The problem is that Andrew Sullivan *can't read*. Sorry, too much Monty Python.

Maybe Sully is just bought and paid for by the Republican party.

The problem? The problem with the Democratic plan is that Republikkkans have to keep saying there is no plan, no matter how many times Democratic candidates lay it out.

It's another big lie. Hope you like your bunk in the gay concentration camp, Sully!

"So what's the problem?"

Sullied is an idiot. He has been consistently wrong about pretty much everything. He is a gay man in a party that would like to sew a little rainbow shoulderpatch on every coat he wears.

The question is, Why does Kevin drum give a flying fuck what Sullied thinks? why would Kevin Drum use the website of what is supposedly a left leaning magazine to call attention to Sullied? Why take him seriously? Examine his pathology in a lighthearted comical way maybe, like Sadly, No!, but this is not a person deserving to be taken seriously.

Sully needs to enroll in a 12 Step program. He seems constantly on the lookout for new rationalizations to keep supporting the Republicans.

Kevin has persuasively argued that Andrew's complaint is invalid. I also agree with Kevin that the Dem plan is a truly crappy document.

So what's the problem?

Sullivan doesn't go to the library and research questions he has.

It's common knowledge among the pundit-types that Democrats are "weak on national security" and "don't have a plan," so why evem bother checking it out to see if it's true?

It's pretty unbelievable when you think ab

All of this stuff is backed up by further detail for anyone interested in learning more. It may not be perfect, but it's more of a plan than Republicans have offered...

Having waded through much of that crap in the last few days, I have to say it's still crap, but generally higher quality crap than anything seen from the GOP in years.

Kevin, you forgot about Sully’s absurd demand that "the opposition party present[] a progressive, democratic agenda to reform the Middle East."

Nice oxymoron you’ve got there, Sully; shame if anyone should point it out.

The first wave of democracy in the Middle East will sweep a lot of very un-progressive Islamic parties into power. That should be painfully obvious by now, even to a Bear of Very Little Brain like Sully. So there ain't no "progressive, democratic" agenda to reform the Middle East.

Besides, ain't it kinda hubristic (to coin a word) to pretend we can take on a task that large? Ultimately, the Middle East will have to find its own way to a better system; all we can do is be helpful here and there. The idea that we can remake even one country lies shattered in the streets of Baghdad; to reform the whole region is light-years beyond our capacities. But somehow Sully thinks that's a requirement for a political party to demonstrate its seriousness.

How bizarre, how bizarre.

It's pretty unbelievable when you think about it -- this guy went to Oxbridge or something, right? If he offered up this terribly researched critique of the Democrats and their non-existent alternative plan as a piece of serious scholarly research, he'd be laughed out of the academy. You think he could get tenure at Cal State Fresno with this kind analysis?

Sullivan is great example of the laziness of the scribbling classes.

The slogans aren't any good.

I wrote almost the same email to Sullivan earlier today pointing out the anti-war Left he seems to hate basically believes in his entire list.

The Cognative Dissonance is pretty thick with that guy sometimes.

he's still waiting for a serious Democratic plan to come along that he can get behind.

Remember Social Security?
Th Dems NEVER came out with credible plan, or a better plan, to save Social Security then either.

The same broken, effin record...

Democrats have spent 5 years showing America their plan.

Here is the Demo plan: Yell and scream about how awful Bush is.

There is no "war" on terrorism. There is only the power of nightmares used by greedy and selfish men to dominate others to accumulate wealth and power.

Kevin, you should send a proposal to Howard Dean to republish this document with your suggestions. There should be an entire site dedicated to promoting it.

Kevin,

The dems do not at any level need to campaign on a plan. Why?

The administration's plan has been to create the image they have one. Infact the whole plan thing seems much more like a cynical ploy to put the arguee into a lose lose position.

All the planning in the world doesn't matter if you have lousy people in charge carrying them out. Particularly when those people refuse to listen to reality. As this administration has demonstrated time after time after time.

Any dem plan could start with.
1. Forcing the administration to stop listening to the Neocons, and start listening to the rational hands.
2. Restoring the many veteran hands frozen out of government by the Republican kleptocracy.
3. Return terrorism to a being a law enforcement matter. Treating as a military problem has proven to be a humongously negative proposition. Law enforcement approaches under the Clinton administration kept terrorism bottled up and defanged.

It's not a matter of plans. Plans assume you agree with the premise of where we are at as a nation and you are talking about patching sinking ships. But see none of this matters until you are in power to do something.

Bush and Cheney clearly didn't campaign on plans. They didn't say we are planning to make terrorism a military priority and run the table in the middle east. They actually campaigned on a platform of international disengagement. What's the point of democrats putting up honest plans when they have an entirely dishonest partner in power.

The plans talk is nothing but a cynical frame game. Let's move the dialog on already.

to the editor:

The democraps have the wrong phlosophy all together. one of the largest problems is their back turn on a good american. and i see him as someone that will compromise for the betterment of the country. that you have gone after joe liberman. you are going to ruin your party.

sincerely,

Jon West
Knoxville, TN

Andrew Sullivan, who falls in the camp that believes that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do, but Bushco botched it, is attempting to drive many of us insane. He will produce these deeply thoughtful comments about torture, Catholicism, conservative principles, homosexuality or post sheer delightful whimsy--and then spout snotty knee-jerk RNC talking points. The far right beat him up around a month ago--he wasn't a "True" conservative--so he has been trying to re-establish his creds ever since.

What is so crazy-making about the conservative claim that the Democrats don't seem serious about the WOT is that the conservatives don't really want a Democratic answer. How you define a problem determines its solution: Republicans/conservatives like Sullivan have defined the problem of Islamic terrorism in such a way that the ONLY acceptable answer is GWB-style aggression, done properly.

If the Democrats propose that the solution is not a military one, or that we need to reduce our dependence on ME oil, or that we need to pressure Israel/Palestine, or that we need to beef up our police action/intelligence or whatever, the Republicans will just say, "The Democrats want to cut and run. The Democrats don't have a plan." because the only acceptable answer is "support GWB, cut taxes."

to the editor:

The democraps have the wrong phlosophy all together. one of the largest problems is their back turn on a good american. and i see him as someone that will compromise for the betterment of the country. that you have gone after joe liberman. you are going to ruin your party.

sincerely,

Jon West
Knoxville, TN

Don't go telling me that Democrats have a plan when I know full well they don't.

And don't go showing me any plans by Democrats thinking that those plans are proof that they have a plan.

The Republicans have a plan to deal with terrorism and Iraq. I don't know what it is, nor can I explain it, but they have a plan. The Democrats have that detailed document and talk about what they would do in these areas everyday. But don't go calling that a "plan".

Sheesh.

Sullivan is just fishing. He's been losing conservative readers for many months. He probably thinks it's time for a (or, yet another) switch. He's looking for 'indirect' feedback to learn how best to approach a Dem-heavy market.

New Rasmussen poll shows Lieberman is leading Lamont 46% to 41% in the 3-way race for November's general election. The Republican has 6%.

It is so cool to watch the Democrats implode over Lieberman!

Screening containers?

LOL.

Big Republican Government?

C'mon.

They won't screen containers until it proves "cost effective."

What does "cost effective" mean?

Something super bad has got to happen first.

In other words:
Whenever you think of Republicans think of:
HAIR ON FIRE!!! HAIR ON FIRE!!! HAIR ON FIRE!!!

And REMEMBER: Still they slept on...

Yep big Bush Government failed you then... and it is planting the seeds for failure tomorrow.

You can count on it.

That is... if you can count...

The DLF doesn't really lose if Lieberman gets in as an Indy. He'll still vote against most GOP bills - maybe more so after this little spanking - and the Dem's gain a higher level of party unity.

Jon, please send that letter to newspapers everywhere. I'd like very much for you to show the education level of the average Republican as evidenced by your piss poor reasoning, grammar, and punctuation. If you are older than roughly ten years of age, I weep for your school system.

Does Sullivan spell out in detail what this alleged Republican plan is other than stay the course?

Does it count to say that unlike the Bush administration, the Democrats will actually spend money given by Congress?

See, e.g. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_go_ot/terror_explosives_detection_4

I think there's some good stuff in that Democrat plan. But I can't see how most of the anti-war Democrats here would approve of it. In particular, it appears to support the indefinite continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. It makes no committment, or even a suggestion, for a withdrawal of U.S. troops or a timetable for withdrawal. It also advocates massive increases in military spending and anti-terrorism spending. This is very much the Joe Lieberman Plan, and not at all the Ned Lamont Plan.

Bush does not want to leave. So Bush is not taking any steps that would make it possible to leave. This is why it is not possible to come up with an alternative given the current situation. The Bush strategy has been to make it impossible for the US to leave. Until Bush leaves office in 2009, we will be stuck in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Constitution only gives Congress the power to Declare War and pay the bills. The Constitution gives the execution of the war over to the president (Commander in Chief). Having the Dems make a plan for Iraq cannot work. There are many diplomatic and logistical steps that must be taken before we can leave. Only the CIC has the power and can command the resources. Bush must be convinced to leave so that those resources can be applied to the problem of extracting us from Iraq.

bakho,

Bush does not want to leave. So Bush is not taking any steps that would make it possible to leave.

So, where's the Democrat plan to leave, or to "take steps that would make it possible to leave?"

Liberals like Kerry argued, that we should use law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and work with our allies to thwart terrorists.

This is exactly how the terrorists were stopped, in the UK.

The "loony liberals were correct once again.

Why does anyone pay attention to Andrew Sullivan?

Kevin should just stay away from the subject of Iraq and the war on terror. He now defends democrats by presenting a democrat plan he describes as embarassing and crappy because, he wants to show the democrats can match up with Sullivan.

Maybe Sullivan has driven Kevin insane.

ps. It seems to me that Lieberman is likely to win easily, probaby at least 50 to 40. How can people not see that?

Filthy fucking conservative liars. Bush and his cronies were diverting money away from technology that would have detected the liquid explosives in the latest terror plot. Talk is cheap to these cheap bastards. The GOP is weak on terror, don’t let these scumsucking toads fool you.

Simple plan, really.

Admit we made a mistake.
Fire the folks who made the mistake.

Without these first two steps, any other "plan" is just mental mastrubation.

If the Democrats propose that the solution is not a military one, ...

The Democrats haven't proposed that. In fact, a majority of Senate Democrats voted to authorize military force against Iraq. And the Democrat plan Kevin references calls for massive increases in military spending. There is no non-military Democrat solution.

Why does anyone pay attention to Andrew Sullivan?

Cuz he's like a jewish Hitler-supporter in Nazi Germany, who suddenly realized that even though he was on their side, they weren't on his side.

It's been very entertaining these past 3 years watching his head explode in slow-motion.

AkaDad,

Liberals like Kerry argued, that we should use law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and work with our allies to thwart terrorists.

Conservatives also argue that we should use law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and work with our allies to thwart terrorists. But those things alone are not enough.

And since when have liberals been strong supporters of intelligence agencies or law enforcement, anyway?

One thing the Democratic plan does demonstrate, with its mushy-mouthedness, is that right-wing charges that the left "doesn't have a plan" aren't entirely mindless fulmination. The Democrats do tend to spiral off into internal division and "checklist"-ism too easily, treating platforms and programs as benefits programs where every constituency gets a gift to keep it happy, while questions that would require a commitment to one side or another are simply deferred.

Hence the mushy language of "redeployment", which is either a commitment to withdraw or a commitment to rebase in Kurdistan or a commitment to...do something differently, who knows what.

What I would prefer is a frank statement in situations like this:

The working group has debated the relative merits of 3 plans on troop redeployment: complete withdrawal from Iraq; redeployment of troops entirely to Kurdistan; or maintenance of a core group of troops in Baghdad and other larger groups in Kurdistan and offshore. We have not yet come to a decision on which of these options to select. In the event that Democrats receive an opportunity to have some actual input into policy, we will take this question up again and decide which of the three plans we find superior. Each approach has its merits. In the meantime, let it be clear that we find the current strategy of simply committing more force to the same old goals and trying to "muddle through" to be completely idiotic.

And since when have liberals been strong supporters of intelligence agencies or law enforcement, anyway?
Posted by: GOP on August 11, 2006 at 10:54 PM

Always

The Iraq invasion was the worst way to stop terrorism. Our foreign policy, of meddling into Middle Eastern affairs, is the reason they hate us, in the first place.

If your family was killed by invaders, would you more, or less likely, become a terrorist?

Patience, I agree...with the exception of during campaigns. It seems that is all we heard and continue to hear is that everyone everywhere has a plan (follow with condescending belittling snickerish grin)

A plan assumes there is a goal. Anyone with management expertise, with the exception of the our sanctimoniously pompous public servant ceo and assistant coo, knows that plans encompass strategies and objectives (milestones)and recognizes said plans must be SMARTER.

Plans plans everywhere a plan

Dam..we need to plan a plan for our planned plans

Patience, I agree...with the exception of during campaigns. It seems that is all we heard and continue to hear is that everyone everywhere has a plan (follow with condescending belittling snickerish grin)

A plan assumes there is a goal. Anyone with management expertise, with the exception of the our sanctimoniously pompous public servant ceo and assistant coo, knows that plans encompass strategies and objectives (milestones)and recognizes said plans must be SMARTER.

Plans plans everywhere a plan

Dam..we need to plan a plan for our planned plans

What I would prefer is a frank statement in situations like this:...

I think your preferred statement is pretty silly, but in any case the Democrats haven't made any such statement, or anything like that statement. As you pointed out, their "plan" is terminally vague on when, or even whether, they propose to withdraw U.S. troops. But, of course, they also engage in plenty of attacks on Bush for being similarly noncommital. The word for that is "hypocrisy."

It's a shame, really, because there's some good stuff in that document.

Brian,

I think people DO see that Lieberman will win -- as a Dem, as an Indy, as a Martian, etc.. whatever.

CT voters were pissed at him and wanted him punished, not necessarily out but punished. But when his rhetoric became combative and arrogant instead of empathetic, they drew blood. He is no longer their Democrat. Market politics.

But he will very possibly be their Senator again. Let's see if he was paying any attention.

Well, let me congratulate the Democrats, they have a plan and I will agree with GOP, it does have some merit.

However, the document reads a lot like what Howard Dean has said the party should never become: Bush-Lite.

I sense coming conflict or at the very least compromising of positions within the power structure of the Democratic Party. Which wouldn't the latter suggest to you the "playing politics with the war"............hmmmmmmmm

It would probably help the Democrats in '08 to have a plan to fight the war against the jihadists. Most people want us out of Iraq, but many of them want to know "What comes after that?" Some comments about Sullivan's plan:

1. Redeployment within Iraq. We've basically already done that as much as it can be done and still affect things outside the wire. Withdrawal into Kurdistan, even if the current Iraqi government would allow it, essentially means giving up on the rest of the place. And we'll be there alone - the rest of the coalition isn't going to stick around while we get cosy in the North. What would be the purpose of going there, anyway? To reinvade in an effort to save whichever side is losing the civil war? In any case, that's two and a half years away, before the order can even be given. We might have started withdrawing by then.

2. What kind of soft support for democratic movements? What's that mean? Which movements? What are we going to do, give them money? Send the Pope? Secret advisors? In some of these countries the closest thing to a reformist is a radical cleric. And he probably isn't going to be too friendly towards us. It might be a good idea to offer military assistance to the Lebanese government, as a counterweight to Hezbollah. The trouble is, the internal Lebanese politics prevent the army from being very useful.

3. Encouraging the entrepreneurial Gulf States to grow in wealth and influence? Small countries with tiny populations can only be just so influential. Encourage growth? As we did with the Dubai port deal? We insulted a friendly government for no real advantage.

4. A serious non-carbon energy policy. How serious? Sullivan presumably means something beyond more seed money for research.

5. The credible threat of military force. Always useful in diplomacy. What kind of force? Ground forces cost lots of money. Air power? Iran knows we won't nuke them, no matter who's in charge.

6. A more credible homeland defense. A nice idea, but almost all options to improve our defenses are very expensive. We can't even get consensus to build a fence.

Don't you get it? The Democrats don't have a credible plan because "they" SAY the Democrats don't have a credible plan. Please, all you are doing is ruining the narrative with, like, facts. You must be a real bummer at a neo-con party. Geesh.

But, of course, they also engage in plenty of attacks on Bush for being similarly noncommital. The word for that is "hypocrisy."

When Joe Public hasn't decided what he thinks Microsoft should do to take on Apple in the online music market, the word for that is "So?" When the CEO of Microsoft hasn't decided what to do, the word for that is "incompetence". When the CEO of Microsoft has picked a strategy and continues to follow it even though he's being blown out of the water year after year, the word for that is "resign".

