the end of the fighting; they are supposed to be getting ready to go home with the medals and accolades from their grateful liberatees (and the troops with their war brides and acquired taste for new ethnic foods). The fact that that isn't happening might be a bit of a hint, eh?

Cranky

Gregory,

Yes, that gets at much of the depth of awfulness in this. a) Nothing George Bush does could be called a good example. b) If he can't do anything right it's probably best that he do nothing. c) The Israelis, surrounded by three standing armies, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians as a group, created to destroy them, funded and promoted by external sources for that purpose, did not over-react to anything, as events have pretty fully supported.

But, you are right in that it would be far better for us to have a better person in charge whose good example could bring calm and light to the circumstances.

The national security gap for Democrats first appeared in polls....

I was alive back then, and like Kevin, I was rapidly gaining on draft age. No one, no one I knew in my small Ohio town was saying, "we need to stay longer and whip those gooks." It was more like, "God this is a f*cked up mess, end it."

The so called security gap was nothing more than the result of a billiant stategy of name calling and strawman fallocies hoisted upon the public by Nixon and other repugs. A divided Democratic party never fought back so the charges stuck, but that need not be the template for the future.

Hey, I just realized that "Al" is short for "Al Qaeda". That explains a lot.

Kevin, how in the hell do Democrats present a plan for winning a war that is unwinnable? Bush has painted Dems and himself into a corner in Iraq. They're both standing there, backs against the wall, looking at a wet floor with the nearest exit unreachable. It would serve Republicans right if they won in '08 for they'll inherit the biggest steaming pile-o-shit bequeathed a victor in many years. The Dems win and the crash and burn will be their fault, with Rove, Kristol, Fox News and others convincing the public victory was in sight before President(D) fucked it all up. Right now our best hope is Iraq blows before '08 so the blame falls squarely where it should. If Bush prolongs it longer than that he is off the hook, eluding blame and consequences just as he did at Harken, Arbusto and Spectrum7.

N.Wells:

Is that the report on John Conyers misappropriating federal resources and staff for personal reasons, or the one for impeachment of Bush held in someone's basement?

Gregory,

Yes, with no friction. We need to help them stop the civil war. Adding more friction isn't going to help. It's inevitable they will end up as three countries. How to do it as painlessly as possible is the whole point.

cld writes in from la-la land: c) The Israelis, surrounded by three standing armies, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians as a group, created to destroy them, funded and promoted by external sources for that purpose, did not over-react to anything, as events have pretty fully supported.

Of course they did, as the smoking ruin of Lebanon's political and civil infrastructure, not to mention hundreds of dead Lebanese civilians -- not to mention the, in retrospect, utterly embarrassing chest-thumping boasts about destroying Hezbollah attest.

b) If [Bush] can't do anything right it's probably best that he do nothing.

I note with interest that cld has internalized Bush's utterly dishonest false choice between his own foolish proposals and "doing nothing."

But, you are right in that it would be far better for us to have a better person in charge whose good example could bring calm and light to the circumstances.

I'd settle for a competent person.

Thomas,

She's so much more one of the guys than Tricky Dick, who looks like he just wandered by and --oh dear god, is he pinching her butt?!

I was alive back then, and like Kevin, I was rapidly gaining on draft age. No one, no one I knew in my small Ohio town was saying, "we need to stay longer and whip those gooks." It was more like, "God this is a f*cked up mess, end it." The so called security gap was nothing more than the result of a billiant stategy of name calling and strawman fallocies hoisted upon the public by Nixon and other repugs. A divided Democratic party never fought back so the charges stuck, but that need not be the template for the future.

In fact, back in '76 Bob Dole was running for President denouncing "Democrat [sic] wars," i.e painting the Democrats as the bloodthirsty warmongers in contrast to the serene and gentle Republicans. It wasn't really until the Reagan-era 1980s that this whole "Republicans are strong on defense" myth was invented -- and that was primarily because Republicans were strong on defense spending as a bribe to their corporate base.

I deny everything! I just posted this update on TPMCafe:

My comments on Vietnam have been interpreted, both in comments and by Kevin Drum, as a dismissal of the entire argument that Democrat's perceived weakness was a problem. It was a problem. When I said that I didn't think the history of the politics of Vietnam should be reduced to the 1972 election, that doesn't mean I'm writing the 1972 election out of history. It was one event, one factor. And there is no doubt that McGovern's "Come Home America" brand of liberal isolationism was not appealing, just as "a broadly dovish foreign policy" would not be politically successful or wise now. I am all for -- really all for -- Wesley Clark's prescription for engagement and Peter Beinart's and Joe Biden's and George Soros's. It is a call to engage the world with all of our power, soft power as well as hard.

But in the face of a war that was a huge mistake, that approach is also entirely compatible with an anti-war movement, some branches of which might be dovish and others more in the Clark/Friedman/Broder wing. An anti-war movement will have its J. William Fulbrights as well as its Abbie Hoffman's.

My only point is that the Vietnam analogy is as flawed as the Munich analogy because Vietnam broke up the Democratic coalition for particular reasons, because Dems bore first responsibility for the war. To say that "Dems were identified with the anti-war movement and therefore lost, therefore Dems should avoid the anti-war movement today" is flawed both in its premise and its conclusion.

Peter Beinart's book, which I've been critical of in other respects, covers the full scope of this history fairly well, particularly in resuscitating figures like Allard Lowenstein who were part of the anti-war movement but not "broadly dovish."

cld writes in from la-la land: Yes, with no friction.

"No friction" is simply no longer an option. You can no more wish away the rampant violence in Iraq than you can Israel's targeting Lebanese civilians.

We need to help them stop the civil war.

Given that Bush's incompetence was instrumental in causing the civil war, it's astonishing that you'd consider such a possibility, at least under the current Administration. But if you have a bright idea about how we could "help them stop the civil war," I'm sure it'd be amusing to hear it.

Adding more friction isn't going to help.

Ah, more friction. So you admit that splitting Iraq "without friction" is impossible, since there's already, in your charming parlance, "friction." Thanks for clarifying.

cld:

We will have to agree to disagree then.

Gregory, who's previous deep thoughts have included insisting that roads, bridges, airports, fuel and geography have no military significance whatsoever, cannot read anything I write without re-writing it backward.

Hezbollah has been shown to have the military capacity of a regular standing unit of the Syrian or Iranian armies, which by itself justifies their response.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1154728213979&call_pageid=968332188854

This is why the Democratic response to Iraq is so important. "Withdraw from Iraq" may be popular, but it's very unlikely that this means the American public is ready to support a broadly dovish foreign policy. At least, it never has in the past.

Er, what? Through most of the past, the US public has, in fact, supported a broadly dovish foreign policy even in the face of rather clear, real gathering threats; the exceptions to that have required pretty substantial propaganda efforts to get going, or actual attacks on the US.

So, I'd have to disagree, unless "never" means "always".

But there's an alternative: persuading the American public that there's a different and more effective way to fight radical jihadism, one that relies more on economic engagement and public diplomacy and less on mid-20th century notions of fighting wars against uniformed armies.

Considering that it is rather self-evident that applying what are, to be fair, late 20th century ideas about fighting wars with nation-states hasn't

Unfortunately, most Dems don't know how to do this, and their prescriptions end up sounding mushy and unconvincing.

The theory that it was McGovern's antiwar stance that was responsible for defeat and a perception of weak national security dems is simplistic and like most simplistic theories - crap. (Therefore it should have a wide appeal to the msm pundits.)

An overlooked factor is that McGovern, although a wholly decent person, was perceived as weak. He didn't project a strong personality. He has a warbly timbre to his voice. The VP debacle didn't help.

When a really strong, stalwart personality like Murtha takes on the warmongers the republicans have a problem. Why else are the republicans so afraid of him?

Sometimes it's the messenger and not the message.

Tony Zinni lays out an approach that I think most Democrats would agree with in his book, The Battle for Peace.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403971749/sr=1-1/qid=1154979546/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2281870-5150433?ie=UTF8&s=books

Zinni is a career Marine who rose from a 2nd Lt. in Viet Nam to Commander in Chief of CENTCOM before he retired in 2000. He argued against the Iraq invasion before it took place, and a quote from his 2004 book, Battle Ready, shows his anger at what the current administration has done:

"In the lead-up to the Iraq War and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

He is less political than Wes Clark and he's not running for anything.

His books explain how his views were informed by his experiences and he has had many relevant experiences. I think he comes across as realistic, but he gives me more hope for the long-run than anyone else who I've read. I think the Dems should be embracing his approach and citing his writings enthusiastically.

Nice to have commenter Al, so we know what's in Rove's daily email.

Ds can't do anything that will work. Withdrawing from a losing war just can't be done without damage to self, and without getting blamed for all the damage the war and its loss have caused.

Many reason why. One of my favorites is discussed in War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges. All the heroism--think of all the literature over the centuries from Iliad to the present. Petty concerns of daily life eliminated. Banding together in a common cause. War fills all the large empty spiritual places. (Ever notice that war & religion often go together, indicating that God is not enough spiritual reward for people.) But war is hell, so it is followed by amnesia. No one asks a vet what the experience was like and vets don't offer to tell. Losing a war is a stronger reason for amnesia. That's why it's so easy to swiftboat Vietnam vets. It allows us to pretend that it was their fault.

So no D, even if there were any competent ones around, could do it. But the alternatives are worse. So some one must sacrifice himself, and the nation will have to limp ahead afterwards.

Gregory, who's previous deep thoughts have included insisting that roads, bridges, airports, fuel and geography have no military significance whatsoever

cld, your continued dishonesty in misrepresenting my comments, even more than your continued delusional rants, exempts you from consideration as a serious commentator. Noting that Israel's attack Beirut's cilivan airport, in the context of the IDF's total air superiority, makes the excuse that it was an attack against a military target, as opposed to a terror attack against civilian infrastructure, ring hollow. Noting that roads, bridges, airports, fuel and geography have "military significance" does not magically transform these targets, in each and every case, from civilian targets to military ones.

Your dishonesty and delusions in defending Israel's attacks on Lebanese civilians smacks of the most odious defenders of Hezbollah and their ilk. You've been quick to tag those who point out Israel's folly, and your gaps in logivc and honesty, as Hezbollah sympathizers, but it's you, by your claiming every target Israel strikes as de facto military, and therefore justified, who is adopting the role of an apologist for civilian slaughter. Shame on you.

Hezbollah has been shown to have the military capacity of a regular standing unit of the Syrian or Iranian armies, which by itself justifies their response.

Noting Hezbollah's military capabilities, of course, hardly justifies Israel's targeting of the civilian and political infrasturcture of Lebanon, nor of their many attacks on civilian targets wholly unrelated to Hezbollah (ambulances, cars full of fleeing families, etc.)

I'll break it down for you, cld.

Lebanon's government != Hezbollah
Lebanese civilians != Hezbollah
Lebanese infrastructure != Hezbollah
Beirut Internation Airport != Hezbollah
Hezbollah == Hezbollah

Are we clear?

In sound-bite terms, the Dems should advocate that the key to success in Iraq is to reduce troops on the ground and support the Iraqi government in other ways.

Facile, perhaps, but the voting public would rather hear "to win, bring troops home" instead of "we're losing, bring troops home".

Hezbollah has been shown to have the military capacity of a regular standing unit of the Syrian or Iranian armies, which by itself justifies their response.

How does the first part of the sentence relate to the second? The mere fact that Hezbollah has the strength of an equivalent of a Syrian division does not, by itself, justify any response. Israel may have other perfectly sound reasons for striking at Hezbollah (but not for striking at Lebanon itself) but the above is in no way a justification.

Gregory,

I'll make it clear for you: the whole area of Lebanon isn't half the size of the Battle of the Bulge.

Gregory is the kind of personality who so discreditted the left for thirty years. He has nothing to offer but hate and malice, and has never written anything here that expresses anything more than hate and malice, which is probably why he finds so much sympathy for Islam, one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived. Brains of a feather.

Gregory,

did you convert to Islam before or after the twin towers fell?