Kevin I think you have made a good start here. Sullivan speaks for far more republicans then people give him credit for. Probably a good 20% of all republicans I know would agree with him on 95% of all issues he discusses. This "Sullivan bloc" (intelligent republicans who have not been totally brainwashed by Hannity & Limbaugh) represent the best hope of ever putting ALL of us on the right track again.

The question is why is he not even aware of the alternatives being put out there by the democrats.
I respect the man, his writings have always come across to me that he is an intelligent man that cares passionately about the issues he writes about. I hope he responds to us directly here.

I truely believe that reasonable men & women of both parties can get this country back to something I don't feel guilty about on my death bed because we pushed it all down to another generation.

Democrats alone can't do it without guys like Sullivan contributing to, criticizing, and exercising their freedom of speech whenever they need to. But there is no chance of that with the republicans, lets get the guys like Sullivan (who at least can still think) on our side and get this thing right for once and for all.

Sorry to go a little OT, but I just read, in today's Salon, a piece reviewing the new collection of letters from the late Martha Gellhorn. And I was really struck by this passage:

"I never for a moment feared Communism in the U.S. but have always feared Fascism; it's a real American trait," she wrote after observing Barry Goldwater in 1964. She was particularly incensed by the Vietnam War.

"I cannot endure this hideous wicked stupidity; to be at once cruel and a failure is too much," she wrote about Lyndon Johnson. "Our President is a disaster and will get worse; never trust a Texan farther than you can throw a rhino." Her white-hot rage at the war was only stoked by a 1966 trip to Vietnam for the Guardian newspaper (that she was forced to pay for herself).

Her 1971 letter to Pentagon Papers liberator Daniel Ellsberg is eerily prescient about our current constitutional mess: "The President assumes that the American people are moral imbeciles ... The Founding Fathers cannot have intended a President and his small group of appointed advisors to perform like a monarch surrounded by his court. As if the people's representatives and the people themselves were a general nuisance, and the job is to keep the whole tiresome bunch quiet: manipulate them."

Sound familiar, anybody? Anybody else?

It is very interesting to see how the redeploy to Kurdistan idea is taking hold. Of course, there is no need for troops in Kurdistan, so the attaction to democrats and some others is that it is a face saving way to pull out.

Although, Trashhauler states the interesting proposition that we would go back in to save whichever side is losing between the Shia and the Sunni. That might not be as crazy as it sounds because perhaps the Shia and Sunni would grow up before disintergrating into civil war, but if they did not, then we might have a heck of a mess in trying to save the losers and I don't think democrats would ever support going back in.

As you pointed out, their "plan" is terminally vague on when, or even whether, they propose to withdraw U.S. troops.

GOP:

Can you point out the difference between this "plan" and the Republican plan? When do the Republicans propose to withdraw U.S. troops?

And since when have liberals been strong supporters of intelligence agencies or law enforcement, anyway?

PS to GOP:

we could ask Duke Cunningham or Jack Abramoff or Scooter Libby that question. ;)

brooksfoe,

When Joe Public hasn't decided what he thinks Microsoft should do to take on Apple in the online music market, the word for that is "So?" When the CEO of Microsoft hasn't decided what to do, the word for that is "incompetence".

Nice try, but your analogy is of course deliberately constructed to misrepresent the truth.

Correcting your defective analogy, the Democrats aren't Joe Public, they're another executive competing with the current CEO for his job, trying to win the votes of the board. What the Democrats are doing is like that executive attacking the current CEO for not having a plan to take on Apple, while having no plan of his own to offer the board in support of his claim to be a superior candidate for the job.

That may or may not be "incompetence," but it's most definitely "hypocrisy."

My plan is to pick up from Bagdad and invade Saudi Arabi. I understand it is not too far away. This is the heart of well, Islam. Right? And all the terrorists are, like muslims, right? The logic is unassailable.

Sullivan has consistently opposed this plan. That makes him a weaked-kneed coward who is not serious about fighting the GWOT. Why does he hate America?

Also, invading Israel every once in a while would teach them who the "real" boss is. But Sully opposes this too. He really is unserious and weak.

A case can also be made to randomly invade a country somewhere in the world once a decade to maintain the projection of American power. Just how serious does one have to get? I mean, is not war a serious thing? Is not ending the existence of others a clear demonstration of seriousness? I mean seriously.

Seriously, the poster who asked why take Sullivan seriously, hit the nail on the head as it were with a pithy, yet fully serious, analysis. Andrew Sullivan is seriously unserious.

I'm serious about this.

Thomas (the fake one, I assume),

Can you point out the difference between this "plan" and the Republican plan?

I think there are lots of differences, not just one. The Democrat plan is so vague it's hard to know what a lot of it really means in terms of concrete policy. I'm not sure what the point of the question is.

If it's okay for the Democrats to have no plan for withdrawing the troops, why isn't it also okay for the Republicans to have no plan for withdrawing the troops?

If it's okay for the Democrats to support massive increases in military and counter-terrorism spending, why isn't it also okay for the Republicans to support massive increases in military and counter-terrorism spending?

Osama Bin Laden Poised to Attack United States.

We're coming up to an anniversary,
and the governing party's plan is just as good now as it was then.

Kevin wrote: "So what's the problem?"

The problem is that Andrew Sullivan doesn't really want any solutions beyond those that his neocon buddies tried and which have failed miserably. He wanted so much for muscular and robust military action to re-shape Iraq so raw American power could then be used to intimidate the rest of the Middle East to do America's bidding. He's throwing a tantrum because that approach didn't work and he doesn't know any other method.

If Sullivan had a working brain in his head, he wouldn't need the Democrats to tell him what's needed to clean up George Bush's mess in the Middle East and to give the US a more effective role there. He'd be able to clearly see it himself but obviously that's beyond his capability.

Sullivan doesn't "think" or "research" so much as he emotes. He'd be permanently stuck at some free "alternative" weekly, if various well-connected Yanks hadn't been suckered by his Tory Gay Catholic Brit performance art schtick.

Kevin these feelings you have for Andrew are quite natural and normal. In many places around the world you can even marry. Now you say you want to just suck his dick, lick his arse and engage in mutual masturbation at the moment and thats all well and good ( Sear hotmilitarymen.com) but should you decide to go-all-the-way there is no need not to provided you're both completely open and honest about your respective sexual histories and have proper testing.
You may even decide to post pics of your bareback adventures with Andrew and why not?
The internet - it's great and it's a free country.

GOP,

Let's address the fact that the Democrats will never appear to have a clear plan because they don't have a clear leader. The Repubs do as Bush is your President and therefore the policy that eminates from the White House will appear to be the Repub plan. Bush is in a position to implement this Repub plan. I am told that he is in fact implementing the Repub plan as we comment away. It seems to me that he is muddling through a failed plan that was pretty much his idea (and by his, I mean Cheney's).

Now had Gore been elected, we would not have invaded Iraq even if 9/11 still would have happened. Why? Because no Democrat outside of maybe Lieberman would have been stupid enough to take the lead down that road. The Dems would have emphasized law enforcement and intelligence while showing some power by invading Afghanistan. They probably wouldn't have been as popular as the Repubs were with the invasion of Iraq but it is obvious that they would have been much more effective at countering terrorism.

The point is leadership matters in the perception of a plan. The Dems don't have a Prez so they don't have a single definable plan. It appears muddled because it is. It is the confluence of many many democrats. The perception of a clear plan is a function of who holds the White House. When the Repubs lose the White House, their plan will suddenly look muddled.

But it should be obvious that the Dems would be different. They would not put up with the failed policy in Iraq. It hasn't worked and we haven't made any progress at all there since we knocked out Saddam. In fact, it has gotten much worse. More people die there than when Saddam was in power. WE've lost an additonal 2500 people since 9/11 because of this policy. Keeping at it is insanity.

And when Bush and Cheney and Lieberman talk of staying the course so we can win in Iraq, they don't actually mean stay the course to win in Iraq. They mean stay the course in Iraq so they can win at home. If they ever hint that maybe they screwed up with this war, whatever support they had, would fade away to almost nothing. For a long time now this hasn't been about the U.S. and success, but their own political survival. It's a human response but it is the act of cowards.

The fact of the matter is that the Democrat plan for the War on Terror is one word long.

"Surrender"

Everything else is just lies and blusters from the appeasement-heavy left.

I don't agree with Sullivan about everything, but broadly speaking he and I belong to the same libertarian-conservative camp. On this particular point I think Drum is correct and that Andrew would do well to stop parroting this particular talking point.

That said, I keep in mind the big picture: This blog-dialogue among Drum, Sullivan, and others is miles ahead of where the discussion would be if it involved the pseudocon blogs in the mold of Powerline, The Corner, et al. That sort of shrill self-imagined "conservative" can allow no dissent and is essentially a waste of bandwidth. Blogs like Sullivan's and this one at least sustain my hope that the Internet can make a substantial contribution to our understanding of political issues.

the Democrats aren't Joe Public, they're another executive competing with the current CEO for his job,

No, your analogy is wrong. "The Democrats" aren't "another executive". They are a host of members of the board of directors who are all dissatisfied with the current CEO and want to oust him. They may be dissatisfied for different reasons, they may have different ideas about what needs to be done differently, they may have different superior candidates in mind for the job. What they all agree on is that the current CEO is an out-to-lunch loser who is ruining the company. The first order of business is to get rid of current leadership; the second order of business is to review the plans offered by rival candidates and see which sounds most sensible.

Let's look at Kevin's description of the Democrat plans:

1. 2006 a year of significant transition and responsible redeployment of US troops. No one should argue with either one of these. Let us sincerely hope 2007 sees more transition, bringing us closer to getting the hell out of there (responsibly). That still leaves a lot of fighting in the meantime.

2. Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating economic, social, and political conditions that create them. That's no less ambitious than the neocon plan, if they're serious. We can piss off all kinds of people trying to do it.

Lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights. One presumes we'll do this without invading, which leaves...? Sanctions, strong notes? Lessee, who's on the UN human rights commission?

Renew longstanding alliances that advance our national security. Such as, with Israel? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? The Gulf States? Probably not Iraq, eh? Is the opportunity to kill Taliban enough to keep Afghanistan on the list?

3. Only allow Dubai to manage the loading of containers bound for the US. They will not be allowed to write paychecks for US longshoremen. (The Chinese can, though.)

4. Energy independence by 2020 by not using oil from the ME or unstable areas. Does that include Venezuela? Like money, oil is fungible, use any and it's the same as using ME oil. Those darned market forces....

5. Iran should be concerned it has no realistic chance of making enrichment and reprocessing plants operational...an existential threat of a military response, in some conditions. Glad they added that last phrase. Otherwise, it would have sounded too much like somebody might actually make a threat.

6. Screen 100% of containers and cargo. Good thought, if difficult. It'll make shipping a bit more expensive, but so what?

Safeguard nuke and chemical plants (and refineries?) More guards or anti-aircraft weapons, as well? Will the government pay for it? Safeguard food and water supplies. How, for gnu's sake? And why no mention of the borders here?

All in all, some good ideas. How is another question, though the way things are, it probably won't be asked, anyway.

Actually, RT's complaint is unfair to Sullivan -- the details of what he's actually proposing are
entirely practical even given the gigantic problem mentioned by RT (which I've been yelling about like a stuck record for years -- and which we are indeed now seeing in action as democratic elections actually start to occur in the Mideast). But Sullivan's proposals are also extremely modest -- they consist pretty much of standing aside and offering to hold the coats of any Moslem liberal democrats who DO turn up in the reasonably near future. Fine; but let's not confuse this with any hope of the situation improving in any significant way for a long time. The Moslem world is indeed going to have to find out the hard way, by themselves, that
Islamic dictatorships don't work any better than the secular variety -- and then they're actually going to have to OVERTHROW those Islamic dictatorships. A long, drawn-out and painful process, to put it mildly. And during this long period, our overwhelming top-level priority is to try to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those dictatorships, which may ultimately be impossible but which is absolutely crucial to attempt. Everything else we do is a very distant second to that.

Brian: "It is very interesting to see how the redeploy to Kurdistan idea is taking hold. Of course, there is no need for troops in Kurdistan, so the attaction to Democrats and some others is that it is a face-saving way to pull out."

The hell there isn't. (And you can, by the way, include Stanley Kurtz among the pinko defeatists now pushing the idea.)

First, the Iraqi Kurds are among the very, very few Moslems in the region who actually support either a US presence or a "secular" government -- they supported both by 9 to 1 margins in that ABC poll of Iraqis back in early 2004 (at the same time that the Sunnis wanted us out by 4 to 1 and the Shiites were pretty much evenly split). Such a rare asset is not the sort of thing that should be casually thrown away, particularly if the Kurds could build a society that is both liberal-democrat and economically successful and thus embarrass the hell out of the region's Islamists.

Second, they badly need a US presence on hand to protect them from the Sunnis to the south and the Turks to the north -- and also to restrain them from attacking either of those forces. (This will also require careful negotiations to divide up Kirkuk.)

Third, WE badly need military bases in Kurdistan, to enable us to bomb the shit out of any al-Qaida training camps or operational centers that spring up in the mess of Sunni Iraq after we leave that area -- and perhaps also to help stage attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities and/or to exert military leverage on Syria if it attacks non-Shiite Lebanon. In short, pulling out of Kurdish Iraq would be as lunatic as NOT pulling out of the rest of Iraq is.

Bruce,

Who's going to tell the legitimate government(elected, with a constitution and everything) that we are going to disregard their sovereignty and protect only the 20% of their population that we like? Should we set up an independent Kurdistan? The legitimate government of Iraq would be justified invading a breakaway Kurdistan. Turkey (our ally by treaty) isn't going to like that very much, either.

Besides, Kurdistan has no seaport and only one sizable airport. No refinery, either. Our supplies would have to come through Turkey.

What would we do when the Kurds attempt to seize Kirkut and the oil fields there? Help them or just stand aside going tsk, tsk?

Anyway, Kuwait, the Gulf States, or even our new bases in the 'Stans are better suited for attacking Iran (may it never come to that).

The problem is Andrew Sullivan loves himself some strawmen...mmm mmm good...

But at least you were helpful Kevin, I wonder if he will read his trackback...maybe he will start a blog conversation with you and you can walk him back from the ledge...

He does have somewhat of a national voice via Bill Maher and Chris Matthews...

It's simple, Kevin. In the world of the Keyboard Kommandos and WATBs, any plan that doesn't involve bombing random Middle Eastern Muslim states isn't really a plan.

Sullivan knows what Democrats have said, and since the documentation for interfering with Iran and creating a pretext for war is codified, there should be no reason any Democrat will not meet his ultimate approval. Too bad.

Sullivan is not a libertarian. No libertarian would interfere with the internal affairs of another country. His desire to prevent Iranian nuclear self determinaiton with military coercion belies his authoritarianism, which is a better description of his ideology.

Speaking of Bill Maher and Chris Matthews, why isn't Kevin Drum invited to those shows?

What are these "Democrat plans". There can be "democratic plans" or plans made by Democrats.

Try it sometime ... or would you rather demean yourself with White House talking points?

Trashhauler's problem doesn't arise as a legal matter, for two reasons. First -- as the Washington Post pointed out several months ago -- the Irqaqi constitution sets up such a loose federation that it allows the Kurds to invite us to stay in their part of Iraq even if the other groups order us out of theirs. Second, the existence of a "legitimate" government of Iraq is, to put it mildly, a dead letter at this point.

Of course, this still leaves the possibility that the Iraqi Sunni bloc might invade the Kurdish section anyway. Which is why a nominally acceptable division of the Kirkuk oil fields, to minimize the odds of this, is an important part of any such plan.

the democrat problem is the usual problem: that they have a complicated policy approach that actually addresses the problem instead of the easy to remember and even easier to not think about republican platitude approach that appeals only to insecure egos and solves nothing while enriching their (republican) rich whore political contributors - a trifecta.

Dems got to get them some of those platitudes and slogans to go along with their problem addressing real policies.

We need to get out of Iraq and get serious about building an effective global alliance against terrorism.

So, Kevin, WHAT would be PERFECT???? I'm getting sick and tired of reading/hearing those who are supposedly of like mine to me continually beating up Democrats. Anyone out there who still believes that it's even possible for Democrats to screw up this country and the world as badly as this gang has done will be deserving of what happens to them when the upcoming elections go the way of the Repugs yet again! A little less introspection and a lot more support and activity promoting the alternatives to what is now crippling America and endangering the world, PLEASE!!!!

Needs to be in PowerPoint, for Feith and his friends. :-)

GOP:"If it's okay for the Democrats to have no plan for withdrawing the troops, why isn't it also okay for the Republicans to have no plan for withdrawing the troops?"

"If it's okay for the Democrats to support massive increases in military and counter-terrorism spending, why isn't it also okay for the Republicans to support massive increases in military and counter-terrorism spending?"

The difference is that the Republicans are in control of everything, and things are FUBAR because of Republican policies. So the Republicans are trying to distract Americans from the complete failure of Republican policies by claiming that the Democrats need to come up with a better "plan."

I have to hand it to the Republicans, they are aggressive: They embody the aphorism that the best defense is a good offensive. IE, Republicans may be totally wrong, but as long as they keep attacking everyone else, it staves off accountability.

I'm just amazed that so much disk space and Internet bandwidth are given over to Andrew Sullivan's rants. Seriously. The fellow hasn't been taken seriously by normal people for years.

Kevin, I know the problem with Andrew Sullivan! Sullivan is a sick HIV-positive pervert who wants to have “bareback” sex and spread his disease around. The sick fuck.

he's a fucking limey ,who cares want he wants.

"Can you point out the difference between this "plan" and the Republican plan? When do the Republicans propose to withdraw U.S. troops?" - thomas

This is exactly the point Thomas. This is way too similar to Bush's plan and quite frankly, I trust the original architect of the plan more than I trust the patched-together facsimile.

A redeploy to Kurdistan isn't likely. While it makes sense when thinking about Iraq alone, we'd lose considerable support from Turkey -- a far more valuable ally in the mid-east. Turkey is a bit paranoid about any rise in Kurdish influence.

I'm no fan of Gore, but we would not be stuck in Iraq with him. He's not a cowboy.

("Bring 'em on" still rates as the single stupidest and most irresponsible statement ever uttered by a wartime prez)

Thomas (the fake one, I assume),

No, the real one. Just remember the real Thomas is the life-long Democrat who voted for John Kerry. The fake "Thomas" is posing as some sort of neocon. Maybe he's this "Charlie"?

"Gary Ruppert?" Is he an invention to show how stupid Bush supporters are?

And how surprising that Frequency Kenneth can't read!

Whatever happened to the Democratic Party?

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrthefourfreedoms.htm

FDR's Four Freedoms Speech (partial text)

"Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.

Our national policy is this:

First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.

Secondly, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute people everywhere who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our hemisphere. By this support we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail, and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.

More of FDR's speech........

"Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge."

In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they will regard as a breach of international law or as an act of war our aid to the democracies which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid -- Such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it so to be."

thomas: Can you point out the difference between this "plan" and the Republican plan?

at 12:47am

gop: I think there are lots of differences, not just one.

then proceeded ...not to mention even one difference

all hat and no cattle

The Dems have a plan, but their consultants are liguistically challenged windbags. Do a word count on Sullivan's and the Democrats' points.

When it comes to message, Republicans have mastered: less is more, repetition is the key to success, self-serving reframes and P.T. Barnum's philosophy of human nature.

The fragmented Democratic communication strategy allows Republicans to reframe the Middle East war as the birth pangs of democracy, claim we're winning in Iraq and compares the internet to a dump truck and tubes.

Let's see what happens this November.....

"For years Democrats have based their argument on the "What war on terror?" line. They have become so convinced that there simply IS no war on terror ......." - mhr

And for the past couple of years the Dems have been telling us we need to GET OUT of Iraq, yet the denial of the GWOT and the quick "exit" strategy from Iraq are nowhere to be found in the Democratic "plan".

Do you suppose they even listen to themselves?

there's a war on terror...

here's how you can tell...

gwb just ordered 6k national guardsmen to the southern border..

5-years after 9-11....

i like the way you address the issues of inconpetent leaders.

In this month's Atlantic Monthly Mr. Fallows suggested that the US declare that the war on terror is over and that WE won!

mhr:

LOL. Didn't the Republicans already do this in 2004 when John Ashcroft declared "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved"?

But hen again, that might be better than George W. Bush's defeatism when he said on August 29, 2004 "I don’t think you can win [the war on terror]."

dead ender talking points on display:

question from thomas: Can you point out the difference between this "plan" and the Republican plan?

jay's reply: This is way too similar to Bush's plan (10:18 am)

gop's reply: I think there are lots of differences, not just one. (12:47 am)

Jay:

Can you please explain to me in twenty-five words or less what the Republican "plan" for a quick "exit" strategy from Iraq is? Remember that according to President Bush "victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to tell us what that exit strategy is."

thisspaceavailable:

I'm hardly a "dead ender." I voted for John Kerry, for God's sakes!

Sullivan is a Big Lib, so what, he does at times try for practical thought although some what limited in scope and honesty he tries (if you are a liberal thats all that counts is that you try). How do the DEMS Force Bush (the commander and chief) the top COMMANDER in the Military to[?]"re-deploy in an effective non aggressive cluster fuck pattern to sucessfully win the hearts and minds of the poor down troden IRAQs" How can we become Independent of MIDDLE EAST OIL without new wells (off the coast) or any where? How about building new Refineries? In other words use our OIL (yes kids we have plenty) AMERICAN JOBS and AMERICAN REFINERIES(creates TAX dollars DEMS love TAXES MONEY for the poor free lunch come on TAX MONEY think of the vote buying) But,,,OH shit!!! What to do about the Communists and the WACKO ENVIRO Groupies? Take their money for the fall campaigns ,lie like a dog and blame BUSH? OK! Good job for Algore to handle he can put the CONCEPT in the lockbox.Can we, should we create an open policy to pormote good will to Militan ISLAM. To give hope to those who want to CUT OUR FUCKING THROATS.So please tell those who hate us that we will promise to be nice. Maybe we as a Country should deny GOD. Close all Christian Churchs. Tell and the Jews to hide(forever). NUKE Israel so Iran wont waste any Fuel for the Reactor Bubba Bill gave them.Get Bin Laden to Apoligize then give him Immunity or give him New Jersey (his choice of course)Even after all this we still would be at WAR!!!!! Got any answers? You people dont get it how hard is it to understand?
Screening all the Cargo makes good speak. But how do you explain a shirt from Pakistan costing $68 or a Hot Wheel (toy car) DUH for $13? People who call for this have never seen a Dock or are really really really stupid.Just think ,if the Government hired 100,000 people to do this we could probably get 2 or 3 hundred inspections done daily WOW thats progress.
How about stomping the shit out of these CELLS or Groups or TIN HORN ISLAMIC NUT SACKS? Why not defeat them? How about a firm policy.If you kill Americans anywhere you will die. You try to blow up a Building we blow up your Country. You threaten us as a Leader of a group or Country we take your ass out.PUT AND END TO IT BEFORE IT ENDS US!!!!! This would take Guts and conviction and the Democrat PARTY has neither.

thomas....

dead ender talking points...concerns

the replies...not the question that started the responses

"Can you please explain to me in twenty-five words or less what the Republican "plan" for a quick "exit" strategy from Iraq is?" - thomas

There is no "quick" exit strategy. (6 words)

The exit strategy is "victory". I know that's a foreign concept to liberals and don't expect you to understand it. But FDR understood it well. Whatever happened to the Democratic Party?

thisspaceavailable:

Sorry. Not enough coffee yet. ;)

Jay:

LOL. Are you dense? Remember that Bush himself said "victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to tell us what that exit strategy is."

Do you know what a syllogism is? If "victory means exit strategy" (according to Bush) and "the exit strategy is victory" (according to you) then that's an example of a syllogism.

What happened to the Republican Party? They used to have men who understood warfare such as Dwight Eisenhower. No wonder Americans no longer trust Republicans when it comes to protecting them.

The internet is buzzing about the possiblity of a McCain/Lieberman ticket in '08. Michael Barone says that ticket might be unbeatable.

That ticket is not my first choice.

But the prospect of watching Kevin Drum have an emotional meltdown during the 08 election season would be fun!

Jay:

Yes, FDR did understand well how to fight a war. That's why less than four years after Pearl Harbor FDR and his successor Truman had beaten Japan and its leaders were dead or in jail. It's been five years since 9/11 and GWB has still not managed to catch OBL.

Jay is exactly right -- "victory" is the only acceptable "exit strategy." We would all be better off if Powell and his media friends had never come up with and perpetuated the phrase "exit strategy." It is one of those terms that sounds entirely logical and certainly reflects what everyone wants in terms of bringing troops home, but it is insanity to try to shape the national security of America around the need to develop an exit strategy from armed conflict other than victory. Now we need to suffer various politicians and pundits yammering endlessly about the need for an exit strategy and, worse yet, it has become such a political and media favorite that the term will never go away.

Exit strategies are for cocktail parties, not for wars.

Most of us wouldn't argue that the Dems have been the higher order of vertebrates that we'd like them to be, but it still comes down to the lesser of two evils. Besides, whether the Dems have a coherent plan or not, we've all seen the Republican version, and it's an unmitigated disaster. ANYTHING would be better. Stay the course, my ass.

Some people are just too big a wimp to admit that the U.S. is capable of making a mistake that can only be corrected by "un-doing" what was done, in this case, withdrawing the invading army. For most Presidents, this certainly seems to be asking too much.

In Vietnam, the congress literally kept cutting off money over a long period of time. No President made a hard and fast decision to just get out. Well, we got out and it helped our security as opposed to hurting it.

Reagan did withdraw from Lebanon in the 80s and it was the right thing to do (especially considering that he, in the first place, ignored the unanimous objection of the joint chiefs to deploying troops there). And it improved our security; it did not make us weaker.

Clinton did cut our losses in Somalia by withdrawing, and it was the right thing to do. It solved a problem; it did not make us weaker.

But for a big operation like Iraq, it may be asking too much for a President to withdraw the troops, even though most informed observers would probably agree that we’d be better off if we did not have ANY troops there.

The only solution I see is for a majority of the American people to give a President cover by making it clear we do not want troops deployed in Iraq, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, etc.

We will have to ignore the wimps who are terrified of looking “weak”.

"Yes, FDR did understand well how to fight a war. That's why less than four years after Pearl Harbor FDR and his successor Truman had beaten Japan and its leaders were dead or in jail. It's been five years since 9/11 and GWB has still not managed to catch OBL." - thomas

62 MILLION people lost their lives in WWII because FDR did not worry about eixt strategies or fighting a politically correct war. There is not one single leader in the current Democratic Party that has the vision or leadership that FDR had.

"Exit strategies are for cocktail parties, not for wars" - brian

BRILLIANT

'The greatest tool we have in fighting this war (WWII), is conviction in the dignity and brotherhood of every human being."
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Somebody never read what Kerry proposed. Somebody never read what Wes Clark proposed. And somebody seems to have no clue regarding the difference of a standing/invading/capable German army and a dormant/decimated/laughable Iraqi army.

"And somebody seems to have no clue regarding the difference of a standing/invading/capable German army and a dormant/decimated/laughable Iraqi army." lojfrc

um.......we're not fighting the Iraqi Army.

And John Kerry is famous for saying "We need to fight a more sensitive war".

Um, and somebody has such a short memory that they can't remember the reason for invading in the first place: too deal with the awesome Iraqi military capability, including "some of the most lethal weapons" the world had ever seen.

Andrew Sullivan hates freedom. Andrew Sullivan is a Bush-loyalist and a terrorist-lover. He is also a traitor. None of this is hyperbole. Every word is true.

Friends, enjoy this timely and pertinant animation:

http://cultureofabuse.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

Here's that link one more time:
The Culture of Abuse

Yeah, that sensitive Kerry. He no doubt remembers what it was like, while wearing his country’s uniform, to point and fire his weapon, killing the enemy.

A very sensitive guy, that Kerry.

Exit strategies are for cocktail parties, not for wars.

Brian:

Then why did Bush say "victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to tell us what the exit strategy is"? Was Bush speaking about a cocktail party? After all, we know how much trouble he has "exiting" from any place where drinks are being served. ;)

"Um, and somebody has such a short memory that they can't remember the reason for invading in the first place: too deal with the awesome Iraqi military capability, including "some of the most lethal weapons" the world had ever seen." - lojfrc

I will keep reminding you.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21497

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has smuggled weapons of mass destruction into Algeria, Sudan and Libya -- and has played an ongoing role in the war in Sudan between the Islamic government of Khartoum and the black, mostly Christian and animist South Sudanese People's Liberation Army, WorldNetDaily has learned.

The chilling story comes via the Iraqi-Kurdish doctor, Hassan Abdul Salaam (a Muslim name meaning "Soldier of Peace"), who earlier shared with WorldNetDaily from his home in a repatriation camp here his revelations about Hussein's biological weapons program.When I was conscripted into the Iraqi army's biological weapons unit, I learned a lot about their military technology in this regard," Salaam said. "Artillery shells loaded with toxins and poisons: botulism, anthrax -- you name it, he's got it.

I estimate over 8,000 liters of anthrax, 200 tons of VX nerve gas and an unknown quantity of agent 15. What Saddam and Dr. Izbah don't have on hand, they get from the North Koreans or the Russians ... or others."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

"Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security."

62 MILLION people lost their lives in WWII because FDR did not worry about eixt strategies or fighting a politically correct war. There is not one single leader in the current Democratic Party that has the vision or leadership that FDR had.

Jay:

62 MILLION people lost their lives in WWII because of Hitler. Why are you blaming America for what Hitler did? Is it because you hate America or because you love Nazism more?

"Then why did Bush say "victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to tell us what the exit strategy is"? Was Bush speaking about a cocktail party? After all, we know how much trouble he has "exiting" from any place where drinks are being served. ;)" - thomas

He also said this:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/30/us.iraq/

"Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible," Bush said. "And those are my goals as well. I will settle for nothing less than complete victory."

And John Kerry is famous for saying "We need to fight a more sensitive war".

Jay:

And George Bush is famous for saying "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to tell us what that exit strategy is" and "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]."

"62 MILLION people lost their lives in WWII because of Hitler. Why are you blaming America for what Hitler did? Is it because you hate America or because you love Nazism more?" - thomas

But you lay the blame of the death of 2500 US soldiers on Bush, but excuse FDR from the death of 62 million people (which includes nearly 37 million military personel)

Can you say hypocrite.

Sullivan is a mental midget in the field of civics.

By his own words, he agrees that one is a conservative because they believe the world is filled with scary evil people that must be stopped.

In short he's just a piss-in-his-pance fear-monkey.

After observing the events coming from London, three things become immediately clear:

(1) That, in the age of terror, police-detective work, and small S.W.A.T. teams are instrumental to combating terrorism (as they have always been);

(2) Persuasion, the winning over of hearts and minds to accept a more modern, enlightened, tolerant, perhaps transcendental way of thinking, living, and being, with no or little compromise to ones religious beliefs, is the ultimate end-game for this age of terror - where upon we will all coexist peacefully, tollerantly, happily, joyfully;

(3) Global Wars or a Clash of civilizations has no instrumentality toward preventing terrorist incidents, nor in winning the hearts and minds, and so serves no useful purpose in the ending this era of terrorism. Indeed war motivates people to terrorist acts - in other words, causes hearts and minds that may have once been won over, to become lost to the other side.

Points one and two are immeasurably less expensive than point three.

The cacophony coming from Neo-conservatives, Bush’s base, advocates for point three: Iraq/Lebanon writ large. However, by definition, point three loses the battle of persuasion of hearts and minds, as both Lebanon and Iraq clearly demonstrates, meaning the only way to victory is the elimination of those lost hearts and minds, which only grows in number with each new battle fought. Taken to its logical conclusion, point three leads to either genocide or defeat and a massive expense of men, money and material: it is therefore, irrational.

We are applying a blunt instrument where a tweezers would work much more effectively.

We are applying more brawn where more brain would work much more effectively.

Humanity did not ascend into high civilization by applying blunt instruments and braw, other creatures are much more effective at that.

The lives that are being lost in Iraq are being lost in vein. (Except in the context that the lives lost by the Romans at Cannae were instrumental in teaching the Romans how they couldn't fight against Hannibal, Iraq is doing the same for us in the era of terror).

This is a war that is on balance, highly ideological.

The solution to this war thus has to have a highly ideological component.

In that sense, it is like the cold war.

It takes time and patience, and good police style work, with small paramilitary type combat, but little else.

The money and lives spent in Iraq is a waste and a distraction and counter productive, in that it persuades no one.

The major issue of this war has to do with modernism and modernisms characteristic of specialization of task, particularly that specialization of task that separates civics/politics from religion.

To many Muslim's this is counter intuitive. However, Specialization of task has lead the non-muslim world to become ascendant over the Muslim world. This also is counter-intuitive to many Muslims, as they believe that Islam should be the ascendant civilization. This in turn creates a crisis for some Muslims, many who resort to terrorism as a result - this would be less likely if they and their societies weren't backsliding.

Like most religions, Islam has contradictory teachings; so one teaching lies dormant, while another is activated. So in a broader context Islam today is struggling with de-activating norms that don’t accommodate modernism and activating norms that do. This means that, in addition to preventing acts of terrorism, informed persuasion is important for resolving this era of terrorism.

Its like the cold war, we have to be persistent and stead fast in our system, and over time the weaker system will make the adjustments and join the stronger.

Part of the problem is that Bush is a neocon. Neocons aren't democratic. And they don't believe in separation of church and state. Because they don't believe in church and state, they can't do option number 2 - persuasion. That leaves them only with option 3 - global war, clash of civilizations and ultimately mass death, or genocide.