This is why the Democratic response to Iraq is so important. "Withdraw from Iraq" may be popular, but it's very unlikely that this means the American public is ready to support a broadly dovish foreign policy. At least, it never has in the past.

Stefan: What, never?

Chorus (bellowing loudly): No, never!

Stefan: What, never?

Chorus (rather more softly): Well, hardly ever....

I'll make it clear for you: the whole area of Lebanon isn't half the size of the Battle of the Bulge.

So?

Stefan,

It's a justification if the only reason they exist is to attack Israel in the first place, and having attacked them in the first place, aare discovered to be considerably more powerful and well-equipped than had been believed.

cmdicley, So?

All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort.

You must understand that:

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

In the case of Gaza, the Jew press fabricated a transparently fraudulent story of a "kidnapped" soldier.

In the case of Lebanon, it appears that the Jew press lied about capture of the two soldiers being "cross-border". Well,... it was cross-border alright, but it was the Jew soldiers that had crossed the border. And even if the press didn't lie, the Jews chose to start the Lebanon massacre, plain and simple.

Also see: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html

One thing you should know about the whatreallyhappened.com site, is that it is Jew false-opposition. So, what is reported there is somewhat suspect.

Usually, such sites are about damage control and therefore most of what is reported is a sanitized/obfuscated version of what really happened.

I'll make it clear for you: the whole area of Lebanon isn't half the size of the Battle of the Bulge.

So what? This fact justifies Israel's systematic destruction of Lebanon's political and military infrastructure (as opposed to, of course, Hezbollah targets) how? This fact justifies the targeting of cars full of fleeing families how? So what?

Gregory is the kind of personality who so discreditted the left for thirty years.

Someone who alternates between blatant fantasies and flat-out misrepresentations of others' posts has little standing to comment on "discredit."

He has nothing to offer but hate and malice, and has never written anything here that expresses anything more than hate and malice

cld, I defy you to support this statement by reproducing a single post of mine that expresses "hate and malice." Of course, pointing out your own lies, misrepresentations and various falsehoods hardly qualifies.

which is probably why he finds so much sympathy for Islam

Noting, of course, the dishonesty in conflating sympathy for Islam with sympatny for Islamic terrorists -- news flash, cld, the two aren't synonymous -- I similarly defy you to point to a single post of mine that, indeed, expresses sympanthy to Islam, let alone Islamic terrorism.

Another news flash, cld -- criticizing Israel's senseless and counterproductive destruction of Lebanon is not giving a free pass to Hezbollah or any other terrorist group. Giving Israel a free pass while condemning Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, smacks of hypocrisy.

one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived.

cld, your characterization of Islam removes you from the realm of sensible commentator to the right-wing talk radio looney bin. Again, when you aren't posting outright lies you retreat into fantasies bearing little relation to the real world. Sad, really.

Brains of a feather.

I am, of course, amused at the projection required for you to type this sentence.

did you convert to Islam before or after the twin towers fell?

Thank you, cld, for continuing your baseless ad hominem equating criticism of Israel's senseless destruction of human lives for support for Islamic terrorism. It's always a help to me when your delusion and dishonesty are on such prominent display; it saves me the trouble of reminding those who might be unaware of your record when you display it for me.

For a start on this, see Wes Clark's "Broken Engagement" from our May 2004 issue.

He also had a book out in 2003 that discussed how we could go about "Winning Modern War".

Polls are all over the place on this because people do want to leave, they just don't know the best way to go about leaving. A minority want immediate withdrawal, but more want withdrawal in a Friedman or so. But ask these people in six months and they'll probably say the same thing.

The key point here is what Kevin called "cognitive dissonance." Iraq is like Vietnam in this regard: in both cases, we got ourselves into a situation with no honorable way out. We either stay in an unwinnable war with Americans dying for a cause no one can articulate, while the locals die in vastly greater numbers; or we withdraw our troops and let the bad guys take over. No politician ever told us that in the 70s, and no politician is going to say it now.

Well, Gregory, if it's "baseless", you are not Muslim?

Another "...different and more effective way to fight radical jihadism" would be to actually go after the leaders of radical jihadism. You know, guys like Osama and Mullah Omar.

Dems could point out that George hasn't managed to catch them "dead or alive".

All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort.

Ah...I thought he/she/it kept harping on this irrelevant factoid to imply that, gosh darn it, Lebanon is just too small for the Israelis to avoid hitting civilians when shooting at Hezbollah. But now we see cld's logic: the entirety of Lebanon is a military target, so anything Israel attacks is by definition a military target.

Deluded and contrafactual, of course, but at least consistent.

But here's another news flash, cld: "All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort"? No, it doesn't. Lebanon is not Hezbollah; Hezbollah is not Lebanon. I'd suggest that you're confused, but we know by now that it's something much more pathological.

Speaking of pathalogical, slim/watcher/etc. kindly take your cut-and-paste anti-Semitic bullshit and stick it, please. Thanks in advance.

By the way, cld, I await either your providing posts of mine that fit your characterization or your abject apology. Put up or shut up.

I read AL's post somewhere else almost word for word written by someone else.Amazing

cld: All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort.

You are endorsing Osama Bin Laden's rationale for attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

It seems that your only objection to those attacks is that they did it, and not "us".

Fuck it, Killem all.

What do you call a bunch of people who destroy a whole nation on the basis of two soldiers being taken captive.

What do you call a bunch of people who murder civilians in their hundreds, going on thousands, in a preplanned attack.

You call them EVIL NAZI JEWS.

The Republicans embrace an Endless War in Iraq because they need the war for their power. Their perceived strength on national security issues is their only remaining strong suit. So, they'll cling to their war like a moth to a bug-zapper. They have no choice.

Gregory, I defy you to support this statement by reproducing a single post of mine that expresses "hate and malice."

Well I would defy you to point to one that doesn't.

Well I would defy you to point to one that doesn't.

Shall I take that as an admission of failure, cld? My challenge stands, but I'm happy to take you up on yours...oh, say, this one:

Ah...I thought he/she/it kept harping on this irrelevant factoid to imply that, gosh darn it, Lebanon is just too small for the Israelis to avoid hitting civilians when shooting at Hezbollah. But now we see cld's logic: the entirety of Lebanon is a military target, so anything Israel attacks is by definition a military target.

Deluded and contrafactual, of course, but at least consistent.

But here's another news flash, cld: "All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort"? No, it doesn't. Lebanon is not Hezbollah; Hezbollah is not Lebanon. I'd suggest that you're confused, but we know by now that it's something much more pathological.

Speaking of pathalogical, slim/watcher/etc. kindly take your cut-and-paste anti-Semitic bullshit and stick it, please. Thanks in advance.

By the way, cld, I await either your providing posts of mine that fit your characterization or your abject apology. Put up or shut up.

By the way, cld, I still await either your providing posts of mine that fit your characterization or your abject apology. Put up or shut up.

Oh, and Slim, thanks for keeping this discussion from getting, you know, too "intellectual." Nothing like an anti-semite to add spice to the conversation.

Gregory,

Islam is one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived. It was the Islamic world that gave us African slavery.

It's the Islamic world that continues to justify slavery to this very day,

http://www.averroes-foundation.org/articles/sex_slavery.html

(The author is a Muslim.)

It's a justification if the only reason they exist is to attack Israel in the first place, and having attacked them in the first place, aare discovered to be considerably more powerful and well-equipped than had been believed.

Note the "if." However, back in the real world the only reason Hezbollah exists is not solely to attack Israel -- Hezbollah began in the early 1980s as an alliance of Shiite groups opposed to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, i.e. not to attack Israel but to drive Israel out of their country. While Hezbollah continues to attack Israel, (in large part for the increased stature such attacks give Hezbollah in the Middle East) its main activities are targeted towards establishing a Shiite theocracy in the south of Lebanon.

Moreover, the above quote doesn't even make sense. The justification to attack Hezbollah is because they are militarily more powerful than thought, even though this fact was not discovered until after the invasion that this supposedly was the justification for?

SecularAnimist,

binLaden's rationale for attacking the World Trade Center is that it was the world headquarters of the international conspiracy to dominate the universe.

Arabs were going on about this as early as the early 1980s, when I first heard them talking about it.

Please don't mention Wesson Oil Clark while readers might be eating.

cld: which is probably why he finds so much sympathy for Islam, one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived.

Well, it's official: cld has revealed himself to be of the raving lunatic bigot school.

Gregory:

Your post on August 7, 2006 at 4:53 PM exhibits "hate and malice". Now, are you Muslim or not?

Islam is one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived.

Here's a hint, cld: When challenged on an assertion, simply repeating the assertion is not exactly convincing.

It was the Islamic world that gave us African slavery.

And the Christian world that perpetuated it. To say nothing of the various traditions of slavery throughout the world. So what?

It's the Islamic world that continues to justify slavery to this very day

Do you really need me to point out how dishonest it is to represent the opinion of one Muslim author as "the Islamic world"? And again, if memory serves me right, the fine Christian men of the Confederacy were not short on their own justifications for slavery.

And moreover, I need hardly remind you that slavery is far from the only evil afoot in the world. After all, you continue to justify the killing of civilians by the Israeli military and the IDF's destruction of civilian targets. No one here, to my knowledge, is justifying the killing of cibvilins by Muslim extremists, but you go on insisting that the Israelis are right in their actions. I, of course, disagree, and I suggest that if you're going to look for someone advocating evil, cld, get a mirror.

Islam is one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived. It was the Islamic world that gave us African slavery.

Which slave trade the good Christian Americans were simply too pious and, well, Christian to ever participate in.

Your post on August 7, 2006 at 4:53 PM exhibits "hate and malice".

Only someone as dishonest as you would say so, Charlie.

Iraq is the new (OK not so new anymore) Vietnam, but this is not the 60s.
The Dems ceased being the natural party of government because they were perceived as the party of the breakdown of order. By the 70s, even many people who supported/took part in much of the 60s were nervous about how much had changed how quickly and the sense that we no longer had a clear sense of where we were going.
Most of the country knew that Vietnam had been a mistake but many wanted that mistake dealt with in a way that re-established some order and reliability, not in a way that created more chaos. (And the fact that most of us on the left did not understand that piece made the fear of chaos even greater.)
This showed up in particular in the perception of the Democrats as "soft on crime". That issue combined very real insecurities plus extra fear fanned by intensive media coverage (there was a shift in evening news to all crime all the time) plus residual anti-Black sentiment that could not be expressed openly in those pre-Limbaugh days.
{Aside: The Triple Blade Occam's razor would throw out all this and simply say: The South never forgave the North for abolishing slavery and it never forgave the Democrats for abolishing segregration. Move the Solid South from the Democratic column to the Dixiecrat/Wallace/Rove column and voila.)
The biggest difference between the 60-70s and now is that then people were trying to repair perceived disorder, but now the problem is misorder.
Whoever can show the nation how to generate more good jobs in America and get us out of the long-term energy pinch will be the next natural party of government.

It's the Islamic world that continues to justify slavery to this very day,

I think you are confusing "the Islamic world" with "Jack Abramoff and the Republican Party".

Well, it's official: cld has revealed himself to be of the raving lunatic bigot school.

To be fair, Stefan, cld has long since asserted his raving lunatic status (for example: "binLaden's rationale for attacking the World Trade Center is that it was the world headquarters of the international conspiracy to dominate the universe" ... um, no; bin Laden justified it as -- surprise -- infrasturcture that supports the US's hegemony). It's simply the bigotry that's new.

cld: All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort.

And all the infrastructure in Israel inherently supports the Israeli military effort -- in fact, even more so than in Lebanon, since most non-ultra-Orthodox Israelis are in the active military and/or reserves. If you accept this reasoning, then, it's perfectly justified for Hezbollah to shoot its rockets anywhere in Israel at all.

By the way Juan Cole is also Jew false-opposition.

I have posted the article Israel Fakes a Provocation (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Gilad Shalit) three times to "Informed" Comment and none have been published.

So much Jew false-opposition,... no wonder Americans (in particular) are so deceived.

Who would have thought Juan Cole was a Jew operative?

Gregory:

I'm not "Charlie" (more evidence of your malice) but since you repeatedly ignored my question, I will have to assume you are Muslim.

I'm not "Charlie"

More evidence of your dishoensty. It takes more than blockquote tags to disguise your verbal tics. ;)

but since you repeatedly ignored my question

I thought you were the advocate of ignore lists, Charlie?

I will have to assume you are Muslim.

Assume all you like -- it'll have no more grounding in reality than any of your other assumptions. ;)

Stefan,

Hezbollah was organized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards for the purpose of carrying on the struggle against Israel. What they did to make themselves popular is simply in support of that.

from The Hizbollah Program, 1985

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/Hiz_letter.htm

The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel (See ICT Note)
We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

Gregory:

No need to get hostile. For the record, I have pointed out the "hate and malice" in Watcher/slim's posts, as well as Red State Mike's post about Kerry's military service. Using your logic, then, I am an anti-Semite and the juinor Senator from Massachusetts as well?

Charlie Lawrence posting as "Thomas" wrote: I'm not "Charlie" (more evidence of your malice)

Yes, you are Charlie. More evidence of your dishonesty and cowardice.

No need to get hostile.

Thanks for confirming you're as dishonest about hostility as you are about "hate and malice," Charlie.

Using your logic, then, I am an anti-Semite and the juinor Senator from Massachusetts as well?

Only using your own dishonest logic, Charlie, not mine.

Gregory,

Your continual attempts to pick a fight with anyone in your support of corruption and villainy, as you did at the inception of this thread where you intentionally misread and mischaracterize two posts of mine, which I would have thought you would have actually agreed with, is ample illustration of your true character.

And the example you give of a post of yours that doesn't radiate hatred and malice, indeed radiates hatred and malice in a most excellent way.

It was the Islamic world that gave us African slavery.

Slavery in Africa dates back thousands of years before Islam existed.

Fine, guys -- I must be mistaken then about your "hostility" and somewhere in the past, I guess "Charlie" has been critical about Bush and Iraq too -- so much for dealing with the reality-based crowd.

cld, I'm really trying to help you here. To react to someone pointing out your dishonest characterizations with more dishonest characterizations hardly enhances your credibility.

Of course, on the off chance that you're sincere in your characteriation of my example, delusional paranoia isn't exactly a credibility boost either.

About the 72 McGovern loss, it is important to remember that the party structure was in transition from the "smoked fill room" bosses to primaries and interest groups (checkbox liberalism). McGovern won the nomination by using the primary process to gain legitimacy rather than having the party leadership give him legitimacy and winning primaries based on that. (The Muskie strategy that worked so poorly for Dean in 2004 with Gore.)
McGovern tried to make peace with the old party system after he got the nomination but it sat on its hands and let him lose.
Probably McGovern would have lost anyway but the party structure not backing him turned a loss into a rout.
However, if the press had printed in 1972 what it printed in 1973 (Watergate etc.), McGovern might have won.
His other problem was that not only the party structure hated him but much of the establishment perceived his movement* as too risky, too over the line, and therefore the press etc. took sides against him rather than be more balanced.
*Not McGovern as an individual but the combination of McGovern with all the newcomers who were his campaign.
One lesson for now: institutions that have not been innocent in political mistakes (for example the Times and Post with Iraq) may fight more against those who have been right than against those who have been wrong, even after those institutions change their own positions.

Hezbollah was organized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards for the purpose of carrying on the struggle against Israel.

While Hezbollah was indeed organized with assistance from (but not "by") the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, their core program was indeed the expulsion of the IDF from Lebanon. Let's to go respected third-party source Global Security (www.globalsecurity.org):

Hizballah is an Islamic movement founded after the Israeli military seizure of Lebanon in 1982, which resulted in the formation of Islamic resistance units committed to the liberation of the occupied territories and the ejection of Israeli forces. Hizbollah was established in 1982 during the Lebanon War when a group of Lebanese Shi'ite Muslims declared themselves to be the "Party of God" (Hizb Allah, which is clear in Hizbollah but progressively less so in Hizbollah / Hizbullah / Hezbollah). Upon the realization that the IDF was entrenching itself in south Lebanon, and influenced and assisted by 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon, Hizballah cells began developing with the immediate desire to resist the Israeli invasion. Hizbollah began establishing its base in Lebanon in 1982 and has expanded and strengthened ever since, primarily due to its wave of suicide bombings and foreign support by Iran and Syria.

Slavery in Africa dates back thousands of years before Islam existed.

Not the international trade and religious justification of it. Chattel slavery is an Arab invention.

My parents are left leaning and were so at the time. They voted for Nixon first and foremost because he promised to get the country out of the war in '68. He lied though. They didn't vote for him again in '72. But at that point he was the incumbent. And had all the powers (and those extraordinary powers that were against the law) to keep himself in power. I don't know if that explains the rest of the country, but it explains two people that I consider fairly typical left leaning voters.

I call them Vietcrats and can't wait until their generation is gone from the system. This isn't the 60s and war protesting isn't the way to political success. We need smart policies that work somewhere between Drum and Al. The belligerent approach of this admin is an obvious treasure and blood disaster, yet the Terrorists need therapy direction is wrong too. There is a smarter way to deal with this important issue. A way to uses military force and diplomacy in a dance that kills off Jihadism without adding to the recruiting base. I think back to the cold war days. If we had choosen a hot war with the USSR instead of a cold war, there would be nothing but disaster and we might not even be here. Why not the same cold war approach with terrorism. This apporach doesn't hesitate to start a hot war if need be, but relies mostly covert action, and working with countries to curb their Jihadists appitites through diplomacy and aid. I thought post 911 strategies were going the way of a cold war. After dumping the taliban, we chase OBL and AQ, and also dried up their $$$ and supporters. But then Iraq happened, a completely naive action on our part, hoping to start a democrasy in a land of ethnic hatred. Wouldn't Saddam have been a better ally then an enemy? He could have been turned to with money and support. In short, we need smarter guys (left or right) running the show. The current crop ain't getting it done, and certainly aren't doing it with smarts. And the current crop of 60s vietcrats are worse yet. Pray a smart president candidate emerges soon.

According to Mr. Drum. a dovish foreign policy stance won't convince Americans to vote for the Democratic party, but:

"There's an alternative: persuading the American public that there's a different and more effective way to fight radical jihadism, one that relies more on economic engagement and public diplomacy and less on mid-20th century notions of fighting wars against uniformed armies."

In other words, take responsibility for fighting jihadism out of the hands of Rumsfeld and Cheney, and put it in the hands of -- Rice and Wolfowitz?

I would love to hear how the WTO and World Bank -- which peddle schemes that push developing nations into disasterous privitization programs, ones that exacerbate the hardships of the masses they are overtly designed to help -- can save us from the wrath of the jihadists.

Or is it that these very economic programs which dovetail nicely with the military solutions our current administration seems to prefer?

Different and more effective? Hardly.

Stefan,

Yes, but that's like arguing that the Republican Party was around before the railroads took it over.

I was looking at this,

http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/article.asp?ln=en&id=6915

Not the international trade and religious justification of it. Chattel slavery is an Arab invention.

Nonsense. I take it you've never heard of the Roman Empire, then?

Nonsense. I take it you've never heard of the Roman Empire, then?

Or Greeks.

Not the international trade and religious justification of it. Chattel slavery is an Arab invention.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." -- Confederate States President Jefferson Davis

I know, my desire to end national perpetrated violence by turning our war heros into monsters does not resonate with many Americans, liberal or conservative. It is unsavory to have to point out that the national desires for dominance and the leaders and heros of of the aggression it leads to are in fact horrible human beings who perform terrible deeds in our name. It seems to be politically impossible for the US to do the right thing. It was politically impossible to use the international criminal justice system to stop al Queda rather than going to war and committing the collateral damage it created. It is politically impossible to use compromise to provide the weak with their feeble demands rather than make them submit to our will with superior force. It is politically impossible because Americans suffer from a national hubris that only a terrible defeat can end. It is the same kind of national hubris the Germans and Japanese suffered from. The only problem is the US will never allow itself to be defeated without first destroying the world. That is the legacy of being nuclear armed: we are trapped in militancy to the end.

The US needs a homegrown Gorbachev to dismantle our war machine. Afghanistan led to Gorbachev and the fall of the USSR, perhaps Iraq can do the same for US imperialism. Unfortunately, neither liberals or conservatives would recognize a savior like that.

Stefan and Davis X. Machina:

Egypt was trading in slavery long before either the Greeks or Roman Empire.

Also, I do have to apologize to you, Gregory -- that reference to your logic was supposed to be re: craigie's logic on another thread that I was "Charlie" -- it's difficult to keep track of everyone's accusations about that, "DonP.", etc. I still think you are Muslim though.

Stefan,

They got that from slave traders who got it from Arab slave traders.

Hostile:

So, someone should issue an apology / reparations for Hiroshima and Nagasaki too, right? You and Watcher/slim have more in common than I thought.

Slavery in the ancient world was considerably different. Slaves were a class, not property.

I agree with cld on this one.

cld wrote: Chattel slavery is an Arab invention.

That's an anti-Semitic lie, cld.

Semite (n.): A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.

-- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

Arab-haters who spread hateful anti-Arab lies and advocate the mass murder of Arabs are anti-Semites, just as Jew-haters who spread hateful anti-Jewish lies and advocate the mass murder of Jews are anti-Semites.

Not the international trade and religious justification of it.

International slave trading and religious justifications for slavery (in Africa, even) also predate Islam by thousands of years.

Chattel slavery is an Arab invention.

No, it isn't. And even if it were, it (like the Arab ethnicity) predates Islam; a pre-Islamic Arab invention cannot be blamed on Islam without invoking retrocausality.

They got that from slave traders who got it from Arab slave traders.

OK, that settles it: you're a idiot.

Golly. Kevin better put up another post soon, 'cause this thread has degenerated into a vortex.

Slavery in the ancient world was considerably different. Slaves were a class, not property.

They were both; they could be (and were) bought and sold, like any other piece of property.

BEFORE the Egyptian slave trade, cmdicely?!

International slave trading and religious justifications for slavery (in Africa, even) also predate Islam by thousands of years.

They really don't. Where is the Roman or Greek myth that confers the gift of slavery on the world?

Slavery in the ancient world was highly various, but in Roman and Greek areas was legally more analogous to indentured servitude, where the slave could, technically, buy or recover his freedom through established procedure. In practice it hardly protected you.

The distinction is in the large-scale international trade and transport of large numbers of people at once, which the Arabs developed in Africa, where they have no rights at all and are treated pretty exactly as a better form of animal.

O.K., we are mixing up two different things. In Egypt, the unified kingdom was founded circa 3200 BC by King Narmer, and a series of dynasties ruled for the next three millennia -- unless I am mistaken, that is the first recorded instance of mass slavery in the world -- that was what I was referring to.

And, actually, I'm not blaming Islam for that "slave" class, but I do agree with cld that the international slave trading and religious justifications took off under islam. It was the Muslim Arabs who introduced Islam and the Arabic language in the seventh century to the Egyptians, who gradually adopted both. Muslim rulers nominated by the Islamic Caliphate remained in control of Egypt for the next six centuries after that, exporting African slaves. Perhaps that is what cld is referring to?

cld, you are the worst performance artist that I've ever seen...I'd rather listen to a mime than read your drivel...What the hell does the origin of slavery have to do with this topic?

It's devolved from a discussion of what we should do and communicate about extracting ourselves from this pit of failed foreign policy to a couple of people arguing the finer points of their hate and intolerance...

grape_crush:

It was "Hostile" who actually brought up slavery first on this thread. I thought cld's point to Gregory: "Islam is one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived. It was the Islamic world that gave us African slavery" was a valid rebuttal.

BEFORE the Egyptian slave trade, cmdicely?!

The Egyptians then weren't Arabs, and, even if they had been, weren't Muslims, since Islam hadn't been founded yet.

So, even if they had invented slavery (they didn't), it wouldn't be an invention of the Islamic world.

They really don't. Where is the Roman or Greek myth that confers the gift of slavery on the world?

The various forms of ancient Egyptian slavery had religious justification, indeed some were exclusively religious institutions.