At any rate, we should not resort to a policy of barbarism at first course. Such acts render the enlightenment, of which this nation’s constitution and way of life is a fruit of, as a total failure. I would hope that that is not the end purpose of Neo-conservatives or Bush’s advocates, but their acts and words certainly do give me reasons to pause.

According to Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”, ‘all battles are lost or won before the fighting begins.’

In the end, if the Neo-conservatives are right, and a more enlightened approach doesn’t work, well then we can always resort to barbarism later. Then they can say, “we told you so” and little will have been lost for having tried alternatives.

What do I mean by little?

Well, by default, a policy of barbarism represents a loss of civilization – our civilization. For everyone other than neo-conservatives, a policy of barbarism represents a lose/lose proposition.

It’s ironic how the ancient SunTzu’s words ring so true in our modern predicatment.

Jay:

Most Americans want our troops to win but the defeatist George Bush said "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." What does Bush know that we don't? Has he made some sort of secret deal? Is he planning to give up?

But you lay the blame of the death of 2500 US soldiers on Bush, but excuse FDR from the death of 62 million people (which includes nearly 37 million military personel)

Jay:

So you really do blame the United States for what Hitler did. I thank you for answering my question: you both hate America AND you love Nazism. ;)

So what's the problem?

With all of the other chaff surrounding these points, it is hard to tell whether these are or are not the actual Democratic points.

As to energy independence, most Democrats in the House and Senate voted against the president's energy plan; now that new biofuels plants are actually being constructed under its auspices, and with its funding, a few like Hillary Clinton have changed their minds -- at least on biofuels. but in general, the Democrats appear to be more opposed to profits in the energy industries than they are in favor of plentiful supplies. Since no policy can achieve EXACTLY what it wants, Democrats have the wrong emphasis for our problem.

As a specific example, candidate and incumbent Tenent of MO just inaugurated construction of a new biofuels plant in western MO. Since he voted for the plant that is now under construction, it should help his re-election campaign. I think you'll see a lot of this in the upcoming three months: Republicans inaugurating new plans (nuclear and wind power in red states) and construction projects (biofuels in agricultural states) for energy development, plans that Democrats voted against.

So what's the problem?

Come on Drum! You had provided the answer ealier in the very same post, saying:

It was — and let me be crystal clear about this — a truly crappy document, a stitched-together pastiche that any major party should have been embarrassed to let see the light of day ...

before going on to contradict this assertion by actually showing that the Dem's plan isn't actually as dumb as you made sound.

How can anyone, A. Sullivan included, take you seriously!

Duh...

And John Kerry is famous for saying "We need to fight a more sensitive war".

So, it seems, are these men:

On 3/4/01, President Bush stressed the need to be "sensitive" in conducting military affairs, stating, "because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence." And just last week, President Bush said, "In terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is — we need to be very sensitive on that."

Shotgun Dick Cheney:

On 4/13/04, Cheney said the Bush administration was focused on conducting sensitive military operations. He stated, "We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We're not insensitive to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships."

In conducting the first war in Iraq, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney repeatedly stressed the need for America to fight a "sensitive" war. On 9/11/90, Cheney told Congress that he "was very concerned about…the clash of cultures" brought on by U.S. troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, and that the U.S. must "try to be sensitive."

On 2/7/90, Cheney told Congress that the Pentagon must be "sensitive" in developing weapons. He said that he understood the need for the Pentagon to explore civilian uses of weapons-related technology, saying, "I think we need to be very sensitive to that as a department."

von Rumsfeld:

In the lead up to the Iraq war and afterwards, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised the Pentagon would be "sensitive." On 2/5/03, he said "we have to be sensitive, to the extent the world thinks the United States is focused on the problems in Iraq, it's conceivable that someone could make a mistake and believe that that's an opportunity for them to take an action which they otherwise would have avoided." On 7/9/03, he reassured the public that his department was being "sensitive" to troop needs during the war. He said U.S. commanders are "sensitive to the importance of troops knowing what the rotation plan will be so they have some degree of certainty in their lives. And [they] are sensitive to the importance of the quality of their lives."

Ashcroft:

Attorney General John Ashcroft has repeatedly stressed the need for the Bush administration to be "sensitive" in fighting the War on Terror. On 4/28/03, just a month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Ashcroft said, "The United States is very sensitive about interfering in the internal politics of other countries." On 3/20/02, he said the Justice Department was making sure to be "sensitive" in hunting down terrorists. He said, "The agents and officers who conducted the interviews did so in a sensitive manner, showing full respect for the rights and dignity of the individuals being interviewed."

www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/2333.html

"62 MILLION people lost their lives in WWII because of Hitler." - thomas

Yes, and the fatalities in this war are because of the Islamo-fascists. Why can you not your little brain around that one.

"So you really do blame the United States for what Hitler did. I thank you for answering my question: you both hate America AND you love Nazism. ;)" - thomas

Whatever disturbed intellectually dishonest and moral equivalent world you occupy, please keep it to your self.

Arminius, you are exactly right and that is why we are currently having a difficult time in this conflict. The left has been so vocal on fighting the "sensitive" war that of course the President needs to listen to it. That's what Presdients do, consider the desires of all Americans. Thwe left is getting exactly what they wished for, sensitivity and quagmire.

FDR would have had none of it.

What happened to the Democratic party.

oh that's right.......Howard Dean.

Jay:

I'm just trying to have a polite and civil conversation about your Nazi sympathies. If you don't want to do that and just want to engage in ad hominems, I can't stop you. I will, however, defend to the death your right to express your anti-American opinions -- even though you don't want to defend me the same way. ;)

The Bush apologists bring up FDR in WWII as their model. I'll buy that when I start seeing the shared sacrifice that FDR led:

Universal conscription.

No war profiteering.

No tax cuts for the wealthy.

Deferment of an ideological domestic agenda until the war is won.

Given that we don't see this from the current administration, I'm going to assume that they really don't want to win their war, but to have a war around as a club to beat up the opposition.

Yes, and the fatalities in this war are because of the Islamo-fascists. Why can you not your little brain around that one.

Jay:

But you said the fatalities in WWII
were "because" of FDR. You lay the blame of the deaths of 2500 US soldiers on the Islamo-fascists, but excuse Hitler from the death of 62 million people (which includes nearly 37 million military personel).

Can you say hypocrite? (Don't worry, you only have to say it, I won't ask you to spell it.)

Jay: Thwe left is getting exactly what they wished for, sensitivity and quagmire.

Well, at least Jay finally admitted the war is a quagmire.

What's the difference between a troll and somebody who is just willfully ignorant? I wish I knew. Either of such persons is capable of linking to an article written by a foolish person way back in 2001 that claimed Saddam was hiding his horrible WMD in Sudan and other such countries.

I won’t be following any more of you links buddy, troll or no. Been there done that.

"I'm just trying to have a polite and civil conversation about your Nazi sympathies. If you don't want to do that and just want to engage in ad hominems," - thomas

ad hominems?

"you both hate America AND you love Nazism. ;)" - thomas

Thomas, you are too stupid and too intellectually dishonest to engage in any form debate. Consider yourself ignored.

Have a nice day.

Jay:

I'm sorry to hear you say that. As I said I was just trying to engage in a civil debate and give you the chance to express your opinions. I'm sorry if you're so filled with anger and hatred that you can't find it in yourself to do that. I'll say a prayer for you tonight to help you find the strength to heal your heart.

PS to Jay:

You have a nice day too!

Posted by: Hostile on August 12, 2006 at 3:29 AM: "Sullivan is not a libertarian. No libertarian would interfere with the internal affairs of another country."

That's certainly not one of his more libertarian stances, and in general his libertarianism seems to apply more to domestic than to foreign policy.

"Either of such persons is capable of linking to an article written by a foolish person way back in 2001 that claimed Saddam was hiding his horrible WMD in Sudan and other such countries" lojfrc

I understand. It's difficult to stay on script when there can be refuting evidence.

god, i've seen few things funnier lately than this Jay-Thomas foodfight. Jay must be dizzy from all the contortions he did to keep up with Thomas. At one point you could actually hear his brain snap.....

"The chilling story comes via the Iraqi-Kurdish doctor, Hassan Abdul Salaam"

btw, lojrc, this is who you referred to as "foolish"

I'm afraid I know the reason.

People in the media have a curious inability to hear anything Wesley Clark says.

Wesley Clark was a significant contributor to the Democratic plan, ergo, the plan is invisible.

Just like the 10,000 signatures that Clark has already collected asking Lieberman to drop out, even as I read today that Bill Richardson is the first national Democrat to ask Lieberman to step down.

Invisible.

Maybe we should get him to infiltrate some high mucky muck Republican meetings. Not that he'd find out anything worse than what we already know.

"But you said the fatalities in WWII
were "because" of FDR. You lay the blame of the deaths of 2500 US soldiers on the Islamo-fascists, but excuse Hitler from the death of 62 million people (which includes nearly 37 million military " - thomas

"62 MILLION people lost their lives in WWII because of Hitler." - thomas"

"Yes, and the fatalities in this war are because of the Islamo-fascists."

jennas bush (probably is exactly what you are), what part of iltellectual dishonesty don't you undertand?

So then, 'Thomas', since you're a 'lifelong Democrat who voted for John Kerry' then why did you admit to criticizing Bush for failing to purge Clinton appointees from the federal bureaucracy?

Could you please just explain that in clear and simple English?

and for those still reading, here is another nifty new development in solar power:

http://www.konarka.com/news_and_events/press_releases/2006/7_july/0731_renewable.php

Jay:

Did you or did you not say "62 MILLION people lost their lives in WWII because FDR did not worry about eixt strategies or fighting a politically correct war"?

obscure:

That must have been my doppelganger, fake "Thomas," who's been posting as me to make me look like some sort of deranged neocon. Maybe he's really "Charlie"?

jay: jennas bush (probably is exactly what you are), what part of iltellectual dishonesty don't you undertand?

The word "iltellectual." What does it mean?

Kevin,
I don't think it's far fetched to guess that Sullivan has not seriously considered Democratic proposals. His only redeeming characteristic is that he can write fairly fluently. But he writes fluently about political positions than are mostly shallow.

Remember your critique of his budget-balancing proposals?

And as some of the commenters above have noted, it is really difficult to comprehend gay conservatives who mostly back the republican party. Republicans, for sure, have way above average hostility towards gay people.

But they also have above average hostility towards lots of "types" of people.

Iran doesn't care if we actually attack or not. Hell, they are even assuming that we will attack, but come hell or high water they will be making a beeline for a bomb because they know that is all we really care about or listen to.

So the excursion in Iraq has our boys surrounded by millions of Sioux indians and in the meantime we are trying to threaten a nearby tribe that they need to listen to us and heed our warnings!

Classical libertarians decry the state in all its forms. They are particularly suspicious of militarism since it is the traditional pastime of tyrants. Just go read antiwar.com to see how these folks feel about the adventures in the Middle East.

There is a great deal of literature going back to the beginning of the 19th century that deals with the political philosophy of people like Sullivan.

The story goes something like this:
The ownership class believes the sole purpose of the state is to provide a police force to protect property. Society itself being composed of atomized individuals who interact and compete in a way that manifests the natural order. This is essentially an economic argument used to organize a form of society that replaces the divine right of kings with the divine right of the economically successful. Roman and Christian tradition held an altogether different ideal of the state. It usually was one in which citizens, trades, and communities had responsibilities that established the harmonious order of state under the divine authority of the king. The self-determined individual was yet to be invented.

The story goes that by the middle of the 19th century the ownership class had overthrown the king and the old order but desired the wealth that came with political power. This could only be done by taking control of monopoly of violence controlled by the state and using it to get resources and markets. First the rest of the nation, those that were not owners or traders, had to be convinced that it was in the nation-state’s best interest to rule other people. People who were not part of the rules and laws (the democracy) that protected citizens of the state. This has never been easy, since the nation often resisted, and military power was often granted to corporate entities that would not be checked by the national parliament and would not drain the national purse. The nasty bit is that the liberated people of the benighted nation always experienced invasion as conquest and resisted. Which ended up costing the nation-state a great deal in blood and treasure.

Kevin, por favor...

It's been almost 18 hours.

We need a new post.

"Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible," Bush said. "And those are my goals as well. I will settle for nothing less than complete victory."

That's going to be tough to do because according to Jay the war is a quagmire. How do you win and come home as soon as possible from a quagmire?

From a thread last week, but it addresses the topic squarely.

Trashhauler:

>> Accept the de-facto partitioning of Iraq (the Iraqi
>> flag is forbidden to be flown in Kurdistan, the Sunnis
>> consider the Shi'ite ISF an invasion when they try to
>> police Anbar, and the Shi'ite south is already a quasi-
>> theocracy backed up by their militias). Reposition the
>> bulk of our forces into friendly Kurdistan. Keep a watch
>> out for any al Qaeda inspired or directed attempts to
>> build and train a terrorist force to export global jihad.

> I'm not certain the de facto partitioning of Iraq is as complete
> as all that. But, even if it is, it is not yet a de jure
> partitioning. Being a diplomat, Mr. Galbraith understands
> the unlikelihood of the as yet standing government of Iraq
> giving us permission to internally redeploy to only one segment
> of the country. Or should we just declare Kurdistan independent
> and set up another government we'd be accused of controlling?

Well first, understand that I'm not saying this with any degree of
relish; I've argued against fellow antiwarriors who've advocated the
partitioning of Iraq as a facile solution. It would mean giving up
on the dream of federated Iraqi democracy. Galbraith, however, is not
an armchair observer; he's a diplomat with on-the-ground experience in
Croatia and Kurdistan. He is talking about "facts on the ground" that
most US observers don't see. Sadly enough, Kurdistan already *is*
partitioned. There is no continuing dialogue on the constitution,
Kirkuk has already been substantially counter-cleansed of the Arabs
Saddam induced/forced to settle there. That they don't allow the Iraqi
flag, that there is a deep (and in many ways justifed) hatred of Arabs
among the Kurds, should be enough to clue us into their independence.

> Redeploying to Kurdistan would present its own problems, of course.
> No seaport, few airports, and a land line of communication through
> a not-disinterested Turkey. No telling what Turkey would allow
> or if they would continue to permit us to support troops through
> Incirlik AB. It's likely that a large deployment to Kurdistan
> would be unsustainable in military terms.

Well, there's already a substantial logistical challenge hauling
our gear from the southern port up through the Shi'ite areas and
the Triangle of Death to Baghdad (that's why we rely so much on
airlifts to the Baghdad Airport) -- a logistical challenge that
could get much worse if Moktada and other Shi'ite militias decide
to go mental on us for our support of Israel in the destruction
of Shi'ite Lebanon. As for Turkey -- I think they could be
pitched to welcome it. The Turks are already having problems with
Kurdish incursions into their country that the Turks are calling
terrorist actions. We could be an arbiter between the sovereign
nation of Turkey and Kurdistan much more effectively than we are
right now between the Shia and the Sunnis in a single country.
We share all kinds of intelligence with and provide military aid
to the Turks, having been staunch allies through the Cold War.

It would be a quarrel between two strong allies, both with reasons
to trust the US much more strongly than the Shia and Sunnis.

> But, assuming it was and we did, where would that
> get us? If, as everyone says, the rest of Iraq
> erupts into an open, tripartite civil war,

Not tripartite; Kurds want nothing to do with the rest of Iraq.

> then what do we do when the legally constituted government
> asks for our assistance? What if the Sunnis need rescuing
> from genocide? Would we support the Kurds in their desire
> to control the oil fields around Kirkuk?

This would, of course, be preconditioned on recognizing that Kirkuk
is already in Kurdish control. While an oil deal to share the wealth
might be brokered in exchange for something -- it would be likely
that they would essentially claim the oil rights by force majeur.

> It's those next steps that go unanswered by Mr. Galbraith.

Well, it entails recognizing a tragic situation and, to a great
extent, abandoning the government we tried to foster in the name
of putting our national security first. Did you catch any of the
hearings on Capitol Hill today with Abizaid, Pace and Rumsfeld?
None of these guys are optimistic, and all say that sectarian
tensions especially in Baghdad are at an all-time high. Right
now, we're trying a massive police action in Baghdad to try to
defuse the situation. If that prangs -- if our soldiers begin
dying in larger numbers, if it turns out that McCain is right and
we've only played "whack-a-mole" as the instigators move elsewhre
and the sectarian killings continue at the same ungodly rate in
different locations -- then we may have to contemplate this choice.

The security operation in Bagdhad with a greatly enhanced US troop
presence on the streets is really the last hope to calm this ...

And, given past experience, the odds of it working aren't great.

> And where does that leave us with regard to the region as a whole?
> We still owe Kuwait and the smaller gulf states protection.