Not REAL religion, Chris.

And, actually, I'm not blaming Islam for that "slave" class, but I do agree with cld that the international slave trading and religious justifications took off under islam. It was the Muslim Arabs who introduced Islam and the Arabic language in the seventh century to the Egyptians, who gradually adopted both. Muslim rulers nominated by the Islamic Caliphate remained in control of Egypt for the next six centuries after that, exporting African slaves. Perhaps that is what cld is referring to?

Perhaps that was what he was talking about, but as that was neither when the slavery in Africa was created, nor when it really took off (which was later when it became entangled with European colonialism), it hardly justifies his claim.

I thought cld's point to Gregory: "Islam is one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived. It was the Islamic world that gave us African slavery" was a valid rebuttal.

I would have thought that in order to be a "valid rebuttal" it would have to have some passing resemblance to truth.

Not the international trade and religious justification of it.

Again, cld's omission of the roles of Christians in this history is nothing short of shocking. Delusion or dishonesty? Why not both?

Not REAL religion, Chris.

If—and pretty much only if—by "REAL religion" you mean "Islam", then I will grant you that Islam provided the first religious justification for slavery.

I would have thought that in order to be a "valid rebuttal" it would have to have some passing resemblance to truth.

That philosophy excludes you from a position with the Scaife Counter Blogging Project, not to mention excluding you from the ranks of the Bush Apologists, cmd. ;)

If you want $10 a gallon gasoline vote Neocon.

LOL, Chris -- outside of New Age crap, I don't know of many people worshipping Osiris and Isis today, do you?

LOL, Chris -- outside of New Age crap, I don't know of many people worshipping Osiris and Isis today, do you?

So? That hardly means the religion wasn't real at the time.

Further, Christian religious justifications of slavery (including, inter alia that of Pope Gregory I) predate those of Islam, and even Islam itself.

But I guess Christianity isn't a "REAL religion" to you, either.

I did allege the Arabs and Persians were 'oil slaves.' The Arabs and Persians have been made subservient to the needs of the corporations and nations that exploit their natural resource of oil. These people have been unable to exert their national interests in their own countries because of the power the oil exploiters are able to bear upon them. I could say the same thing about banana workers in Central America and their exploitation by corporate agriculture.

America needs leaders who will point this out and ask the American people if they want to impose corporate slave ownership as a national policy in order to steal other people's natural resources or produce. It is my hope that if most Americans knew about the suffering caused in their name they would want it stopped. The problem seems to be politicians and pundits think it is politically impossible to reason with the American people, liberal or conservative.

Slavery in the ancient world was highly various, but in Roman and Greek areas was legally more analogous to indentured servitude, where the slave could, technically, buy or recover his freedom through established procedure. In practice it hardly protected you. The distinction is in the large-scale international trade and transport of large numbers of people at once, which the Arabs developed in Africa, where they have no rights at all and are treated pretty exactly as a better form of animal.

In fact, no. The Romans engaged in large-scale international trade and transport of slaves to feed their farms and industries, which had a voracious appetite for new bodies year after year. Hundreds of thousands of slaves were transported across the Republic and then the Empire every year. See, e.g. Tom Holland's "Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic":

The mines that Rome had annexed from Carthage more than a century previously had been handed over to the publicani, who proceeded to exploit them with their customary gusto. A single network of tunnels might spread for more than a hundred square miles, and provide upwards of forty thousand slaves with a living death....

The work of slaves was infinitely more crushing. This was particularly the case in the countryside, where conditions were at their worse. Gangs were bought wholesale, branded, and set to labor from dawn until dusk. At night they would be locked up in huge crowded barracks. Not a shred of dignity or privacy was permitted them. They were fed the barest minimum required to keep them alive...It hardly mattered to their masters whether they survived or starved. After all, as Roman agriculturalists liked to remind their readers, there was no point in wasting money on useless tools.

Thomas on August 7, 2006 at 6:25 PM:

It was "Hostile" who actually..

Actually, Hostile's 3:44p post did nothing of the sort...You must have confused 'economic oppression' with 'the buying and selling of human beings'.

...malice ever conceived. It was the Islamic world that gave us African slavery" was a valid rebuttal.

Not really, because it, well, isn't valid...In any case, I guess you missed the larger point of my earlier posting...

Kevin: "But there's an alternative: persuading the American public that there's a different and more effective way to fight radical jihadism, one that relies more on economic engagement and public diplomacy and less on mid-20th century notions of fighting wars against uniformed armies."

I don't know how or why this thread has evolved into a discussion on who or what was responsible for the institution of slavery, but I for one am going to try to get back on topic.

I can think of nothing else that could better persuade Americans to accept Kevin's concept [that there's a different and more effective way to fight radical jihadism] than:
(a) Re-instituting the military draft without any exemptions; and
(b) Stop budgeting the current wars off the books, which obfuscates the true costs of the Bush Administration's military adverturism and masks the looming fiscal calamity that is our ballooning budget deficit.

As it now stands, the military's ranks (especially the infantry and other front-line forces) are filled disproportionally with the economically disadvantaged, i.e., blacks, latinos, and non-urban whites.

The poor and lower middle classes are bearing the brunt of the war, while the rest of America lives in an alternate universe where people go shopping and then come home to complaints from their children that there's nothing to watch on television but re-runs.

I remember sitting silently appalled three years ago at a work-related party, listening to a 20-something clown rave wildly about how the Iraq War would be great for the stock market! Meanwhile, the GOP-led Congress can't act quickly enough when it comes to giving tax cuts for the wealthiest segments of our society.

This administration's blatantly irresponsible fiscal policy increases the federal budget deficit into the stratosphere, and shifts the rising economic costs of its misbegotten warmongering onto what Lenora Helmsley so blithely dismissed as "the little people."

For the poor and disadvantaged, it's become clearly a case of double jeopardy -- the troops come home from the front lines, only to be presented with the invoice for the war's costs.

Only when the entire economic spectrum of La Vida Americana is forced to realize and share the true financial and physical burdens of this administration's malfeasance and ineptitude, will Kevin's appeal to sanity and reason even begin to resonate nationwide.

cmd: But I guess Christianity isn't a "REAL religion" to you, either.

Oooh, that's gotta hit Charlie where he lives...

Stefan: In fact, no.

I suspect that we could save ourselves some keystrokes by responding to every cld post this way and not be wrong.

Donald, it was three years ago Easter, right after the Iraq invasion, when I went to church with my wife and I saw all of those evangelicals waving their arms and knowing they were going to heaven for their righteousnous that I understood the electorate was insane. That is why it is so difficult for any good leader to communicate America's sins and way to salvation.

"....when I went to church with my wife and I saw all of those evangelicals waving their arms and knowing they were going to heaven for their righteousnous that I understood the electorate was insane"

You're equating roughly 50 evangelicals in church to the "electorate"? No wonder you guys lose elections. I believe this statement is a great example of the disconnect the far left has with the true attitudes of the current voting public.

"If you don't think that Saddam was a gathering danger and needed to be removed, then don't for me"

Gregory, who said that?

我向大家推荐:要想寻找三面翻信息请访问 三面翻 网，各种三面翻应有尽有。您想要了解 广告机 吗？请到中国广告机网来寻找广告机。中国 包装设计 网，打造包装设计领域专业搜索平台，提供全球包装设计品牌公司及产品展示。上海 企业形象设计 公司专业生产企业形象设计产品，欢迎选择企业形象设计。中国 标志设计 网，打造标志设计领域专业搜索平台，提供全球标志设计品牌公司及产品展示。您想要了解 标志设计 吗？请到中国标志设计网来寻找标志设计。北京 外观设计/家电设计 厂向广大客户提供外观设计/家电设计产品及外观设计/家电设计服务。上海 包装设计 公司专业生产包装设计产品，欢迎选择包装设计。产品设计 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的产品设计,丰富产品设计行业资讯助您成交。北京 广告设计 厂向广大客户提供广告设计产品及广告设计服务。要想寻找包装设计信息请访问 包装设计 网，各种包装设计应有尽有。

我向大家推荐:日工 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的日工,丰富日工行业资讯助您成交。北京 压滤机 厂向广大客户提供压滤机产品及压滤机服务。您想要了解 超声波清洗机 吗？请到中国超声波清洗机网来寻找超声波清洗机。北京 高频机 厂向广大客户提供高频机产品及高频机服务。您想要了解 离心机 吗？请到中国离心机网来寻找离心机。上海 清洗机 公司专业生产清洗机产品，欢迎选择清洗机。要想寻找粉碎机信息请访问 粉碎机 网，各种粉碎机应有尽有。挖机/挖土机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的挖机/挖土机,丰富挖机/挖土机行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解 二手挖机 吗？请到中国二手挖机网来寻找二手挖机。压力校验仪 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的压力校验仪,丰富压力校验仪行业资讯助您成交。北京 减速机 厂向广大客户提供减速机产品及减速机服务。中国 汽车吊 网，打造汽车吊领域专业搜索平台，提供全球汽车吊品牌公司及产品展示。中国 传动机械 网，打造传动机械领域专业搜索平台，提供全球传动机械品牌公司及产品展示。中国 挖掘机 网，打造挖掘机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球挖掘机品牌公司及产品展示。北京 压路机 厂向广大客户提供压路机产品及压路机服务。除湿机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的除湿机,丰富除湿机行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找二手挖掘机信息请访问 二手挖掘机 网，各种二手挖掘机应有尽有。上海 二手挖掘机 公司专业生产二手挖掘机产品，欢迎选择二手挖掘机。减速机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的减速机,丰富减速机行业资讯助您成交。北京 升降机 厂向广大客户提供升降机产品及升降机服务。要想寻找减速机信息请访问 减速机 网，各种减速机应有尽有。北京 二手挖掘机 厂向广大客户提供二手挖掘机产品及二手挖掘机服务。防闭塞装置 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的防闭塞装置,丰富防闭塞装置行业资讯助您成交。北京 电磁振动给料机 厂向广大客户提供电磁振动给料机产品及电磁振动给料机服务。要想寻找鹤壁通用机械厂信息请访问 鹤壁通用机械厂 网，各种鹤壁通用机械厂应有尽有。要想寻找仓壁振动器信息请访问 仓壁振动器 网，各种仓壁振动器应有尽有。离心机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的离心机,丰富离心机行业资讯助您成交。北京 离心机 厂向广大客户提供离心机产品及离心机服务。减速机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的减速机,丰富减速机行业资讯助您成交。上海 平衡机 公司专业生产平衡机产品，欢迎选择平衡机。上海 喷码机 公司专业生产喷码机产品，欢迎选择喷码机。北京 升降机 厂向广大客户提供升降机产品及升降机服务。北京 缠绕机/包装机械 厂向广大客户提供缠绕机/包装机械产品及缠绕机/包装机械服务。北京 二手挖掘机 厂向广大客户提供二手挖掘机产品及二手挖掘机服务。中国 二手挖掘机 网，打造二手挖掘机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球二手挖掘机品牌公司及产品展示。您想要了解 减速机 吗？请到中国减速机网来寻找减速机。中国 二手挖掘机 网，打造二手挖掘机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球二手挖掘机品牌公司及产品展示。中国 磁选机 网，打造磁选机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球磁选机品牌公司及产品展示。中国 离心机 网，打造离心机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球离心机品牌公司及产品展示。橡胶机械 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的橡胶机械,丰富橡胶机械行业资讯助您成交。中国 标记机/打标机 网，打造标记机/打标机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球标记机/打标机品牌公司及产品展示。|蜗轮减速机/摆线减速机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的|蜗轮减速机/摆线减速机,丰富|蜗轮减速机/摆线减速机行业资讯助您成交。中国 二手挖掘机 网，打造二手挖掘机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球二手挖掘机品牌公司及产品展示。中国 登车桥 网，打造登车桥领域专业搜索平台，提供全球登车桥品牌公司及产品展示。上海 升降平台 公司专业生产升降平台产品，欢迎选择升降平台。北京 升降台 厂向广大客户提供升降台产品及升降台服务。要想寻找移动式升降机信息请访问 移动式升降机 网，各种移动式升降机应有尽有。您想要了解 真空吊具/真空吸盘 吗？请到中国真空吊具/真空吸盘网来寻找真空吊具/真空吸盘。中国 激光切割机 网，打造激光切割机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球激光切割机品牌公司及产品展示。中国 叉车 网，打造叉车领域专业搜索平台，提供全球叉车品牌公司及产品展示。

我向大家推荐:真空泵 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的真空泵,丰富真空泵行业资讯助您成交。上海 螺杆泵 公司专业生产螺杆泵产品，欢迎选择螺杆泵。要想寻找油泵信息请访问 油泵 网，各种油泵应有尽有。上海 磁力泵 公司专业生产磁力泵产品，欢迎选择磁力泵。自吸泵 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的自吸泵,丰富自吸泵行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找排污泵信息请访问 排污泵 网，各种排污泵应有尽有。您想要了解 螺杆泵 吗？请到中国螺杆泵网来寻找螺杆泵。北京 隔膜泵 厂向广大客户提供隔膜泵产品及隔膜泵服务。中国 化工泵 网，打造化工泵领域专业搜索平台，提供全球化工泵品牌公司及产品展示。北京 磁力泵 厂向广大客户提供磁力泵产品及磁力泵服务。真空泵 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的真空泵,丰富真空泵行业资讯助您成交。中国 电磁阀 网，打造电磁阀领域专业搜索平台，提供全球电磁阀品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找高压泵/往复泵/试压泵信息请访问 高压泵/往复泵/试压泵 网，各种高压泵/往复泵/试压泵应有尽有。北京 高压清洗机 厂向广大客户提供高压清洗机产品及高压清洗机服务。上海 化工泵 公司专业生产化工泵产品，欢迎选择化工泵。北京 水泵 厂向广大客户提供水泵产品及水泵服务。中国 高压柱塞泵 网，打造高压柱塞泵领域专业搜索平台，提供全球高压柱塞泵品牌公司及产品展示。北京 聚丙烯离心泵 厂向广大客户提供聚丙烯离心泵产品及聚丙烯离心泵服务。中国 蠕动泵 网，打造蠕动泵领域专业搜索平台，提供全球蠕动泵品牌公司及产品展示。北京 电机 厂向广大客户提供电机产品及电机服务。

Just so we know,

I googled 'Arab slave trading',

http://www.google.com/search?q=arab+slave+trading&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

I never 'omitted any mention of Christians' in the history of Arab slave trading, because for the most part, they were the victims of it,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1166720,00.html

and that just covers the period after 1500.

Hey Kevin,

I've got a great idea to help the USA finally do better (or stop being so humiliated) by the war in Iraq. Let's go and recruit every LGFer, every Freeper, every Dispensationalist Rapture Left Behind idiot, who goes out championing the Iraq War on talk radio and elsewhere, and demand that these loudmouths go out and fight the war themselves that they believe in so much. (After all, we're being whipped in Iraq, in large part, because we don't have enough Americans volunteering to join the military and fight it.)

All those big Iraq War supporters of military age who refuse to fight in it, are a bunch of hypocrites and cowards. They should back up their bluster with action, or shut their mouths in the first place.

just so I'm clear ... we're debating cld's random and varied justifications for his anti-arab racism why, exactly? are we obligated to explain away the racism of every piece of white trash that posts here?

should we start defending or trying to understand slim's anti-semitism next?

cld's and slim's posts originate from the same underlying pathology ... frankly, one that's easy enough to comprehend without delving into a discussion of the orgins of slavery.

LOL, Chris -- outside of New Age crap, I don't know of many people worshipping Osiris and Isis today, do you?

I would guess that most modern day followers of Kemet are probably aware enough to sense your inner imbalance and steer clear of you if your paths were to cross.

In addition to serious people who are reviving ancient ways of understanding that were displaced, often violently, by the monotheistic religions, the world has plenty of living Zoroastrians, Medicine People, Gnostics, Taoists, Shinto, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and others who follow ancient beliefs that have been passed down along well-established and unbroken lineages.

Your casual mockery of their beliefs exposes both your parochialism and your idiocy.

I never 'omitted any mention of Christians' in the history of Arab slave trading, because for the most part, they were the victims of it

That's a fascinating way to describe the Confederacy, which, last I looked, occurred after 1500.

I believe a good plan for fighting terrorism should revolve around actually fighting terrorists. (apologies to Israel, India, Sri Lanka, The Phillipines, and every other country but the US should start with organizations that have the ability to strike the US and/or its installations)

Maybe cld is a drunk and therefore not responsible for what he writes.

Gregory,

What do you mean? That reference was to 'Arab slave trading', not 'Confederate or American slave trading'.

stefan,

That is an excellent point. There are a lot of descriptions like that, especially from the latter part of the Roman era, of whole populations being transplanted, but those things occurred within the empire, or from its fringe. The Arab system was different because it was organized on a continuous and international scale transporting people huge distances, from western Africa as far as India, and maybe even farther. It was a system that formed the backbone of the international Islamic economy was remained in place, with huge trading stations like Zanzibar, for centuries, until the Colonial powers set about abolishing it wherever they could. Which is really what set the Islamic world into decline in the first part of the 19th century.

This article from Bernard Lewis is really about the last word on slavery in Islam,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html

Purchase: This came to be by far the most important means for the legal acquisition of new slaves. Slaves were purchased on the frontiers of the Islamic world and then imported to the major centers, where there were slave markets from which they were widely distributed. In one of the sad paradoxes of human history, it was the humanitarian reforms brought by Islam that resulted in a vast development of the slave trade inside, and still more outside, the Islamic empire. In the Roman world, the slave population was occasionally recruited from outside, when a new territory was conquered or a barbarian invasion repelled, but mostly, slaves came from internal sources. This was not possible in the Islamic empire, where, although slavery was maintained, enslavement was banned. The result was an increasingly massive importation of slaves from the outside. Like enslavement, mutilation was forbidden by Islamic law. The great numbers of eunuchs needed to preserve the sanctity of palaces, homes, and some holy places had to be imported from outside or, as often happened, "manufactured" at the frontier. In medieval and Ottoman times the two main sources of eunuchs were Slavs and Ethiopians (Habash, a term which commonly included all the peoples of the Horn of Africa). Eunuchs were also recruited among Greeks (Rum), West Africans (Takrurl, pl. Takarina), Indians, and occasionally West Europeans. . . . .The need, from early medieval times onward, to import large and growing numbers of slaves led to a rapid increase, in all the lands beyond the frontiers of the Islamic world, of both slave raiding and slave trading -- the one to procure and maintain an adequate supply of the required commodity, the other to ensure its efficient distribution and delivery. In the ancient world, where most slaves other than war captives were of local provenance, slave trading was a simple and mostly local affair, often combined with other articles of commerce. In the Islamic world, where slaves were transported over great distances from their places of origin, the slave trade was more complex and more specialized with a network of trade routes and markets extending all over the Islamic world and far beyond its frontiers and involving commercial relations with suppliers in Christian Europe, in the Turkish steppe-lands, and in black Africa. In every important city there was a slave market, usually called Suq al-Raqiq. When new supplies were brought, government inspectors usually took the first choice, then officials, then private persons. It would seem that slaves were not normally sold in open markets but in decently covered places -- a practice which continued in some areas to the nineteenth, in others till the twentieth, century.

Lewis is obviously more sympathetic to the Middle East than I am, but by the time you get about halfway through the sheer mass of it overwhelms you. For most of its history the Islamic world existed on religion and slavery.

Dems need to stop overanalyzing their every move and go after the jugular veins of those wimpy Repukes the way they go after us. Those pussies will cry like babies if you punch 'em a few times hard in the nose. Damn the torpedos and full speed ahead!

I think Kevin has a very good point about Reagan. After the sense of impotence in the late 1970s, a lot of Americans really liked his gungho machismo. I think the Dems in the 1980s really missed the importance of people feeling good about America again.

With regards to Iraq, I never supported this war yet I feel a sense of responsibility for what has happened over there. On the other hand, I want to get our troops out of harms way as quickly as possible.

Most Americans are very unhappy with the way things are going in Iraq but I am not sure what exactly that equates to. Does it mean leave immediately or does it mean fix it quickly and leave. In short, I am very conflicted and I think my feelings are shared by many.

One thing that is patently clear - the current policy is a complete failure and we need a change of direction.

Kevin Drum quotes Mark Schmitt as saying:

The real reason the Vietnam War divided and discredited Democrats and splintered the liberal consensus was because — let’s not be afraid to admit it — Democrats started that war....

The Pentagon records the Vietnam War's starting date as November 1, 1955.

Eisenhower sent US military there, before Kennedy became President.

Kennedy was elected in 1960, and actually took office in January 1961.

Mark, whenever you get around to actually studying history, or even (shock!) visiting the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC, look up the names of Dale Buis and Chester Ovnand, who were killed by Viet Cong guerrillas on July 8, 1959, in Bien Hoa, Quang Tri province, South Vietnam.

(Look on the Wall at Panel 1-E, Row 1; they're the first names listed.)

That is an excellent point.

Yes, it is.

There are a lot of descriptions like that, especially from the latter part of the Roman era,

The description I quoted above was from the Republic circa 80 BC.

of whole populations being transplanted, but those things occurred within the empire, or from its fringe.

What?

The Arab system was different

No, not really.

because it was organized on a continuous and international scale transporting people huge distances, from western Africa as far as India, and maybe even farther.

As was the Roman system. It was organized on a continuous and international scale transporting slaves huge distances, from as far north as Scotland, as far south as the southern Sahara, as far west as Morocco and as far east as Persia.

It was a system that formed the backbone of the international Islamic economy was remained in place, with huge trading stations like Zanzibar, for centuries, until the Colonial powers set about abolishing it wherever they could.

The Roman system of slavery, similarly, formed the backbone of the Roman international economy until the barbarian invasions.

Yeah, that Mark's a maroon alright.

Interesting point about Dems not grasping the subtext of the "Morning in America" meme; I think this goes to an essential blue-red divide that is quite hard to address. Dems tend to go on the assumption that citizens want them to roll up their sleeves and solve problems -- the Henry Fonda-as-Uncle Sam model. They don't quite grasp that some people need soothing Hallmark platitudes more, much more than they want the truth.

This plays into the childlike, authoritarian impulses of uneducated followers, as well as into the Repub elite's need to constantly change the subject from their own agenda.

Maybe the new Dems, who are certainly not a charismatic lot, need to start by reclaiming their working-class roots and characterize the Cheney crowd as the manipulative, hypocritical, gas-hawking, gleefully despoiling penguins they actually are. You know, "We're not pretty, but we get the job done. And you're too smart (now) for the cynical flag-and-pony show the other side keeps trotting out. Worth a try, yes?

What do you mean? That reference was to 'Arab slave trading', not 'Confederate or American slave trading'.

I mean simply to point out your continued dishonesty in pointing to Arab (which, of course is not synonymous with "Muslim") slave trading while ignoring the centuries of slave trading perpetrated by those self-styled upstanding Christians of the Confederacy. I also took your sentence to mean that Christans were victims of the Arab slave trade -- again, an interesting suggestion, since Christians profited from it for centuries. If you meant to suggest that Arabs were somehow victims of the African slave trade, of course, it'd be no more a puzzling and contrafactual assertion than the many others you've made on this thread.

It's now clear, though, that your relentless apology for Israel is merely a symptom of a greater delusion, given your obvious hatred of Islam and your embrace of, shall we say, dubious interpretations of history and current events.

Enough with Arab Slave Trading already. Isn't this about Dems and the war?

Kevin, you're right about Dems needing to figure out how to talk about economic engagement and diplomacy as a way to fight radical jihadists.

But someone's aready done this - check out this video of a prominent Democrat talking about the proper way to export democracy and American values! Perhaps other Democrats could watch this video and learn a thing or two.

DEMOCRATIC LEADERS NEED TO SPEAK TRUTH ON MID-EAST

COMMENTARY

There are times when political party leaders should yield to the opinion of their base voters. There are other times when politicians must educate. The situation in the Mid-East is not a situation were pandering is in order.