We still have a humungous air and naval in Qatar, as you'll recall,
as well as the base in Kuwait which serves as an Iraq staging area.

> We pulled out of Saudi Arabia because they wouldn't support our
> Afghanistan effort and because our presence there was supposedly
> a primary source of radicalism.

I don't believe GWB did that as a response to bin Laden at
all, but rather as per request of the Saudis themselves.

> What happens if the Persians intervene "on behalf of their
> co-religionists" despite not having been asked? Do we just
> watch it happen from Kurdistan?

Persians are not Arabs, and the religious alliance only has so
much counterweight on the historical emnity between these two
countries. It's much more likely that the Sunnis would need an
intervention on their behalf if the Shia continue to attempt to
cleanse and massacre them. We can certainly provide support to
them with rapid reaction forces and air support from Kurdistan;
it's not like our presence throughout the country is keeping the
Sunnis from being victims of horrendous death squad killings as
it is. Much more important is keeping an eye out for terrorist
agitation and the creation of cells dedicated to revenge against
us and our coalition partners. That we can do from Kurdistan,
with intelligence and contacts we've cultivated throughout Iraq.

> Redeployment to Kurdistan has a certain appeal of clarity
> in a very complicated situation, but it's not a place from
> which anything much can be influenced elsewhere in the region.
> It sure wouldn't do much to stop the next big brouhaha.

Well, I'd have to disagree with this. It's predicated, first and
foremonst, on the realization that the Kurds, Shia and Sunnis all
have radically different visions for how they'd like to be governed,
and an understanding that we can't inculcate pluralist and democratic
values at the point of a gun. It will be tragic for humanity and
civiliation if place like Baghdad and Mosul, which have lived with
mixed populations for generations, have to give up the secuarized
tolerance that Saddam's iron fist ironically enough helped them to
cultivate. But it may be that the conservative religious forces
of both Shia and Sunni are more passionate -- and their religious
law traditions cannot be merged. Iraq was an artificial creation
to begin with, and it may be that the Western forces that created
it with the stroke of a pen after WW1 are simply not capable of
keeping it from its tribal, sectarian and regionalist aspirations.

As for our own national security -- that's why I'm not advocating
a pullout, but rather a redeployment. It's hard indeed to argue
that having so many of our forces hunkered down Iraqi bunkers does
much to prevent "the next big brouhaha" in that configuration.

Kurdistan gives us breathing room among a pro-US population.
We can concentrate more on intelligence than force protection.

Bob

jay: Can you say hypocrite.

yes...

bush is a hypocrite.

jay is a hypocrite.

The Democrat plan is to dump Rumsfeld and replace him with someone who is competent. This is the first step Bush needs to take. Step two is to marshall his State Dept forces to bring in other parties to the table. No one wants an unstable Iraq but many forces don't want an Iraq that is controlled by the US. The US must forfeit control to gain stability.

I'm with non-paying customer: "Kevin, por favor...It's been almost 18 hours. We need a new post."

The post I would like to see, honestly, would examine the London terrorist bust. I trust the Brits to tell the truth, so if they say it was serious I believe them. And I don't doubt that British-Pakistani Muslims are among the many Muslims that hate us and want to harm us. Blowing up planes on the anniversary of 9/11 seems like a nicely vicious strategy.

But I'm puzzling over the explosive angle: It involves some combination of chemicals found in readily available products. The quantities involved are small enough to escape detection under current detection methods. But after being assembled on the plane, the resulting mixture is explosive enough that it can cause planes to crash.

I also understand why no one wants to talk about the specifics, just as we don't want to publish primers on how to build nuclear bombs.

What I'm having trouble believing is that this particularly sinister, deadly explosive is known to Muslim terrorists, but unknown to grad students in chemistry. This seems improbable to me, and I am suspicious.

PTate:

It's not unknown; just follow the links on Wikipedia from the entry on hydrogen peroxide.

The explosive, nicknamed "The Mother of Satan" by the Palestinians who started using it a decade ago, is essentially a combination of acetone -- the main ingredient in nail polish remover -- and concentrated hydrogen peroxide.

It is more volitile than nitroglycerin.

Bob

"Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive"
Damn, there goes those oil money paid university educations, the upper middle class lifestyles and all the burkafillers you want.

That's interesting rmck1.

I did not realize that.

obscure:

> So then, 'Thomas', since you're a 'lifelong Democrat who voted
> for John Kerry' then why did you admit to criticizing Bush for
> failing to purge Clinton appointees from the federal bureaucracy?

> Could you please just explain that in clear and simple English?

Obscure, I haven't seen you on here terribly often lately, but in
case you've missed it, Political Animal has been infested in the
past few weeks by a rather persistent outbreak of handle spoofage.

There are definitely two "Thomases" -- one of whom is indeed with
us against the war, the other a garden-variety neocon dittohead.

Also, I'd like to request that posters don't prosecute wars from
old threads in the new ones -- and I hardly restrict that criticism
to you. I don't like it when Gregory, or Stefan, or SecularAnimist
or Advocate for God does it either -- and these are some of my
favorite posters. It's also kind of distasteful to hear self-certain
accusations that such-and-such poster is really this-and-that poster.

*Nobody* can be certain what's going on here these days -- and this
is why I'm urging all who are concerned about this to write Kevin
and strongly request that he find a way to implement registration.

Bob

rmck1: "a combination of acetone -- the main ingredient in nail polish remover -- and concentrated hydrogen peroxide."

Thanks for the tip--I am better informed now.

PTate:

Yeah well -- just don't tell the NSA I told you, huh? :)

Bob

They already know rmck1......:)

Jay:

Why does Wikipedia hate America? :)

Bob

jay: jennas bush (probably is exactly what you are),....

Jay, are you calling me a cunt? Are you...flirting with me?

Both :)

Which of the two do you prefer?

I'M HAVING A BAD HAIR MILLIENNIUM !!!

*shudder*

Why just look at the two of 'em -- what a purty pair a daughters I have, mmm mmm.

Even ol' Uday thought so. Had a full-sized poster of Jenna right up there on his bedroom wall, he did.

Cannot there be more than one Thomas? Thomas the ditto head and Thomas the anti-war Kerry Democrat. I know lots of people named Thomas. Does every commenter have to have a unique name? There are multiple Jeffs and probably some have come and gone or changed their comment name to make their voices unique.

The devolution of recent discourse is probably due to the rising level of violence in the wars the US has chosen to either start or subsidize. Mr. Drum had posts a couple of weeks ago about why bloggers do not like to write about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and I thought the main reason was the ever rising level of invective of commenters, which may very well be playing out in our comment community now. The invective does not bother me, but when others have written spurious posts attributed to my name it was upsetting. My reputation is bad enough, I do not need any help finding disagreement.

The increasing comment belligerence may also be a result of the publicity blogs have been receiving from the press and prominent pundits. Laying responsibility on the blogs for popular opposition to pro-war incumbents in opinion generating organs like the WSJ editorial pages, acts like a directive to the more active followers of the politics those editorialists favor. The reports of young Republican types disrupting Lamont appearances are indicative of the power to intimidate the conservative political movement is trying to exert on politics and opposition opinion. When it becomes apparent more pro-war incumbents will lose in November, the intimidation and disruption will increase.

What, if any, actions should be taken to counter or prevent the increasing level of abusive and offensive rhetoric that war and fear and political change have caused is an important issue, especially for the Political Animal community. My opinion is no change is needed. The wide variety of opinions and rhetoric made here about an equally wide variety of issues and current events will suffer if exclusion is practiced. I think Daily Kos has something where comments are rated and somebody like a slim would be banned ASAP for his/her anti-Semitic ranting. I think we at PA can even be instructed from the crap that slim posts, reminding us that there are still elements in our society who still hold racial prejudices that have become completely anti-social. I cannot remember any posters like slim or watcher who have communicated their racism so explicitly in the three years I have been hanging out here, so I hope some thought goes into preserving the kind of freedom of expression that has made PA so attractive to me.

"The devolution of recent discourse is probably due to the rising level of violence in the wars the US has chosen to either start or subsidize......" - hostile

"More of FDR's speech........

"Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge."

In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they will regard as a breach of international law or as an act of war our aid to the democracies which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid -- Such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it so to be."

One of the greatest Presidents of our time, who happened to be a Democrat, disagrees with you. As do I.

Jay: Do you suppose they even listen to themselves?

That's a very good question. Having spent some time plowing through Real Security and papers from the DLC and the Progressive Policy Institute, it seems that most Democracts are nominally aligned, with Iraq a notable exception.

However, that current Democratic leadership tends to favor an Iraq solution that does not call for immediate withdrawal, but focuses on better execution. (As for your comment that "...I trust the original architect of the plan more than I trust the patched-together facsimile...", without competent execution, plans are worthless, and this administration has proved itself incapable of competent execution.) Whether that current Democratic leadership is out of step with the Democratic hoi polloi, remains TBD.

In any case, Sullivan deserves criticism for simply whining about the administration's incompetence:

I'm waiting for a leading Democratic nominee to pill a Sistah Souljah on the anti-war left, to call them on their irresponsibility and narcissism. Gore could do it. The question is: when will he start talking like a future war-president rather than an angry dissident?

Jay:

Afghanistan =/= Nazi Germany

Iraq =/= Japan.

Rudy Giuiliani =/= Winston Churchill.

Historical analogies can be instructive -- but they have at least an equal potential to be misleading.

The WW2 analogy simply cuts no ice in a world of assymmetric warfare and non-state actors.

Bob

RT said "But somehow Sully thinks that's a requirement for a political party to demonstrate its seriousness."

Sort of, RT, but Sully seems to think it's only a requirement for Democrats. ReThuglicans don't need to have a plan, do they?

There is also the possibility that slim/watcher was a plant. There was something a little fishy about this troll's repetitive and persistent postings. The fact that they were clumsily inserted without regard to topic or the flow of comments makes me think that s/w was more troublemaker than believer. His little campaign of idiocy didn't make any compelling points or win anybody to his side, but he did accomplish a few things:

1. He annoyed the hell out of regular PA readers.

2. He provided an example for pro-Lieberman types to show what kind of vile scum can be found hanging out on "lefty" blogs.

3. His presence made anyone here who is critical of Israel's war policies perhaps a little wary of being seen to be aligned with a holocaust-denier.

"The WW2 analogy simply cuts no ice in a world of assymmetric warfare and non-state actors" - rmck1

If you are telling me that our military vision and history as recent as the 1940's is irrelevant, then why do you suggest that Islamic history dating back centuries is important to the current struggle?

Isn't that a bit duplicitous?

Jay:

I didn't say it was irrelevant; history properly understood is never irrelevant, nor can a person ever learn enough history -- whether recent or long past.

I said your particular analogy is *poorly applied*.

Bob

Jay:

And even if what you said were true -- that I was disallowing WW2 history while allowing history of the Muslim world -- that might be hypocritical in a certain sense, but hardly "duplicitous" in any case.

Bob

"However, that current Democratic leadership tends to favor an Iraq solution that does not call for immediate withdrawal, but focuses on better execution." - has407

For the past three years Howard Dean has been saying that the Democrats can not win being "bush lite". Well this plan is "bush lite" with the insinuation that they will execute the plan better. How?

Have there been mistakes? Yes. But considering the permanent Gov't, strengthening military, a constitution and much of the south and north already under Iraqi control, I'd say the plan is being executed fairly well.

I need to know much more specifics on HOW they feel they can execute the same plan more effectively.

Otherwise they should just run on what they have been telling everyone for the last three years, and that is too "pull out of Iraq".

Jay:

Please go a little upthread and read my long post to Trashhauler.

Your facts about the current state of Iraq are simply inaccurate.

Abizaid and Pace both said that the sectarian tensions are higher *today* than they have *ever been* since the occupation.

And that's in the entire country save for Kurdistan, which is virtually an independent state.

The constitution is also inoperable -- since all the sticky federalism issues were tabled before they put it to a vote. None of them -- including the status of Kurdistan, the status of Kirkuk and the distribution of oil revenues -- have been addressed. The Green Zone government isn't even debating the constitution anymore.

Bob

"I think there are lots of differences, not just one. The Democrat plan is so vague it's hard to know what a lot of it really means in terms of concrete policy."

Ha ha ha ha ha HA HA haaaa.

The Republican'ts, on the other hand, have a real UNvague, concrete sort of plan, as in "When they stand up, we'll stand down." But as for their plan in actually getting the Iraqis to "stand up" except to shoot at each other, not such a concrete plan.

I take that back. Bush HAS said what is plan is ... it's to pass the whole frigging mess on to his successor.

Jay:

Can you let me know more specifics on HOW the Republicans feel they can execute their plan more effectively? After all the Republicans' plan is the one we're actually using and they are the ones actually executing it (or failing to). Thanks!

Jay: I need to know much more specifics on HOW they feel they can execute the same plan more effectively.

The Real Security document is pretty specific, and it is one of several--and a damn sight more specific than anything that's come out of the current administration or the Pentagon.

And who is the "they" in your statement that "what they have been telling everyone for the last three years"? The Democratic leadership? No (although I admit that "Democratic leadership" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder). Individuals within the Democratic party? Yes. Individuals within--gasp!--the Republican party? Yes. (Ok, not so obviously for "three years", but the cracks have been growing.)

PS to Jay:

FDR, one of the greatest Presidents of our time, who happened to be a Democrat, disagreed with you when he said "The greatest tool we have in fighting this war, is conviction in the dignity and brotherhood of every human being."

As a Christian I have a firm belief in the dignity and brotherhood of every human being. It saddens me that the Republican Party doesn't share that conviction.

bob: Also, I'd like to request that posters don't prosecute wars from
old threads in the new ones -- and I hardly restrict that criticism
to you. I don't like it when Gregory, or Stefan, or SecularAnimist
or Advocate for God does it either -- and these are some of my
favorite posters.

Ermm, why? What's wrong with holding people accountable for what they said? Are we supposed to forgive and forget every dishonest and disgusting thing some poster has said and pretend it never happened just because they run and hide on some other thread? Do we have to establish their dishonesty again and again and again?

"Abizaid and Pace both said that the sectarian tensions are higher *today* than they have *ever been* since the occupation."

That I agree with, but "sectarian" violence, while not condoning it at all, is not necessarily a bad thing. Almost every nation on this planet has gone through a "civil" war in it's formative years. However I hesitate to call this a civil war in that these groups are mostly thugs and militias more than they a legitimate threat to the nation of Iraq. The following is what I am refering to:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606260004

"The New York Times says General George Casey, the top man in Iraq, last week laid out a plan that would slash the 14 combat brigades now in Iraq down to five or six by next December.....
Combat forces make up only a fraction of the 130,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq, and Defense Chief Donald Rumsfeld last week warned Iraq may still need lots of non-combat forces to stick around."

Iraq has a gov't, has a military and has the ability to deal with this threat of violence, which will take some time. Our role now jst needs to mostly supportive and logistical.

"And who is the "they" in your statement that "what they have been telling everyone for the last three years"?"

Namely, Howards Dean the DNC chair person and former Democratic candidate for President. Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha. Too name a few.

Jay: If you are telling me that our military vision and history as recent as the 1940's is irrelevant, then why do you suggest that Islamic history dating back centuries is important to the current struggle?

Yes, "...military vision and history as recent as the 1940's..." is irrelevant, and any officer in any competent military today will agree, although every one of them will tell you that history is not so much irrelevant, as something to learn from. Unless of course you're one of those idiots who always insist on fighting the last war.

The difference between WWII and the Iraq invasion, is that WWII, was actually a worthy and noble cause.

I'm not sure that Sullivan fully comprehends and appreciates the degree to which his preferred party controls all three branches of the U. S. government. He calls their hand on a few things, notably torture, but still takes it far too easy on them. He only thinks he is tough.

There was no Democratic presidential candidate in 2000 that would have gotten into the mess in Iraq. Nor was there one in 2004 that does not think much more clearly about Iraq than Bush. Republicans in congress are the ones who almost uniformly support Bush in Iraq and Democrats in Connecticut just rejected the lone incumbent Democratic senator who unconditionally supported Bush.

Give me a break. Iraq belongs to the Bush and his party. Give the Democrats one percent of the blame for playing politics here and there. But the people in charge are to blame own the rest of the blame. And they have played politics with the war to a degree that’s indescribable.

The Democrats have a plan. Republicans blanche at the international component and the fact that it does not pretend that “stay the course” has any chance.

Hostile & exasperanto:

First off, Hostile -- while your posts have had an acidic and radical bent at times, I've never found them less than well-articulated and worthwhile to read. In your heart, you only want what's best for all of us. Your dark exasperation is borne out of a great humanity, not a desire for disruption or attention-seeking. If some of your views are fairly out of the mainstream, your presence here is nonetheless valued and worthwhile. And with that little love note out of the way ...