Clearly, President Bush lied to all of us regarding the presence of weapons of mass destructions (WMD) in Iraq. Our incursion into the region should have been solely to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan and to assist in developing a civil society in the that country. I thing everyone would agree: Our other objective should have been to ensure national security at home.

Our invasion into Iraq is another question. Here, we violated international law by invading a sovereign country. We could have embarked on a policy to weaken Saddam’s control of the country by providing military aid to anti-Saddam insurgents. We did not do that, instead Bush chooses to listen to the neo-cons in his Administration and we invaded.

Our invasion has now caused civil war. It has spread to hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Syria is rattling its sabers. Yesterday, the head of the Arab League joined by the Lebanese Parliament chief denounced the Union Nation's draft resolution.

These events are been played out amid American sentiment that we should exit Iraq. Democratic leaders must begin to educate their constituencies that we are no longer presently confronting conflict just in Iraq. We are now threatened by the possibility of a Mid-East regional war, including Syria and Iran as well as their proxy armies.

It is with saddest that I write this, I have been a Democrat, a dove all my life, and a conscientious objector. However, in this current Mid-East imbroglio our only recourse is to become involved militarily. We must join with our Allies to forge a large ground and air force contingent to bring stability to the entire Mid-East region. This cause of action will not be achieved in months. The plain truth is this mission will take years.

I know I would like the Mid-East problem to go away. I would like no more than to follow a course of isolationism. However, we owe our children to leave them as safe a world as we can.

American isolationism during WWII caused the NAZIs to advance on Great Britain’s door. Do we want to watch Israel be driven into the sea, or the bridge building that has taking place with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt be for nothing?

The anti-war faction of the Democratic Party must be made to understand that, unlike Vietnam, a Mid-East War is just. It is more than about oil; it would be so easy if we could conspiratorially explain it that way.

The Vietnamese were not going to invade your hometown park but today’s suicide bomber may if (as in that soccer field in Baghdad) for some reason they are blithely in the mood.

All will be well when we pull all of our troops back into our Iraqi Fort Tartous - Of course, we will need a few more troops from our Knights Templar Division.

Ah, the next Saladin.

Gregory,

If you could read the Bernard Lewis piece the complexity and depth of slavery throughout Islam is fairly breathtaking. The penetration of slavery within all parts of the Islamic world is incredibly more pervasive than in any other society that has ever been.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html

If you could read the Bernard Lewis piece the complexity and depth of slavery throughout Islam is fairly breathtaking.

Your continued conflation of "Arab" with "Islam" suggests that, coupled with your own suggestion that the author is kinder to Islam than you're inclined to be -- big surprise there -- suggests that it's your interpretation of whatever you feverishly Googled up that's suspect -- although in this case I suspect the flaws in your reading comprehension are the result of your obvious prejudices.

The penetration of slavery within all parts of the Islamic world is incredibly more pervasive than in any other society that has ever been.

Once again, cld, countering repeated refutations of your assertion by repeating your assertion is simply not persuasive. You've failed to defend nearly all your assertions on this thread. Your credibility is in tatters, and -- ironically enough, just like the IDF's sacrificing of its reputation for competence in its bloody but ineffective assault on Lebanon -- it's mostly your own doing.

The penetration of slavery within all parts of the Islamic world is incredibly more pervasive than in any other society that has ever been.

Except among many others, as we've demonstrated, including the Roman Empire and the American South.

Or South America under Conquistador rule and sanctioned by the Church.

Samuel Knight - Permit me to respond to your comments about McGovern and 1972.

I voted for McGovern. I contributed money to his campaign. I was convinced that even if Nixon won, the country would be so appalled by him that no Republican would be elected president for the next 20 years. After the election, I delighted in (I lived in Massachusetts then) bumper stickers that said "Nixon - 49, America -1" and "Massachusetts the one and only."

Well, Nixon didn't win through dirty tricks (although he may have engaged in them). He won because, overwhelmingly, the public didn't trust McGovern to defend the US and stand up to the Soviets. Rather than driving the public away from Republican presidents for a generation, the McGovern debacle paved the way for a long and continuing decline of the Democratic Party.

If the Democratic Party can't convince the American public today that it will defend the country against the war that the jihadists are waging against us and our allies around the world, if the Democratic Party wants to pretend that that war doesn't exist and that it's just a small police problem, if the Democratic Party wants to sing "Kumbaya" and "How Many Flowers" while holding hands around a campfire, well, it'll be 1972 all over again.

I think the Democratic Party can do better. Certainly the current administration has not waged war as effectively as it should have. But the Democrats seem determined, for some inexplicable reason, to be the "peace" and "anti-imperialist" party. Good luck.

If the Democratic Party can't convince the American public today that it will defend the country against the war that the jihadists are waging against us and our allies around the world, if the Democratic Party wants to pretend that that war doesn't exist and that it's just a small police problem, if the Democratic Party wants to sing "Kumbaya" and "How Many Flowers" while holding hands around a campfire, well, it'll be 1972 all over again.

Given that GOP apologists are trotting out those same bogus straw men about the Democrats -- which of course are an integral part of the GOP branding effort to portray itself as strong on defense and the Democrats as, well, not -- it does indeed sound like 1972 all over again.

I would suggest, however, that anyone who would suggest that the Democratic position is "to pretend that that war doesn't exist and that it's just a small police problem: and "to sing "Kumbaya" and "How Many Flowers" while holding hands around a campfire," well, isn't likely to be convinced that it will defend the country. They've already bought into the GOP's branding -- hell, they're selling it.

Back in the real world, though, the fact that the GOP have to dust off the same tired old straw men -- and just wait for the dolschtosslegende to rear its ugly head -- must mean that the American public has already figured out that the Republicans have made a huge mess of national security and are plainly not to be trusted.

Gregory,

I agree that the Republicans can be attacked for weakness as war fighters. In wars, you win or lose. Good intentions don't matter. The Iraq War has not been won. Tell me how you would win it. Let the Democrats tell the country how they would do it. I just don't see the Democrats doing that or saying anything else coherent about how they would fight the jihadists worldwide. The message, such as it is, is completely overwhelmed by the retreat-at-any-cost, bear-no-burden, pay-no-price message of the Lamont/MoveOn wing of the party.

I'm ready to listen, but what are you and the Democratic Party going to say?

I just don't see the Democrats doing that or saying anything else coherent about how they would fight the jihadists worldwide.

Of course you wouldn't.

The message, such as it is, is completely overwhelmed by the retreat-at-any-cost, bear-no-burden, pay-no-price message of the Lamont/MoveOn wing of the party.

I'm ready to listen

Suuuuuuuure you are.

but what are you and the Democratic Party going to say?

What difference does it make, given how eager you are to distort their message? It's sweet that you're forced to acknowledge the manifest failures of the Republican Party in national security -- failures that will keep them from being tursted with national security for a generation -- and so, predictably, you paint the Democrats as cowards and appeasers. It's a tired old song, and the nation isn't listening anymore.

By the way -- your comment that Nicon "may have" -- "may have"! -- engaged in dirty tricks casts rather serious doubts on your claim to have voted for McGovern. What is it with you dishonest Republicans that you seek to bolster your nonexistent credibility by pretending to be liberals?

Gregory,

On what basis would you doubt DBL's claim to have voted for McGovern? I see no basis for calling him dishonest. It is for comments like that on which you are accused of spewing vitriol. Everyone with whom you disagree from the Right gets the same treatment- called dishonest with the charge rarely being more than a simple assertion.

I often get to meet people from the online world, who have your aggressive attitude, in person, and they are always far more polite face to face. I guess the safety of online debate, the ability not to get punched in the nose, just brings out the worst in people.

The Iraq War has not been won. Tell me how you would win it.

The Iraq War is a conflict in which no strategic US interests are at stake except those involved in the wider War on Terror, to which the Iraq campaign has been actively counterproductive.

The route to winning the War on Terror requires military disengagement from Iraq.

I guess the safety of online debate, the ability not to get punched in the nose, just brings out the worst in people.

A more ironic and confessional statement I have rarely encountered.

Someone posting as "Al" wrote:

On what basis would you doubt DBL's claim to have voted for McGovern?

I indentified that basis.

I see no basis for calling him dishonest.

Of course you don't, "Al".

It is for comments like that on which you are accused of spewing vitriol.

I love the passive voice of "you are accused," "Al". But your characterization is, as usual, dishonest. I identified the flaw in "DBL"'s pose as a McGovern voter. It wouldn't be an attempt to distract from one of your fellow dishonest conservatives -- but I repeat myself -- that you fling your plausibly-deniable, passive-voice suggestion?

Everyone with whom you disagree from the Right gets the same treatment- called dishonest with the charge rarely being more than a simple assertion.

A simple and dishonest assertion like yours, you mean? You're quite wrong. Dishonest posters from the Right get the same treatment -- accusations of dishonesty with the dishonesty being spelled out (although, of course, rarely acknowledged, let alone refuted, by the dishoenst poster him/her/itself).

I often get to meet people from the online world, who have your aggressive attitude, in person, and they are always far more polite face to face.

Well, first of all, "Al," one has little choice but to dismiss out of hand the veracity of a serial liar like yourself (or at least the one whose handle you post under). But as I've said before, the intellectual dishonesty of some of our Bush apologists and assorted water carriers for the Right deserve no courtesy.

I guess the safety of online debate, the ability not to get punched in the nose, just brings out the worst in people.

Oh, indeed...most people know that to spew insulting lies to people's faces invites a rather strong reaction, but they post their bulshit GOP talking points and assorted intellectual dishonesty (where would y'all be without the straw man, I ask you?) with nary a bit of shame.

What basis, Gregory? You simply doubted that he was telling the truth about his 72 vote, and then proceeded to call him a liar. I have read many, many comments by DBL and see no reason to believe he is inclined to lying. It is one thing to believe someone's opinion or argument is wrong, but you seem to always jump to the conclusion that they are knowingly dishonest.

You really need to raise the level of your discourse in order to be taken seriously by anyone other than your fellow choir members.

And, yes, I am not the real Al, if there is even such a thing. I am a long-term, full time lurker on Political Animal who has just recently decided that the blog needed a Fake Real Al in addition to the various Fake and Fake, Fake Als.

What basis, Gregory?

I told you already. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

You simply doubted that he was telling the truth about his 72 vote, and then proceeded to call him a liar.

Yet another dishonest retelling of the events. Fortunately for me, the posts on this thread stand above to refute you.

I have read many, many comments by DBL and see no reason to believe he is inclined to lying.

Of course you don't, "Al".

It is one thing to believe someone's opinion or argument is wrong, but you seem to always jump to the conclusion that they are knowingly dishonest.

Sorry, but no. When someone is dishonest -- posting a straw man argument, for example, no matter how much it might resonate with your own distorted perceptions -- I point it out.

And, of course, a dishonest argument is owed no consideration to be taken serously. It must really suck that there's no honest way of defending the mendacity, incompetence and corruption of the Bush Administration, but here's the thing -- no one forces anyone to debase themselves by stopping to intellectual dishonesty. You obviously don't like it when I call out the intellectual dishonesty of -- I'll go out on a limb here and say, of those whom you tend to agree with, but you have a clear option -- point out how their posts are, in fact, intellectually honest ("I see no basis for saying it's dishonest" is, shall we say, not exactly convincing, eh?). Godo luck, pal.

You really need to raise the level of your discourse in order to be taken seriously by anyone other than your fellow choir members.

I'll be sure to take your advice for what it's worth.

In the meantime, though, again, pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of the GOP water carriers is perfectly legitimate. I'm sorry if it chaps you when your intellectual peers are exposed as frauds, but again, they have an alternative: Intellectual honesty. Again, good luck, pal.

And, yes, I am not the real Al, if there is even such a thing.

So you disguise yourself -- big surprise -- by adopting the handle of one of the most notoriously serially dishonest GOP shills on the board. And you lecture about being taken seriously?

I am a long-term, full time lurker on Political Animal who has just recently decided that the blog needed a Fake Real Al in addition to the various Fake and Fake, Fake Als.

Oh, yeah, just what these boards needs -- another apologist for right-wing dishonesty. We have plenty of those, thanks.

Hey, don't take my advice. I really don't care. I scan the comments for particular commentators from both sides, and, until recently, just skipped over pretty much everything you write. I will return to this practice soon enough.

I just took the name in response to your assertion that your doppleganger was "waving a white flag", which was a curious claim since the doppelgangers are usually the other way around on this blog, especially with the various Als. I guess those doppelgangers were waving white flags as well?

Gregory doesn't actually read any provided link. So whatever could be the point of talking to him? He's here only to display his rank anti-semitism at the drop of a pin.

Once again, cld, countering repeated refutations of your assertion by repeating your assertion is simply not persuasive.

Do we all see this?

This nitwit can provide nothing to back up his bald statements on every subject while I provide links and quotations throughout, habitually, none of them he can manage to look at for fear he might be wrong.

Dishonest is that thing in your mirror, Gregory.

You haven't provided one reference or external source to justify one of your cracked outbursts.

Stefan,

Your reference to the Roman Empire isn't germane because of the much more extensive dissimilarities. In the Islamic world slavery was pervasive throughout the society, and among the slave class themselves there were what amounted to classes.

I had hoped you would look at the Bernard Lewis article because it also speaks to your original point,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.html

Slaves were purchased on the frontiers of the Islamic world and then imported to the major centers, where there were slave markets from which they were widely distributed. In one of the sad paradoxes of human history, it was the humanitarian reforms brought by Islam that resulted in a vast development of the slave trade inside, and still more outside, the Islamic empire. In the Roman world, the slave population was occasionally recruited from outside, when a new territory was conquered or a barbarian invasion repelled, but mostly, slaves came from internal sources. This was not possible in the Islamic empire, where, although slavery was maintained, enslavement was banned. The result was an increasingly massive importation of slaves from the outside.

Your reference to the Roman Empire isn't germane

In fact, it is.

because of the much more extensive dissimilarities.

None of which you've managed to point out.

In the Islamic world slavery was pervasive throughout the society,

As it was in the Roman Empire.

and among the slave class themselves there were what amounted to classes.

As there was in the Roman Empire. There were extensive gradations in the classes and types of slaves, from the most miserable salt mine or galley slave, to the household tutor or majordomo, who while a slave lived a life of relative comfort and had the theoretical ability to buy his freedom.

Again, merely repeating something again and again hoping that I get tired of correcting your ludicrous nonsense isn't exactly persuasive.

I just took the name in response to your assertion that your doppleganger was "waving a white flag"

Y'know, "Al," I thought I recognized the writing style of someone who earlier justified his posting under my handle as inspired by his/her/its objection to my critiquing the intellectual dishonesty of certain posters here. Again, if you have a rebuttal, by all means make it. If you're stung by the debunking of talking points you hold dear, I suggest it's your problem, not mine.

The reference to the "white flag," of course, is the tacit admission that someone who stoops to that level of dishonesty has nothing else as a rebuttal.

I'm on record as disparaging those who post under someone else's handle, although I also acknowledge the practice of providing a fake email address -- which is, at least, not dishonest -- and duplicating one's handle in toto, which is.

Speaking of dishonesty! cld is back!

Gregory doesn't actually read any provided link.

You have no way of knowing this. Another lie from you -- I'm losing count!

He's here only to display his rank anti-semitism at the drop of a pin.

Another lie, although I am grateful for you continuing to discredit yourself by conflating criticism of Israel -- indeed, holding Israel to the very standard it claims separates it from the terrorists -- with anti-Semitism.

Once again, cld, countering repeated refutations of your assertion by repeating your assertion is simply not persuasive.

Do we all see this?

Golly, I hope so. In the face of repeated refutations, you simply parroted your original assertion. your feeble rhetoric is indeed on display for all to see.

Dishonest is that thing in your mirror, Gregory.

Projection is that thing in yours, cld.

You haven't provided one reference or external source to justify one of your cracked outbursts.

That's becuase your posts are easy to refute without doing so -- although I acknowledged Stefan and cmdicely doing some heavy lifting upthread. Sorry, cld, but all the Googling in the world won't justify your prejudice against Islam, nor transform the dead Lebanese civilians into a legitimate military target.

Gregory,

You haven't refuted one of my posts. You haven't made a single point. You have no evidence, no backup. You just make it up.

You're just making it up now.

Stefan,

Please, let's not argue. Simply look at the Bernard Lewis article, he surely knows more about it than either of us.

You haven't refuted one of my posts. You haven't made a single point. You have no evidence, no backup. You just make it up.

cld, there's a fine line between dishonesty and delusion...and you're on both sides of it.

For my part, I'll cheerfully let our respective comments on this thread speak for themselves.

Please, let's not argue.

We're not arguing. You're making ill-founded nonsense assertions, and I'm correcting them.

Simply look at the Bernard Lewis article, he surely knows more about it than either of us.

While Prof. Lewis is certainly an authority on Islamic society, I have no way of knowing whether he is any more knowledgeable about Roman history than I.

That aside, Prof. Lewis' article does not provide the support for your position you claim it does. To cite just one example, Lewis notes how the Roman and later Romano-Christian practice of slavery was actually far crueller than that practiced by the Muslims:

In the Islamic empire, the humanitarian tendency of the Qur'an and the early caliphs was to some extent counteracted by other influences. Notable among these was the practice of the various conquered peoples and countries which the Muslims encountered after their expansion, especially in provinces previously under Roman law. This law, even in its Christianized form, was still very harsh in its treatment of slaves.... But even after this stiffening of attitudes and laws, Islamic practice still represented a vast improvement on that inherited from antiquity, from Rome, and from Byzantium.

Stefan,

That was never the point in the first place. It's the pervasiveness throughout all parts of the society, the character of the society which would create this and what this circumstance then adds back to the society, and the extraordinary length of time over which the system was in operation. Greece and Rome never fielded entire slave armies.

It wasn't outlawed in Saudi Arabia until 1962! Were they emancipated, or is it just that no more were to be enslaved? That law could change at the drop of a pin.

Islamic culture operated on religion and slavery in a fundamental way altogether different from Greece or Rome and that cannot help but reflect in the minds and character of its constituents, which is, to me, particularly troubling since this cultural sphere values social conservatism more than any other.

And this only touches on people who were legally slaves and doesn't speak to the status of women in Islam, who are slaves in all but name.

http://www.averroes-foundation.org/articles/sex_slavery.html

Gregory,

Feckless carping is neither argument nor evidence.

From the Wikipedia article "Slavery in Antiquity:

According to Roman law, "slaves had no head in the State, no name, no title, no register"; they had no rights of matrimony, and no protection against adultery; they could be bought and sold, or given away, as personal property; they might be tortured for evidence, or even put to death, at the discretion of their master."[citation needed] Cato the Elder expelled his old and sick slaves out of house and home. Hadrian, one of the most humane of the Roman Emperors, wilfully destroyed the eye of one of his slaves with a stylus. Roman ladies punished their maids with sharp iron instruments for the most trifling offences. A proverb prevailed in the Roman empire: "As many enemies as slaves." Hence the constant danger of servile insurrections, which more than once brought the Republic to the brink of ruin, and seemed to justify the severest measures in self-defence — including the law of collective responsibility: if a slave killed his master, the authorities put all of the slaves in the household to death.

Estimates for the prevalence of slavery in the Roman Empire vary. Some estimate that the slave population in the 1st century consisted of approximately one-third of the total. The Roman economy certainly depended heavily on slavery, but was not (as is sometimes mistakenly stated) the most slave-dependent culture in the history of the world. That distinction probably belongs to the Spartans, with "helots" (the Spartan term for "slave") outnumbering the Spartans around seven to one (Herodotus; book IX, 10). While we have from Herodotus an ancient source to place Spartan slavery at 7:1, few cite a similar source for the Roman proportion of 1:2, so one must view it as less reliable. A high proportion of the populations in Italy, present-day Tunisia, southern Spain and western Anatolia consisted of slaves. The overall proportion of slaves may have not have reached 20% for the whole Empire of 12-15 million people, but we have few reliable statistics. The best statistic that we have refers to Roman Egypt, in which slaves made up only 7% of the total population. The provinces with more expensive labour (like Roman Italy) absorbed a large number of slaves that came from provinces with low wages.

In Republican Rome, the law recognised slaves as a social class, and some authors have found in their condition the earliest concept of a proletariat, given that the only property they might own was the gift of reproduction. Slaves lived then within this class with very little hope of a better life; and free men owned and exchanged them just like goods. They had a price as "human instruments"; their life had not, and their patron could freely even kill them.

There's no "pervasiveness" in Muslim societies that made their slavery any more insidiuous than that of the Romans or Greeks, and if you read the entire article it refutes your contention that chattel slavery was invented by the Arabs, as the Greeks practiced it at least a thousand years earlier.

So just quit it now.

That was never the point in the first place.

Yet you claimed it was.

It's the pervasiveness throughout all parts of the society, the character of the society which would create this and what this circumstance then adds back to the society, and the extraordinary length of time over which the system was in operation.

All of which are equally -- indeed, in many cases more so -- true of Greece and Rome than true of Islamic societies. Greco-Roman slavery was pervasive through all parts of their society, and lasted an extraordinary length of time. No claims you've made about Islamic slavery do not apply with at least as much force to slavery in Western history.

Greece and Rome never fielded entire slave armies.

So?

It wasn't outlawed in Saudi Arabia until 1962!

It wasn't outlawed in the United States of America until 1863! And that was a modern industrial democracy, not a backwards tribal and feudal society one generation out of the tents like Saudia Arabia.

Islamic culture operated on religion and slavery in a fundamental way altogether different from Greece or Rome

No, it didn't. You keep making this claim, and we keep disproving it.

Feckless carping is neither argument nor evidence.

True. So?

Posting contrafactural rants -- and then reiterating them in the face of rebuttals, thinly supported only by frantic Google searches -- is neither argument nor evidence either.

As I've said, i'm happy to let our respective posts speak for themselves.

Windhorse,

If you really want me to admit that I mis-used the word 'chattel', just for you I'll admit it. Now do you feel better? Now you can go and enslave somebody and they'll thank you for it.

Slavery was stunningly more pervasive and insidious in Islam because it colors the entire outlook and historical character of the civilization and the people it has produced.

You can read much on this and related matters here,

http://www.secularislam.org/

Stefan,

If you're going to reference what you say I said, reference it, don't just assert it.

I keep making the claim and you keep disproving nothing. If you can find a reference describing the pervasiveness of slavery throughout Roman and Greek life the Bernard Lewis describes in Islamic culture you might score a point. Until then you have nothing.

If you really want to find some way to lessen the specter of complete evil I can think of a World War II that really needs your work.

The most perverse and ugliest thing about slavery in Islam may be that they were able to say it was better than in the past. Makes it easier to live with yourself if you treat your victim to a nice dinner before you shoot him. I'm sure that makes it all better. If I kidnap you and cut your balls off and enslave you, you'll think it's just fine if I use an anaesthetic?

Rome did not engage in mass slave hunts, did not go on slave hunting expeditions into the jungle and certainly did not keep it up for most of a thousand years. Can you really think you mean that?

None of your responses have made a fractional bit of difference in the central point.

You haven't proven anything and have shown increasingly that you are willing to go to any length to justify evil, just because you can. What kind of satisfaction does it get you?

I can recommend this website here as well,

The Institute for the Secularization of Islam,

http://www.secularislam.org/

There is much here pertaining to slavery and other matters of Islamic vulgarity. Are you aware homosexuality is a capital crime? And so is atheism. These people need the atom bomb.

Gregory, True. So?

Bottle finally run out? Guess it's time to return some cans.

Slavery was stunningly more pervasive and insidious in Islam because it colors the entire outlook and historical character of the civilization and the people it has produced.

To paraphrase both Stefan and Gregory -- you keep making this unsubstantiated claim and we keep refuting it.

A google search of "slavery" at site:secularislam.org produces only 49 hits. Scanning those hits, they are nothing but minor historical references in articles.