If exasperanto is correct about slim -- that he's a plant -- then we're going to have to change our neologism from nutpicking to nut-harvesting. As creepy and paranoid as it is to contemplate a right-winger deliberately slumming as an anti-semite so that he or fellow righties can cite PA as an anti-semite friendly blog -- it's hardly inconceibable, either. In any case, it requires no speculation paranoid or otherwise to simply note that in the past two weeks or so, we're being tormented and attacked to a greater degree than previously.

Hostile is absolutely correct about all the recent attention to blogs in the wake of the Lamont campaign. I was a Dean blogger during the primary, beginning in late summer '03 at the height of his political stardom. All through the remainder of the year, BlogForAmerica was, like PA, an open site. Unless you've posted there yourself, you simply would not believe the lengths that people went to try to sabotage that site and discredit the Dean campaign -- and most of them were Democratic ops for the other primary candidates, too.

We finally had no choice but to go to registration.

OTOH, guys like slim aren't entirely unknown, either. The NYT Iraq fora had a very similar entity, with the identical MO of blasting borderline anti-semitic anti-Israel boilerplate at virtual random and being incapable of having a rational discussion about it. The poster was continually banned and he continually re-registered. So it's not out of the question that slim is merely a misfit with his own personal twisted motives posting here because it's one of the few sites with a lively community that doesn't yet have registration.

To me, slim is merely an annoyance -- easy enough to ignore and/or ridicule. I wouldn't mind seeing him banned, but it would hardly keep me off PA if it weren't in the cards, either.

What's beginning to try my patience in a more serious way is the handle spoofery of regulars. Now granted -- I do my share of spoofing, to be sure. Ann Coulter's 12-speed dildo, Barbara's third boob, Noelle's tube sock crack 'n' Xanax stash -- they're all mine. A little cretinous? Sure. I like stupid 'n' bored humor sometimes :)

But the continual spoofing of regulars (including, for the first time, myself) I don't think is tolerable. Anomynity is an important value -- I'd never ask Kevin to make us post under our rl names -- but so is a stable identity. We should stand by the words we write.

And so I'm willing to lose the cheap amusement of troll parodies and the like for the greater gain of a registered username that people know is mine and mine alone. I've already written to Kevin forcefully arguing for registration -- asking him to take up a collection if bucks are needed to invest in the newer version of MoveableType.

And I strongly encourage anyone who feels likewise to do the same.

Bob

".....Yes, "...military vision and history as recent as the 1940's..." is irrelevant, and any officer in any competent military today will agree,....." has407

Can you cite a few? With their specific quotes.

jenna's bush:

Because it's nothing more than a pissing match -- especially if the other posters don't know (nor care) about the original argument on the other thread.

And besides which -- if you were seriously about "holding people accountable" -- you'd do it under a less ridiculous handle :)

Bob

Jay: Can you cite a few? With their specific quotes.

I recommend you start with something recent, such as Challenges in Fighting a Global Insurgency, David W. Barno:

Our enemies today clearly understand the value of asymmetrical approaches when dealing with the overwhelming conventional combat power of the United States military.

Unfortunately, our unmatched conventional capability has slowed the US response to the changing, asymmetrical nature of modern war.

We as a military are at risk of failing to understand the nature of the war we are fighting—a war which has been characterized as “a war of intelligence and a war of perceptions.”

We must confront this dilemma and take our thinking to a new strategic level in this era to understand the tools and strategic approaches required to create victory in this very different 21st-century environment.

rmck1 (Bob): My theory about the trolls is probably close to yours and it goes as follows.

They simply want to destroy this forum, which leans liberal, by making unenjoyable.

They want the discouse to degenerate to drivel. They do not want a free and open exchange of information among people they perceive as liberal.

It’s kind of funny. I’m saying they hate freedom, at least for anyone not their kind.

I do not doubt for an instant that they have succeed to a degree. Trolls have probably driven off a few participants. Too bad.

I like to ignore them, but of course you cannot always immediately identify a troll. At any rate, I try to ignore the most obvious and persistent trolls.

"Challenges in Fighting a
Global Insurgency

DAVID W. BARNO

© 2006 David W. Barno

"In response to this battlefield paralysis, Third Generation Warfare emerged in the 1920s and 30s and produced “blitzkrieg” and the age of maneuver warfare, with the offense once again gaining supremacy. This era of mounted mechanized maneuver continued from World War II through the Arab-Israeli wars of the 1950s and 60s, included Desert Storm in 1991 (perhaps its zenith), and culminated with the race to Baghdad in March 2003. (Excursions into counterinsurgency conflicts in places like French Indochina, Algeria, Malaya, Vietnam, and the two Intifadas in Israel not only failed to significantly affect mainstream military thinking, but they often turned out rather badly for Western armies.) Today, after 40 years of Cold War experience and billions of dollars spent on weapon system investments, the United States and most Western militaries remain optimized for Third Generation Warfare, reflecting nearly 50 years of tactical, operational, and strategic thought and resource commitments originally designed to contain and deter the Soviet threat, and if necessary to defeat a Warsaw Pact armored invasion of Western Europe."

Good point has407, I think tactical military operations need to be carefully considered in this current battle to be effective as opposed the the "blitzkrieg" (as mentioned in your link) style that was employed in earlier wars.

However, I believe the vision, determination and leadership that FDR conveyed still needs to be conveyed today.

rmck1: We finally had no choice but to go to registration.

Bob -- Sorry, not to get OT, but after the last email exchange with Kevin, I did some investigation of Movable Type pricing. It appears that their newest version is "per user", which seems to mean any registered user who posts comments within the previous 90 days. For "not-for-profit" (I assume WM falls into that category), their standard pricing only goes to 20 users for $150, or $7.50/user (see here). That's pretty steep, even assuming a significant discount for their "custom pricing", and I can understand WM's hesitance to move to registration.

Jay:

Well that's fine, Jay -- if you understand who the enemy is. The armies of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the USSR were all well-defined.

Now, we're fighting a war against guys who would mix nail polish remover with household disinfectant in an airplane bathroom, waiting for it to blow up.

Sheesh, if they ban liquids -- how about just chucking a hunk of sodium into the toilet and flushing it?

You know, if the old TNT stick suppository doesn't gain favor first. Hoo boy, let's hope nobody *ever* brings a plane down with *that*, eh. Then it will be cavity searches for all passengers ...

How exactly do you "go to war" with people who are willing to do stuff like that, eh?

Bob

has407:

A 20-user limit on a blog? Really? That sounds positively insane ...

How many hits does dKos get daily? How many comments? Here it's around 1k a day, according to Kevin.

Honestly, that just doesn't make sense. Even small blogs can generate hundreds of comments per day ...

Okay, per user, not per comment. How many people do you think would be registered users? My guess would be several hundred, at least -- including all the folks who read and occasionally comment once in a blue moon.

Okay, so that would be ... let's say ... about $1.5k. Sounds *awfully* steep for blog software, but even if that were true, I have a feeling the PA community could raise it in about a month, given sufficient interest.

Bob

"You know, if the old TNT stick suppository doesn't gain favor first. Hoo boy, let's hope nobody *ever* brings a plane down with *that*, eh. Then it will be cavity searches for all passengers ..." rmck1

OK that was hysterical.

"How exactly do you "go to war" with people who are willing to do stuff like that, eh?" rmck1

By never quitting, by never excusing their actions, by telling the world everyday what they're doing, by hitting them hard when possible, by never backing down, by using every tool in our law enforcement aresenal (NSA, Financial tracking), by using every tool in our diplomacy arsenal, by convincing the moderate Arab world that we will never falter, and that we will stay in this fight to win it. etc. etc.

Of course there is much debate on this topic, this is just my two cents.

"Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge." - FDR

And honestly, I think what FDR said nearly 65 years is very applicable today.

Bob -- Yeah, MT's pricing it seems pretty draconian (although who knows, their "custom pricing" might be reasonable). In any case, I admit I haven't gone through all the T&C's, so maybe there's something I'm missing. (P.S. I don't think KOS uses MT.) I hope Kevin will make a post laying out the pro's , con's and details.

has407:

Have you ever been on BlogForAmerica? If not, have you heard tell of The Bat?

If Kevin pitched it and said that he needed to raise x $ in order to get registration, he could certainly raise enough money from the interested even if it were in the (very) low four figures ...

Fundraising is about the most effective thing blogs can do, after all.

But yeah ... it'd be nice for him to at least post about it and get a stronger sense of community feedback.

Bob

He must subscribe to the Chris Mathews school of reporting...he prefers spin well spun to the truth

Jay:

Okay, FWIW here's my take. I'll try to be brief, as it's a large and complex subject.

First of all, I think we can all agree (including perhaps the majorty of Muslims themselves) that the religion of Islam is overdue for a Reformation. Like all religions, it has different, often contradictory aspects of doctrine that get emphasized, de-emphasized and re-emphasized in various periods of history (Bubbles sketched this out well in one of his patented huge big-picture posts upthread). When Mohammad's community felt besieged or threatened, he was quite charitable to his enemies. When he was top dog, less so. For all the bloodthirsty passages in the Koran you can find -- there are also passages of almost heartbreaking compassion. Kind of like, you know, the Bible.

Now ... while most Muslims indeed do want to live with fruits of modernity, at peace with themselves and others -- we, as non-Muslims can't tell them which parts of the Koran to pick and choose. I, as an agnostic, certainly can't do that for a believing Catholic, etc. So we in the West aren't going to be the people who do the heavy lifting of Islamic reform. Only Muslims can do that -- and we can either help this process along or hinder it. The key point here is that Islamic reform is absolutely essential if the world is ever going to manage, let alone defeat, terrorism -- because it is impossible to militarily deter people who'll kill themselves for a cause.

You with me on this so far, Jayster?

Now the problem with all your stiff-spined Winston Churchillisms is that in nearly all cases they're horribly counterproductive for the internal dialogue and debate that needs to go on in the Muslim world. Granted, sometimes it's essential to respond militarily, as we did in Afghanistan. In that case, the military objective outweighed whatever propaganda losses it created. But any military response has to be applied selectively, with great appreciation for the overall strategy of *delegitimating* Islamist extremism.

Iraq was thus completely counterproductive. Not only did it destabilize a country that at this moment has less than a 50% chance of winding up a stable democracy (ask Pace and Abizaid) -- it also unleashed a furious uprising in the entire region, much of it channeled into an electoral process that we herald as democracy on the march.

Well, Jay ... armies march. Fascists march. Democracy kind of staggers drunkenly back and forth, even in the best of cases.

The forces unleashed in polling places across the region empowered Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad, the Muslim Brotherhood. We shook up the champagne bottle and now have foam pouring all over the floor.

The Bush/Rice doctrine of democracy through destabilization is a gigantic crapshoot. Wars introduce a huge amount of chaos into the international system, and so Muslims in the surrounding countries saw this chaos, went to the polls and voted for stability -- the stability of their known and comforting religious traditions. By invading Iraq, we've set back the cause of Islamic reform a generation at least.

The other problem with marching around and blowing up scores of noncombatants along with the odd evildoer or two is that makes the rest of the Islamic world think that ... gee, I wonder why? ... we might have a little something, umm, against them. We can say we're only after the bad guys all day long -- but tell it to the familes of the dead. This is why wars are fought between *countries*. When you kill a bunch of civilians who are hiding a German machine gun emplacement in their farmhouse -- well those people were still *Germans* and we were legitimately at war with *Germany*.

And this is not another discussion of the morality of killing non-combatants -- it's a statement of simple psychology that when you prosecute a war that way, the surrounding people are going drop all their disagreements and unite against you. The entire Muslim world now has ample reason to think that GWB has a hardon for seeing them in caskets. And nothing shuts down dialogue and argument among brothers than a big external threat. You wanna stop bickering with your wife? Come home one night and see her out cold on the floor after a burglary ...

The net result: The reform movement in Iran is suppressed in an orgy of Hezbollahmania. The nascent waves of political reform that briefly sparked in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and some of the Gulf states -- likewise. The region -- Sunni and Shia alike -- is awash in pride over the exploits of Hezbollah -- and Israel is even more closely identified as a proxy for the US. We're *losing* the propaganda war, Jay. We're *losing* the moderates, who are seen -- just as you conservatives see us liberals -- as spineless weakling "appeasers" who don't have what it takes to see the struggle to the end.

George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have thus become mirror images of each other.

And because I reject Ahmadinejad -- I have no choice but to reject the other side of that coin as well.

Dialogue isn't appeasement, Jay. Understanding your enemy and working to convince him to become your friend isn't weakness.

It's wisdom and strength.

Bob

While we are all thinking big thoughts what are we going to do in Afganistan?

definitely not Bob:

Your guess is as good as mine ... *sigh*

Bob

If countries in the Middle East have no 'liberal' institutions assisting democracy bloom will not give us the results we are seeking. Do we really want to help democracies come to power in the Middle East and Pakistan. Is it in the best interests of the US to have the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt and Syria. What happens in Saudi Arabia and Jordan once the House of Saud and the Hashemites are out of power. If we promote democracy in Qatar, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain and the UAE what are the results. I can't imagine a democratically elected government in Kuwait allowing us to use their country as logistics base. Isn't it fairly likely a democratic government in Pakistan leads to an increase in terrorism in India? Do we want a nation that harbors Al Qaeda and has nuclear material to be run by the people?

Promoting democracy in the ME and through out the world is a powerful idea. Is the US willing to live with the results in order to live up to our own ideals?

rmck1 - I have saved your reply and will respond at a later time (I'm just too damned tired right now). I believe you have some good points but I will definitely point out in detail where we part.

btw, jayster?

kind of creepy.

Jay: ...I think tactical military operations need to be carefully considered in this current battle to be effective as opposed the the "blitzkrieg"...

That is part of the criticism of the current approach, as further reading suggests:

The enemy instinctively seemed to understand how to exploit the media (international and local), tribal customs and beliefs, rumors and cultural predispositions toward mystery and conspiracy, and a host of other subtle but effective communications.

The distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between 'civilian' and 'military' may disappear.

"The distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between 'civilian' and 'military' may disappear." - has407

Once this happens, it's chaos, anarchy. Nothing matters anymore as life will have become a free-for-all. This very well be the temporary goal of the jihadists, to break down the peoples confidence in their military and gov't to protect
them to emerge from the chaos and impose oppression.

This is exactly what were fighting against and a conventional military that is under the direction of a government that is of the free people, by the free people and for the free people needs to win it.

Jay: Once this happens, it's chaos, anarchy. Nothing matters anymore as life will have become a free-for-all.

No shit sherlock. Welcome to the nightmare. The question is not "what", but "how". You want to bet on a "conventional military"? Fine. I'll bet on Col. Lind, Capt. Schmitt, Col. Sutton and Lt. Col. Wilson.

Jay:

Noble words, though.

Nowhere near the reality on the ground, though.

Incidentally, there were moments in my big post where I lost myself in colorful rhetoric. Obviously Bush doesn't want to see all Muslims dead, and obviously some Muslim leaders are strongly allied with America in their own struggles against Islamist radicals who are even more a threat to their regimes than they are to the West.

Now in the past, those very same Muslim leaders (nearly all of whom who are autocrats) controlled their homegrown extremists though repression -- by cracking heads with brutal internal security forces. That's surely how Pakistan and Saudi Arabia do it -- and thank Allah that they do, or the worldwide terror threat would be even more severe than it is.

So the $64k question is (and I don't have an answer, either) ... how do we encourage these brutally repressive regimes to lighten up without giving the radicals free rein to oppose their regimes and perhaps gain political power themselves?

We saw what happened with the first round of Mideast elections post-Iraq invasion ...

What a fucking dilemma. That's why the first order of business has to be to do everything we possibly can to encourage moderate tendencies in the Islamic world and let that maddeningly slow cultural process take its due course.

If we're smart (and there's no indication at the moment that we're going to be) and play our cards right -- in a generation Iran will be our biggest Muslim ally in the region.

Ask Israel: Demographics is destiny.

Bob

Noble words though = Noble words those

"First of all, I think we can all agree (including perhaps the majorty of Muslims themselves) that the religion of Islam is overdue for a Reformation." - rmck1

First of all, you are forgetting that The Iran revolution in 1979 sparked the current reformation of the faith. That's a short 27 years ago, so I think they've been heading the fundamentalist direction for awhile. When that may turn around? Who knows.

"we, as non-Muslims can't tell them which parts of the Koran to pick and choose." rmck1

We don't. We tell them to stop killing us.

"...sometimes it's essential to respond militarily, as we did in Afghanistan. In that case, the military objective outweighed whatever propaganda losses it created. But any military response has to be applied selectively, with great appreciation for the overall strategy of *delegitimating* Islamist extremism." - rmck1

Agreed.

"Iraq was thus completely counterproductive. Not only did it destabilize a country that at this moment has less than a 50% chance of winding up a stable democracy...." - rmck1

Yeah, it was real stable prior to the war.