SecularIslam.org has no analyses -- not one, that I can find -- that support your contention that slavery in Islam was somehow "worse" than in other cultures.

Hebrews could enslave their own family members if they wished. They could casually offer slaves as human sacrifice to their God. Greek and Roman societies were entirely dependent on slavery, which was not true of most Arab groups, and slaves were so plentiful and disposable that they could be beaten, maimed, and killed for the most trifling offenses. Spanish Conquistadors enslaved the Inca (who'd welcome them with open arms, by the way) and literally and intentionally worked them to death in the gold mines (the Church needed gold, and was happy to pretend that the Inka didn't have souls and could be treated like animals in exchange for riches and power).

To my mind, nothing you've shown so far about the treatment of slaves in Arab society even comes close these examples.

But I do respect you coming clean on the "chattel" example.

Another perfunctory Wikipedia search easily refutes your contention:

The trade in slaves across the Indian Ocean also has a long history beginning with the control of sea routes by Arab traders in the ninth century. It is estimated that only a few thousand slaves were taken each year from the Red Sea and Indian Ocean coast. They were sold throughout the Middle East and India. This trade accelerated as superior ships led to more trade and greater demand for labour on plantations in the region. Eventually, tens of thousands per year were being taken.[3]

The Atlantic slave trade developed much later, but it would eventually be by far the largest and have the greatest impact. The first Europeans to arrive on the coast of Guinea were the Portuguese; the first European to actually buy slaves in the region was Antão Gonçalves, a Portuguese explorer. Originally interested in trading mainly for gold and spices, they set up colonies on the uninhabited islands of Sao Tome. In the 16th century the Portuguese settlers found that these volcanic islands were ideal for growing sugar. Sugar growing is a laborious undertaking and Portuguese settlers were difficult to attract due to the heat, lack of infrastructure, and hard life. To cultivate the sugar the Portuguese turned to large numbers of African slaves. Elmina Castle on the Gold Coast, originally built by the Portuguese in 1482 to control the gold trade, became an important depot for slaves that were to be transported to the New World.[4]

Increasing penetration of the Americas by the Portuguese created another huge demand for labour in Brazil, for farming, mining, and other tasks. To meet this, a trans-Atlantic slave trade soon developed. Slave-based economies quickly spread to the Caribbean and the southern portion of what is today the United States. These areas all developed an insatiable demand for slaves. From its beginning it is estimated that some 12 million slaves were taken from Africa to the Americas. The result of this trade is one of the largest migrations in history. These numbers are hotly disputed by scholars, precision is quite difficult, yet today the general consensus is that these numbers are fairly reliable. A small number of slaves were also shipped to Europe while some were also transported to other areas of Africa, mostly to South Africa.[5]

So the Atlantic slave trade -- run by the Portuguese, English, and Dutch -- was much larger than the the Arab slave trade.

So how were the Arabs worse again?

There is much here pertaining to slavery and other matters of Islamic vulgarity. Are you aware homosexuality is a capital crime? And so is atheism. These people need the atom bomb.

Ah, I see. You're trying to win the slave trade argument so you can prove that Muslims are evil.

Ever hear of the Nazis? Stalinists? Maoists? The Japanese were "yellow devils" and didn't think like humans, what with their sideways vaginas and all. The Communists were "godless" and therefore completely unbound by morality.

Hell, every enemy the U.S. faces is always characterized as the "ultimate evil" by people like you.

Why did I waste my time?

It wasn't outlawed in Saudi Arabia until 1962!

Do you realize that the last lynching in the U.S. took place in 1968?!? And that almost 5000 lynchings were recorded up to that point?

And that very insidiously, townspeople would often gather around with their children to enjoy watching a black man hanged for no good reason?

I'd say that's some pretty damn pervasive evil there.

Get some perspective.

DBL wrote:

The Iraq War has not been won. Tell me how you would win it.

One wins a war by achieving one's objective.

What was the objective here?

If it was preventing Saddam from deploying weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) against the USA -- as Bush originally claimed -- then that objective had been achieved without ever going to war, since Saddam had no WMDs nor any ability to deploy such weaponry to our side of the globe, and the UN inspections were already ensuring that remained true. This objective would mean the war was unnecessary to begin with, and not worth a single life -- American or Iraqi, military or civilian -- but rather a total waste of effort, cost, and lives.

If the objective was to stabilize the region by preventing further invasions, then containment was achieving that -- and this war is clearly achieving the opposite. When you're in a hole, stop digging.

If the objective was to help the Iraqi people secure their own lives and safety, then killing tens of thousands of them may not have been the best method, and their present situation does not appear much improved. See previous paragraph re holes and digging.

If the objective was merely to overthrow the existing government and establish a regime more to our liking -- then this was a war of aggression, the same war crime of which leading Nazis were convicted at Nuremberg, and not an objective approved either by the UN or by Congress.

In any case, Saddam is already deposed, and another government is in place, so that objective was achieved -- yet still you say the war is not won.

So, again, what was the objective here?

At the moment, there seems to be no clearly defined objective -- which means nothing can constitute "winning" -- leaving nothing for our soldiers to achieve, except killing and being killed.

(One might well wonder whether that has been the real objective all along, given Bush's delight in death -- his smirking over executions, his gleeful air of triumph in his PR appearance at Ground Zero, his celebrating with guitar-playing while bodies floated in New Orleans,... but then those cities had voted Democratic, so no wonder he enjoyed himself.)

Meanwhile our capacity to defend ourselves from genuine threats gets steadily whittled away.

Withdrawal would at least stop that drain on our resources -- which would be an objective worth achieving, a "win" in terms of lives saved.

The national interests are better served by peace. Bush's political (and corporate) interests are better served by war, profiteering, and fear-mongering.

So the question really is which interests you would rather serve. That is what will set the objective you want to achieve -- what will constitute "winning".

Earlier I wrote:

At the moment, there seems to be no clearly defined objective -- which means nothing can constitute "winning"....

Likewise, Gary Hart points out:

As an increasing number of Republican Members of Congress confront unhappy, sometimes angry, constituents finally fed up with the absence of purpose in the continued U.S. occupation and the death and dismemberment of young American troops for no purpose having to do either with combating the jihad or making the U.S. secure, they will demand White House rescue for their political careers.

[via BartCop]

Stefan,

Yes?

If you're going to reference what you say I said, reference it, don't just assert it.

What? I did reference it, in fact I specifically quoted text from your favored authority, Prof. Lewis, that directly contradicted the claim you'd been making.

I keep making the claim and you keep disproving nothing. If you can find a reference describing the pervasiveness of slavery throughout Roman and Greek life the Bernard Lewis describes in Islamic culture you might score a point. Until then you have nothing.

We have found such references, and they're above for anyone who cares to read through the thread. Though such reference shouldn't really be necessary, since a general familiarity with the Roman world should be assumed of an educated man or woman -- this should be mere common knowledge.

If you really want to find some way to lessen the specter of complete evil I can think of a World War II that really needs your work.

What?

The most perverse and ugliest thing about slavery in Islam may be that they were able to say it was better than in the past. Makes it easier to live with yourself if you treat your victim to a nice dinner before you shoot him. I'm sure that makes it all better. If I kidnap you and cut your balls off and enslave you, you'll think it's just fine if I use an anaesthetic?

What????

Rome did not engage in mass slave hunts,

Yes it did, through the mechanism of conquest of neighboring tribes and countries.

did not go on slave hunting expeditions into the jungle

Yes it did, only instead of "jungle" it was the Nubian desert, the Germanic forests, the British Isles, the trans-Danube frontier, etc.

and certainly did not keep it up for most of a thousand years.

Yes, it did. The Roman history of slavery endured for about a thousand years, and longer if we count the post-Romano Western Christian and Byzantine lands.

Slavery was stunningly more pervasive and insidious in Islam because it colors the entire outlook and historical character of the civilization and the people it has produced.

Compare and contrast with the American South. Sheesh.

You haven't proven anything and have shown increasingly that you are willing to go to any length to justify evil

cld, you're making claims about slavery in an attempt to prove Islam was uniquely evil that simply don't stand up to scrutiny. Your critics aren't "justifying evil" at all by pointing out that the aspects of slavery in the Arab world that you claim are unique, aren't. However, you justify evil -- no doubt based on the hatred of Islam you've displayed (quite hypocritical, for someone who tosses out baseless charges of anti-Semitism) -- by insisting that the Israelis are justified in their relentless destruction of the civil and political infratructure of Lebanon and the hundreds of civilian casualties they've caused. You've as much as declared that all of Lebanon is justifiably a free-fire zone for the IDF.

Here's the thing, cld: You're attempting to assert that Islam is uniquely evil and that Israel's destruction of Lebanon is uniquely justified. Your critics -- while never denying the sins of Islam in general and Hezbollah in particular -- point out that no, Islam is far from uniquely evil, and that no, Israel is not justified in attacking civilians, no matter how much Hezbollah does it. And all the while you simply reassert your debunked points, insisting that you haven't been proved wrong.

The one displaying moral equivalence is you, my friend. It's long past time to cease giving you the benefit of the doubt. Delusional you may be -- Ford knows you've exhibited tenacious belief in sheer fantasy -- but dishonest you certainly are. Shame on you, cld.

Even though I find cld somewhat obnoxious, he is correct- your "refutations" are nothing of the sort. Your disagreements with certain poster's opinions/facts do not constitute refutations. There are a number of commentators on this blog with whose opinions/facts I would disagree, but I would not call them dishonest on that basis alone, and if I were going to refute a "fact", I would offer up support for my position. You could take a lesson from writers like SecularAnimist or cmdicely on the Left, or writers like tbrosz or Will Allen on the Right. They support their arguments, and other than SecularAnimist, they do so in a mostly civil manner- much as they would do if it were face to face in a coffee shop.

You are correct, I shouldn't have borrowed Al's ID, but I did so to make a point with you and to make a slight joke about your "white flag" comment. In any case, I am done. I now put you back into the largely ignored commentators, which unfortunately comprises far too many of the writers here and elsewhere.

My apologies, Al. I hope you didn't mind very much.

Windhorse,

You keep ignoring Islam itself. Consider the complexity of master and slave relations outlined in the Koran. There isn't anything else even a little like this until you get to some sadomashistic how-to manual of recent vintage. It is smack in the center of Islamic religion. They've really thought a lot about how to make slavery work on a huge scale. Now they have oil, which does much the same thing, money for nothing.

The first rule in dealing with social conservatives in any situation, in any country or region: there can be no compromises with the 'no compromises' crowd.
Social conservatives will often leap to the nearest hysterical extremity, they're universally obsessed with humiliation. Adding in a society where honor is a primary ideal, as with every Islamic society with which we are concerned, and you have a recipe for perennial malice. The Palestinians will never stop attacking Israel, for any reason, they'd rather die.

SecularIslam has a lot of material. (Googling 'slavery' gets me 54 hits, using Firefox)

http://www.secularislam.org/newsletter/4/genocide.htm

http://www.secularislam.org/humanrights/compatible.htm

http://www.secularislam.org/women/tribalism.htm

Slavery in the Americas lasted, at most, half as long as in the Islamic world and it only ended in the Islamic world when external pressures forced it to at the relatively weakest point in Islam's history. We have to think about both how wrenching an alteration that must have been and also how feeble. In trying to modernize and keep up with the developing world the best they can do is write a law, knowing they could un-write it at the first opportunity.

Wikipedia, a source I could go and change. If that were true how did Zanzibar come to exist?

Do you realize the last slave auction took place in Oman in 1975?

Stefan,

Slavery is a central tenet of the Islamic conception of life. It's how they relate to the external world.

Rome conquering populations on their fringe, in action of securing the border, isn't the same thing. Arabs mounted huge military expeditions deep into uncharted territory for no purpose but to capture slaves.

Your deep panglossian interest in making everyone just as guilty as Islam reminds me of the kind of character who insists everyone else is just as perverted as he is but just won't admit it.

Compare and contrast with the American south? Exactly. When you listen to some retrograde southerner waxing nostalgic about the good ol' days on the antebellum plantation like it was a lost paradise, that is exactly what you're hearing when you hear an Arab talking about the Islamic golden age.