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/iraq_-_mass_graves_(1).htm

"So far, some 100 mass graves have been found throughout Iraq. It will take months, if not years, to exhume the people buried there. The biggest of the graves has already given up 3,000 dead and by some estimates contains at least twice that many more. And most Iraqis believe there are hundreds of other sites waiting to be discovered."

Saddam was evil and containment was only ensuring a slow death for Iraq. I would rather have a 50% chance of democracy, btw, the Iraqi's will make it their own form of democracy probably resembling nothing like ours, but a fair, agreed upon representation.

"The other problem with marching around and blowing up scores of noncombatants along with the odd evildoer or two......." - rmck1

um......it's mainly the muslims killing muslims rmck1. We're NOT marching around killing indiscriminately.

"The entire Muslim world now has ample reason to think that GWB has a hardon for seeing them in caskets. And nothing shuts down dialogue and argument among brothers than a big external threat." - rmck1

This is just your opinion of which I completely disagree and can, and will link you to many moderate Arab sites that strictly condemn the terrorist movement and want to work with other moderates and the allies to defeat this.

"We're *losing* the propaganda war,...."

You're confusing friendship with peace. Be honest, they're never going to like us and want to be chummy, and quite frankly that doesn't matter. They need to respect us and fear us as we do them. We know what they're capable of and how proud they are, therefore many Americans, I am sure you're included, have a respect for their traditions and fear their passion should they be angered. They need to see the EXACT SAME THING from us.

We don't need to be friends, we need to respect one another.

"George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have thus become mirror images of each other."

You know, I almost agree with you on this, in fact I had an Iranian friend of mine say the same thing.

"Dialogue isn't appeasement, Jay." - rmck1

Dialogue without the real and demonstrated threat of power, is indeed appeasement.

"No shit sherlock. Welcome to the nightmare. The question is not "what", but "how". You want to bet on a "conventional military"? Fine. I'll bet on Col. Lind, Capt. Schmitt, Col. Sutton and Lt. Col. Wilson." - has407

You know where my money is. See you in hell.

I am not so much a GW fan as I am a conservative (which he has violated on several occasions), anyway, I have supported him on the GWOT because I believe America needed to demonstrate power and determination after 20 years of primarily diplomacy. Have there been mistakes? Of course. Are things at the stage we would like to see them? No. But progress has been made: Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Turkey, Jordan, UAE, Egypt, Lybia, even Lebanon to some extent have seen a determination in America that's rarely been visible.

I think it is time to back off a notch as exampled by our scaled back military role in Iraq. I also think the next President will be able to take it down another notch or two, and make some REAL progress with diplomacy.

Just a thought.

Can we just assume, from here on in, that anyone using the terms "Islamofascist" or "Democrat party" has a windup thingy protruding from what passes for his or her spine? (That's why they need so much oil.)

"....has a windup thingy protruding from what passes for his or her spine? (That's why they need so much oil.)"

windup thingys are self perpetuating. At least mine is.

Jay:

> "First of all, I think we can all agree (including perhaps the
> majority of Muslims themselves) that the religion of Islam is
> overdue for a Reformation." - rmck1

> First of all, you are forgetting that The Iran revolution in 1979
> sparked the current reformation of the faith. That's a short 27
> years ago, so I think they've been heading the fundamentalist
> direction for awhile. When that may turn around? Who knows.

Jay ... *sigh* ... that's Iranian Shi'ism -- which isn't even
exportable to the south of Iraq. Sestani's from an entirely
different school, and while the south of Iraq might very well
wind up with some flavor of Shi'ite theocracy, there will be no
"rule of the jurist"-style total clerical control of government.

The Iranian Revolution may have been inspirational to resurgent Islam
in certain ways, but it certainly had no direct effect on the Sayyid
Qutb-inspired takfiri Salafism of al Qaeda, the Pashtun Deobandi
fundamentalism of the Taliban/Pakistan border regions, the Wahabi
fundamentalism of the Saudi-sponsored madrasses schools, etc. etc.

Iran is also an instructive case, because that great civilization
has already had its Islamic revolution, and the revolution has been
found sorely wanting by large chunks of the people. By invading its
neighbor and sabre-rattling at nuclear intentions the world is still
not clear about -- we're only buying the clerical regime more time.

Cultural evolution will provide the ultimate answer here -- and we
are impeding that process by threatening the entire Muslim world,
which makes them all stick together and stop examining themselves.

> "we, as non-Muslims can't tell them which parts
> of the Koran to pick and choose." rmck1

> We don't. We tell them to stop killing us.

We're also killing *them*. You can take the "he started it, Mommy!"
route all the way back to Cain and Abel. The bottom line is that
all flavors of Islam -- even pacifist Sufism -- are sympathetic to
jihad (which only means "struggle") to greater or lesser degrees.
If we want Shi'ite ayatollahs and Sunni imams to denounce violence
from the pulpit instead of hurling invective at America and Israel --
then we have to encourage Muslims to reexamine their faith. One of the
best ways to do that is to give them less reason to rant against us.

> Saddam was evil and containment was only ensuring
> a slow death for Iraq. I would rather have a 50%
> chance of democracy, btw, the Iraqi's will make
> it their own form of democracy probably resembling
> nothing like ours, but a fair, agreed upon representation.

Saddam was evil. So's Robert Mugabe. So's Kim Jong Il. It's fine
that you'd take that chance -- but if the Iraqis knew what life would
be like five years after the invasion -- how many of them would have
supported it? Life ain't hunky-dory now for Iraqi Arabs, my friend.

> "The other problem with marching around and blowing up scores of
> noncombatants along with the odd evildoer or two......." - rmck1

> um......it's mainly the muslims killing muslims rmck1. We're NOT
> marching around killing indiscriminately.

For the vast majority of the occupation we were, Jay. There's
only been a lull of about a year after the election when we changed
strategy and hunkered down in our bases and concentrated on force
protection. Our casualty rate went down -- theirs skyrocketed.

That's changing, though, as American troops are redeployed in
signficant numbers to patrol Baghdad. This is a step backwards,
of course -- and only illustrates what a long way the ISF has to
go before it's trusted by the people, especially the police, who
are particularly corrupt and infiltrated by sectarian militias.

And already it's causing problems. al-Maliki was quite furious at
the Americans for blasting and collapsing an apartment building that
allegedly held a bunch of Mahdi Army. As Americans step into the
middle of this, you'll see more musclebound "mistakes" like this ...

> "We're *losing* the propaganda war,...."

> You're confusing friendship with peace.

No, I'm not; I'm taking George Bush at his word, that the idea is
to get the Muslim world sympathetic to the ideals of democracy and
economic prosperity. What kind of advertisement for democracy and
free trade is Baghdad? If we're going to show the Iraqis the way,
then it might help if we weren't so thoroughly despised for being
violent hypocrites who seem more concerned about oil than people.

And I'm not saying this is a correct image -- only a popular one.

> Be honest, they're never going to like us and want to be
> chummy, and quite frankly that doesn't matter. They need
> to respect us and fear us as we do them. We know what
> they're capable of and how proud they are, therefore many
> Americans, I am sure you're included, have a respect for
> their traditions and fear their passion should they be
> angered. They need to see the EXACT SAME THING from us.

Well, but then you have to ask yourself why Shock and Awe never
seems to work. Mainly, it's because that their answer to our
military and technological superiority is ever-more-diabolical
forms of suicide terrorism. Tactically, this *does* balance out;
there's still an insurgency in Iraq and we're still on the verge
of failing at our mission to create a stable, democratic ally in
the Middle East. But we can't *respect* this (the way, say, that
the IDF can respect Hezbollah), because suicide terrorism is anathema
to our values. This creates a vicious circle, because the less we
respect their culture, the more we're prone to abuse them or justify
killing large numbers of people because a few of them were terrorists.

> We don't need to be friends, we need to respect one another.

Well I agree with you there that respect is fundamental. I think
one of the things we need to do is to drop our moral aversion to
examining suicide terrorism and attempt to understand Iraqis as
they understand themselves. I think we need to read Jessica Stern's
"The Age of Sacred Terror." Anything we can do to rehumanize each
other in the other's eyes would be a step in the right direction.

> "George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have
> thus become mirror images of each other."

> You know, I almost agree with you on this, in fact
> I had an Iranian friend of mine say the same thing.

Well, ask yourself why s/he said this. Ask your *friend*
why s/he said this, and really think about the answer ...

> "Dialogue isn't appeasement, Jay." - rmck1

> Dialogue without the real and demonstrated
> threat of power, is indeed appeasement.

And what is the threat of power without dialogue?

The Bush Doctrine.

Bob

rmck1 - you're just too "touchy-feely" for me, overly sensitive. We appraoch solutions from different angles, I prefer the FDR approach while you subscribe to the Jimmy Carter school of foreign policy.

"Sestani's from an entirely
different school, and while the south of Iraq might very well
wind up with some flavor of Shi'ite theocracy, there will be no
"rule of the jurist"-style total clerical control of government." - rmck1

"We're also killing *them*." - rmck1

Yup, in war that happens. Outside of war, how many Americans have terrorized and killed Muslims?

"If we want Shi'ite ayatollahs and Sunni imams to denounce violence
from the pulpit instead of hurling invective at America and Israel" - rmck1

The leaders of Islam throw invective at the west to lay the blame of their plight at our doorsteps in order to escape the blame themselves, who are actually to blame. We can't let them do that anymore. We need to expose them for who they are and not excuse them, as you continually do.

"No, I'm not; I'm taking George Bush at his word, that the idea is
to get the Muslim world sympathetic to the ideals of democracy and
economic prosperity." - rmck1

That does not mean we need to be friends. People can certainly appreciate freedom and prosperity on their own, do ya think?

We are giving them a chance at a democratic form of representational gov't. If they don't want it, fine. I honestly don't care how they govern themselves as long as they don't threaten the world community.

"Cultural evolution will provide the ultimate answer here -- and we
are impeding that process by threatening the entire Muslim world,
which makes them all stick together and stop examining themselve" - rmck1

You really have no right to criticize their culture nor do you have a right to impose therapy on them.

"If we're going to show the Iraqis the way,
then it might help if we weren't so thoroughly despised for being
violent hypocrites who seem more concerned about oil than people." - rmck1

I don't give a fuck what they think of us. And they don't want us to "show" them the way, they don't like us. We rid them of tyranny, of which many are thankful, gave them a running start on a representational gov't, now they can do what they want with it. We just want them to stop terrorizing the world community. Got it!

"Well, but then you have to ask yourself why Shock and Awe never
seems to work." - rmck1

Because these people fight for decades. We look at each day and guage how we're doing, they look at each year and see how they're doing. You need to get away from your westernization mind set of conflict.

"Well, ask yourself why s/he said this. Ask your *friend*
why s/he said this, and really think about the answer ..." - rmck1

Wrong, they need to think that the next time they take hostages, that could be the last time they see their country.

"And what is the threat of power without dialogue?
The Bush Doctrine." - rmck1

I guess negotitations with Lebanon might refute that. Just saying.

rmck1, you are the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

Have a nice day.

"Sestani's from an entirely
different school, and while the south of Iraq might very well
wind up with some flavor of Shi'ite theocracy, there will be no
"rule of the jurist"-style total clerical control of government." - rmck1

We are giving them a chance at a democratic form of representational gov't. If they don't want it, fine. I honestly don't care how they govern themselves as long as they don't threaten the world community.

This is how that was suppose to read.

"Well I agree with you there that respect is fundamental. I think
one of the things we need to do is to drop our moral aversion to
examining suicide terrorism and attempt to understand Iraqis as
they understand themselves" - rmck1

Wrong. They need to begin to understand Americans as we understand ourselves. Have you ever wondered why they don't fret like you do on what we think of them?

Maybe they should worry about that a little more.

"George Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have thus become mirror images of each other." - rmck1

You know, this is probably a good thing. It's about time we had a president that mirrored the same tenacity, determination and grit that they constantly throw in our face.

Dialogue works better when people are looking at each other eye-to-eye with the same amount of respect for one another.

Jay:

Well, I'll agree with you on one point: I think it *is* pretty silly to practice a sincere attempt at dialogue with a blog troll.

Here I was, taking you at your word, writing a carefully thought-out response, avoiding all ad-homs and snark -- and you respond by calling me Jimmy Carter.

Yup, you're right, Jay. I appeased you and this is what I got for my trouble. I should've just called all your rhetoric the result of massive projected insecurity from having such a tiny penis like I ususally do :)

The only point I'll take up in your series of thoughtless non-sequiturs and bad analogies is the positively hallucinatory notion that it's "a good thing" that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is running Iran now.

Jay ... Ahmadinejad has called -- several times -- for the nuking of Israel. Not only that, he's reputed to be the Shi'ite equivalent of an End Times fanatic. He allegedly follows a splinter sect of Twelver Shi'ism so radical that Khomenei banned it shortly after the Revolution -- which believes that one much encourage as much world chaos as possible, because this will instigate the return of the Hidden Imam and usher in the Shi'ite Second Coming.

So in other words, Jay -- your opinion is batshit insane.

Bob

You can always count on Sully slicing and dicing his neurosis before our very eyes.

"Here I was, taking you at your word, writing a carefully thought-out response, avoiding all ad-homs and snark -- and you respond by calling me Jimmy Carter."

I thought you liked Jimmy Carter?

"Yup, you're right, Jay. I appeased you and this is what I got for my trouble." - rmck1

Don't play the victim, how pathetic. I gave you my vision of this conflict and you turn it around as a personal offense. Why can't we agree to disagree?

"I should've just called all your rhetoric the result of massive projected insecurity from having such a tiny penis like I ususally do :)"

And this is what eighth graders do. I really thought you were above that, my bad.

"Jay ... Ahmadinejad has called -- several times -- for the nuking of Israel." - rmck1

Yeah, and you seem to think that is our fault. And if only we could "see them as they see themselves" they would become peaceful.

"....positively hallucinatory notion that it's "a good thing" that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is running Iran now." - rmck1

I don't care who runs Iran. I want them to begin to fear and respect us and live within their borders and stop terrorizing the world. Is that too much to ask?

"So in other words, Jay -- your opinion is batshit insane." - rmck1

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

jay: ...everyone -has- one.

as opposed to -being- one...

i think fdr said that...

Jay:

Jay, I wasn't "playing the victim" -- I was busting your balls. Sheesh, don't you have, like, a functioning sarcasameter?

No, it's not "our fault" that Ahmadinejad appears to be the Iranian equivalent of Jack Van Impe. It might be an *indirect consequence* though, that he got elected as a response to our invasion of Iraq.

You know ... the way hard-line "anti-terrorist" Republicans get elected by hyping 9/11?

Invading Iraq substantially derailed the indigenous Iranian reform movement -- you know, the very movement that your Iranian friend expresses sympathy for by calling Ahmadinejad and Bush two sides of the same coin.

If you think things like the Iranian reform movment don't matter because you "just want them to fear us" -- then you haven't been paying attention to the explicit goals and intentions of Bush's foreign policy.

Sheesh, even the architect of the Bush Doctrine of preventive war knows that how Muslims view us very much affects the potential of democracy in the region.

Bob

"Jay, I wasn't "playing the victim" -- I was busting your balls. Sheesh, don't you have, like, a functioning sarcasameter?" - rmck1

sorry, my bad.

"Invading Iraq substantially derailed the indigenous Iranian reform movement -- you know, the very movement that your Iranian friend expresses sympathy for by calling Ahmadinejad and Bush two sides of the same coin.
If you think things like the Iranian reform movment don't matter because you "just want them to fear us" -- then you haven't been paying attention to the explicit goals and intentions of Bush's foreign policy." - rmck1

I do not endorse the Bush doctrine 100%. I think even Bush worries too much on what the "perceptions" are.

I want them (arab community) to start worrying
about what our perceptions of them are. Does it not strike you odd that we never hear about any of their concerns of what their image is on the world stage? They don't care, and maybe it's time we adopt the same philosiphy.

You know most children growing up hate their parents in part because of the fact they can't hoodwink, intimidate or run over them. Eventually that hate turns to respect and admiration. The children that grow up and get everything they want and are appeased by their parents, never learn to respect or admire their parents.

In an odd, microscopic fashion, I see this as a smiliar conflict.

"Sheesh, even the architect of the Bush Doctrine of preventive war knows that how Muslims view us very much affects the potential of democracy in the region." - rmck1

Again, I don't subscribe to this school of thought. We gave them a chance at "democracy" or at the very least a representative gov't. We can't impose it, if they want it, fine, if not, so what.

Democracy is not the "key" to peace, although it wouldn't hurt. But the UAE, Jordan, etc. are peaceful Arab states that don't have a democracy (constitutional monarchies with representative seats), which another way Iraq could go.

Jay and Not-Silent Bob,

Enough already. Get a life.

I will take a life for $200 please.

There is no 'war on terror' becuase al-Qaeda is a fantasy. There is no organized international terrorist network of any consequence. It is a convenient fantasy nurtured by neoconservatives to keep people in fear.

Download "The Power of Nightmares" (Google it), watch it and learn. This whole discussion is pointless because there is no such thing as organized terror.

"There is no 'war on terror' becuase al-Qaeda is a fantasy. There is no organized international terrorist network of any consequence. It is a convenient fantasy nurtured by neoconservatives to keep people in fear." The Conservative Deflator

Oh good Lord, does anyone else want to inform your liberal friend here before I conservatively slap them around with some facts?

Incidentally, it's hard to negotiate from a position of strength when you believe that you are weak and immoral.

http://www.discriminations.us/2004/11/america_fair_decent_or_racist.html

"Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters say that American society is generally fair and decent.... 26% disagree and believe that American society is basically unfair and discriminatory....

Republicans, by an 80% to 12% margin, say that American society is generally fair and decent. Unaffiliated voters agree, but [by] a 59% to 24% margin. However, Democrats are evenly divided. Forty-six percent (46%) of John Kerry's party say that American society is fair and decent while 41% say it is unfair and discriminatory.

Overall, two thirds of voters believe that those who move to the United States should adopt our nation's culture, language, and heritage. Nineteen percent (19%) disagree. Eighty percent (80%) of conservatives believe that those who move to the U.S. should adopt our cultural heritage along with 63% of moderates and 50% of liberals.

Just 22% of voters believe that most Americans are racist. This includes 31% of Democrats, 22% of unaffiliateds, and 14% of Republicans."

Just saying.

Jay:

All of that might well be an accurate snapshot of public opinion -- but what did it have to do with The Conservative Deflator's point?

If the so-called GWoT is being hyped for political reasons (and I personally believe it is -- though I also believe that Islamic terrorism is at some less-then-existential-level a genuine threat), that might be *reflected* in public opinion.

But public opinion most assuredly didn't *cause* it if it was in fact true that vested interests are hyping it to a fare-thee-well.

And they are. Why just look at ... Joe Lieberman. Just look at Bush and the GOP -- who consider the foiled terror plot a political goldmine.

Bob

"The views expressed in the Information Clearing House News Wire and Daily Email News Digest are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster or the transmitter."

Here's the author. Some guy named Tom in Imperial Beach, CA.

"Every little bit helps to pay for hosting and bandwidth costs and other expenses. You may prefer to mail a donation to: Tom. Po Box 365. Imperial Beach, California 91933. USA"

So the Deflator will have us all to believe that the "organized terror" that has been responsible for death and mayhem worldwide since at least the 1972 Munich Olympic Games is all a fantasy because some guy named Tom with a camcorder and bandwidth in CA says it is.

Well I guess we can all go home now.

Read Jason Burke’s excellent book The True Story of Radical Islam. Osama bin Laden is little more than a convenient myth for the Bush neocons. There are disgruntled Muslims, to be sure, but Bush is making more everyday not less. Conservatives live in an upside down world where everything they believe is wrong – No wonder they are so angry and confused….

"And they are. Why just look at ... Joe Lieberman. Just look at Bush and the GOP -- who consider the foiled terror plot a political goldmine." - rmck1

That poll had nothing to do with the Deflator, I just threw it in. I am not sure what it shows, but it is interesting that many of the far far left have a high level of mistrust for this country.

Back to point, I am not in total disagreement that this war is too politicized on both ends. But I heard Tony Snow say the other day that if you want to be scared, you should see the information that Bush sees on a daily basis. I can only imagine what is being kept confidential.

Tony probably sees Bush's bowel movements - now that must be real scary!!!

Jason Burke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The BBC journalist, Roger Hardy, who had traveled with Burke across the Islamic world described him as someone who is "engaging, good-humoured, nagged on occasion by fear and self-doubt, moved and sometimes overwhelmed by the world's humanity and inhumanity. He gets drunk, girlfriends come and go, he has the odd sniff of cocaine, he takes part in a naked table-tennis tournament in post-liberation Baghdad. He fits easily into the company of raw young troops from Michigan and Milwaukee stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, for whom war is a real-time version of Full Metal Jacket.""

Well he seems like a well balanced individual.

Typical conservative tactic - attack the messenger instead of refute the argument.

When people realize how the neoconservatives have squandered American tax dollars and the goodwill we used to have, on an enemy that doesn't exist - the conservative movement in America will be out of power for another four decades. Take it to the bank.

"....neoconservatives have squandered American tax dollars..........Take it to the bank" -Deflator

Take what to the bank?

I currently am BBQ'ing some dinner (mmmmmmmm salmon) but later on I will attempt to shed some light into that dark hole of gray matter you possess by providing you with some indisputable facts on terrorism.

Stay tuned.

The neocon nutjobs who are pushing the myth of al-Qaeda are the same group of liars from “Team B” that exaggerated the Soviet threat. Time to take them down!

What I think is actually sometimes the smartest thing to do in response to terrorist provocation, which is forbearance, is very hard to counsel. [But] if you ask what kind of shape would Israel be in if they had done a day's worth of retaliation, and since then just endured any missiles, and said, "OK, look, at this point there's no excuse for what they're doing, we're not even fighting them," I think Israel as a nation would be more secure than they are.

But it's very hard to convince people of that, and I admit that rhetorically it's hard to make that a winning strategy.What I think is actually sometimes the smartest thing to do in respons

Worst terrorist strikes--U.S. and worldwide

compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 12 July 2006

Deadliest terrorist strikes in the United States

Date attack and location fatalities injuries:

11 Sep 2001 crashing of hijacked planes into World Trade Center, New York City, New York, Pentagon in Alexandria, Virginia, and site in Pennsylvania 2,993 8,900

19 Apr 1995 truck bombing of federal building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 169 675

16 Sep 1920 bombing near bank in New York City, New York 38 300

1 Oct 1910 bombing at newspaper building in Los Angeles, California 20 20

4 May 1886 bombing and riot at Haymarket Square rally in Chicago, Illinois 12 60

29 Dec 1975 bombing at airport in New York City, New York 11 75

22 Jul 1916 bombing at parade in San Francisco, California 10 40

26 Feb 1993 truck bombing of World Trade Center, New York City, New York 6 1,040

Deadliest terrorist strikes, worldwide:

Date attack and location fatalities injuries:

11 Sep 2001 crashing of hijacked planes into World Trade Center, New York City, New York, Pentagon in Alexandria, Virginia, and site in Pennsylvania, USA 2,993 8,900

20 Aug 1978 arson of theater in Abadan, Iran 477

1-3 Sep 2004 hostage taking at school in Beslan, Russia (includes 30 terrorists killed) 366 747

23 Jun 1985 mid-air bombing of Air India flight off Ireland, and attempted bombing of second flight in Canada 331 4

12 Mar 1993 15 bombings in Bombay, India 317 1,400

8 Aug 1998 truck bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Saalam, Tanzania 303 4,954

23 Oct 1983 truck bombings of U.S. Marine and French barracks, Beirut, Lebanon 301 161

22 Sep 1997 attack at Ben Talha, Algeria 277 ?

30 Dec 1997 attack at Ami Moussa, Algeria 272 ?

21 Dec 1988 mid-air bombing of Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland 270 12

20 Nov-5 Dec 1979 hostage taking at Grand Mosque
in Mecca, Saudi Arabia (includes 87 terrorists killed) 240 600

21 Feb 2004 armed attack and arson at refugee camp, Uganda 239 60

29 Aug 1997 attacks at Sidi Moussa and Hais Rais, Algeria 238 ?

31 Oct 1999 intentional crash of Egypt Air flight off Massachusetts, USA, by pilot 217 0

12 Oct 2002 car bombing outside nightclub in Kuta, Indonesia 202 350

11 Jul 2006 multiple bombings on commuter trains in Mumbai, India 200 714

11 Mar 2004 bombings of four trains in Madrid, Spain 191 1,876

2 Mar 2004 multiple suicide bombings at shrines in Kadhimiya and Karbala, Iraq 188 430

14 Sep 2005 multiple suicide bombings and shooting attacks in Baghdad, Iraq 182 679

4 Jan 1998 attacks at Had Chekala, Remka, and Ain Tarik, Algeria 172 ?

19 Sep 1989 mid-air bombing of French UTA flight in Chad 171 0

26 Oct 2002 hostage taking and attempted rescue in theater in Moscow, Russia (includes 41 terrorists killed) 170 656

19 Apr 1995 truck bombing of federal building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA 169 675

16 Apr 1925 bombing of cathedral in Sophia, Bulgaria 160 ?

10 Aug 2001 attack on train south of Luanda, Angola 152 146

14 May 1985 armed attack on crowds in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka 150 ?

14-19 June 1996 hostage taking in Budennovsk, Russia, and two failed rescue attempts 143 435

3 Aug 1990 armed attack at two mosques in Kathankudy, Sri Lanka 140 70

28 Feb 2005 car bombing outside medical clinic in Hilla, Iraq 135 130

2 Oct 1990 crash of hijacked PRC airliner in Guangzhou, PRC 132 49

13 Sep 1999 bombing of apartment building in Moscow, Russia 130 150

18 Apr 1987 roadway ambush near Alut Oya, Sri Lanka 127 64

23 Nov 1996 crash of hijacked Ethiopian Air flight off Comoros 127 48

29 Aug 2003 car bombing outside mosque in Najaf, Iraq 125 500

13 Aug 1990 armed attack at mosque in Eravur, Sri Lanka 122 79

27 Feb 2004 bombing and fire on ferry near Manila, Philippines 118 9

29 Nov 1987 mid-air bombing of Korean Air flight near Burma 115 0

23 Sep 1983 crash of Gulf Air flight following mid-air bombing over the UAE 112 0

27 Nov 1989 mid-air bombing of Avianca flight in Bogota, Columbia 110 ?

1 Feb 2004 two suicide bombings of political party offices in Irbil, Iraq 109 240

21 Apr 1987 bombing of bus depot in Columbo, Sri Lanka 106 295

22 Sep 1993 crash of airliner struck by missile in Sukhumi, Georgia 106 26

24 Jun 2004 multiple bombings and armed attacks in several cities in Iraq 103 324

11 Jan 1998 attack on movie theater and mosque at Sidi Hamed, Algeria 103 70

13 Dec 1921 bombing of Bolgard palace in Bessarabia (modern Moldova) 100 ?

18 May 1973 mid-air bombing of Aeroflot airliner, Siberia 100 0

4 Dec 1977 crash of hijacked Malaysian airliner near Malaysia 100 0

Significant terrorist acts using unconventional weapons:

Date attack and location fatalities injuries:

6 Sep 1987 water poisoning with pesticide at constabulary in Zamboanga City, Philippines 19 140

21 Jan 1994 attack with chemical grenades on village of Ormancik, Turkey 16 ?

20 Mar 1995 sarin nerve gas attack in subway in Toyko, Japan 12 5,511

27 Jun 1994 nerve gas attack in Matsumoto, Japan 7 270

9 Oct 2001 anthrax-laced letters mailed to Washington, DC, USA 4 7

18 Sep 2001 anthrax-laced letters mailed to West Palm Beach, Florida, USA, and New York City, New York, USA 1 10

19 Apr 1946 cyanide poisoning in prison near Nuremberg, Germany 0 2,283

9-19 Sep 1984 salmonella poisoning in restaurants in The Dalles, Oregon, USA 0 751

19 Apr 1995 tear gas attack in Yokohama, Japan 0 272

Terrorist attacks producing high numbers of non fatal injuries:

Date attack and location fatalities injuries:

11 Sep 2001 crashing of hijacked planes into World Trade Center, New York City, New York, Pentagon in Alexandria, Virginia, and site in Pennsylvania, USA 2,993 8,900

20 Mar 1995 sarin nerve gas attack in subway in Toyko, Japan 12 5,511

8 Aug 1998 truck bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Saalam, Tanzania 303 4,954

19 Apr 1946 cyanide poisoning in prison near Nuremberg, Germany 0 2,283

11 Mar 2004 bombings of four trains in Madrid, Spain 191 1,876

12 Mar 1993 15 bombings in Bombay, India 317 1,400

31 Jan 1996 suicide truck bombing of bank in Colombo, Sri Lanka 91 1,400

26 Feb 1993 truck bombing in garage of World Trade Center, New York City, USA 6 1,040

6 Dec 1989 truck bombing at federal police building in Bogota, Columbia 52 1,000

9-19 Sep 1984 salmonella poisoning in restaurants in The Dalles, Oregon, USA 0 751

1-3 Sep 2004 hostage taking at school in Beslan, Russia (includes 35 terrorists killed) 372 747

11 Jul 2006 multiple bombings on commuter trains in Mumbai, India 200 714

1 Oct 1982 truck bombing in public square in Tehran, Iran 60 700

7 Jul 2005 bombings of three subway trains and one bus in London, UK 54 700

14 Sep 2005 multiple suicide bombings and shooting attacks in Baghdad, Iraq 182 679

19 Apr 1995 truck bombing of federal building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA 169 675

26 Oct 2002 hostage taking and attempted rescue in theater in Moscow, Russia (includes 41 terrorists killed) 170 656

27 Dec 2002 two car bombings outside government house, Chechnya, Russia 71 640

20 Nov-5 Dec 1979 hostage taking at Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia (includes 87 terrorists killed) 240 600

17 Jul 1996 bombing of train in Sri Lanka 70 600

15 Aug 1998 two car bombings in Omagh, Northern Ireland, UK 29 530

26 Jun 1996 truck bombing at U.S. military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia 19 515

29 Aug 2003 car bombing outside mosque in Najaf, Iraq 125 500

16 Sep 1999 car bombing in Volgodonsk, Russia 17 480

14-19 June 1996 hostage taking in Budennovsk, Russia, and two failed rescue attempts 143 435

2 Mar 2004 multiple suicide bombings at shrines in Kadhimiya and Karbala, Iraq 188 430

20 Nov 2003 suicide bombings of British consulate and bank in Istanbul, Turkey 30 400

12 Oct 2002 car bombing outside nightclub in Kuta, Indonesia 202 350

24 Jun 2004 multiple bombings and armed attacks in several cities in Iraq 103 324

26 Sep 1980 suicide bombing in Munich, West Germany 13 312

1 Aug 1980 bombing at railway station in Bologna, Italy 85 300

1 Oct 1981 car bombing in Beirut, Lebanon 83 300

14 Jul 1987 twin car bombs and two other bombs in shopping area in Karachi, Pakistan 72 300

15 Dec 1976 bombing at airport in Baghdad, Iraq 40 300

16 Sep 1920 bombing near bank in New York City, New York, USA 34 300

5 Mar 1998 bombing of bus in Colombo, Sri Lanka 32 300

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255i.html

Now Deflator, do you really believe that American Presidential Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have conspired to either falsify these events or construct them in a way that will keep the masses in fear and dependent on their ability to keep all of us safe?

Are you saying that Al Qaeda is the only group capable of terrorism and that they are a phantom organization?

Are you not connecting the dots (and lives) that have been strewn about the world for last forty years?

Or are you accusing the current Bush administration of staging 9/11 to fulfill their war ambitions?

Multiple choice, you can't lose.

I meant to point out that 5% of these "qualified" terrorist activities are not extreme muslim related. It needs to be noted that 95% are.

想要获得翻译公司的翻译服务？还是要进入一家上海翻译公司？英语翻译爱好者的最大希望就是能够进入一家英语翻译公司或者是日语翻译公司，不过能够进入英语翻译公司那就更好了。什么？你说法语翻译公司？那是不敢想了。特别是英语同声翻译公司担任同声翻译的工作。虽然在不少翻译论坛上询问了译友，他们也没有太好的学习翻译的建议，但是大家都说不要使用机器在线翻译的功能。

So what's the problem?

The Democratic Plan doesn't make enough stuff go "BOOM" or kill enough brown people.

Bob, I am sorry I have not been able to comment further about the troll issue. I found your comment about blogging for Dean informative. I respect your experience and would like to hear more about how you kept the trolls at bay while still keeping an open forum.

The Washington Monthly's Political Animal is the first 'blog' I ever left a comment at. I do not remember what that comment was, but I remember the nervousness the first time I pressed the Post button and then the fear and exhiliration I felt when someone commented on my comment. It did not take me long to find my comment persona, which you correctly summed up as a dark exasperation.

I think the motivation to be disruptive on this open forum must stem from either an inability to communicate successfully or a desire to disrupt advocates of opposing opinions. Washington Monthly's Political Animal is unique, at least to me, in that their are so many opposing commenters to the generally moderate liberal viewpoint of the issues and how they vehemently argue and defend the conservative viewpoint. Your ability to discuss the issues with them is admirable. The issue you bring up about hijacking Names is a problem of the latter sort, and I think you have a legitimate complaint, especially since it appears your doppleganger is a robot. It is obvious you are being targetting in order to be silenced. Do not let them interfere with you quality comments.

Emotional Politics

Most of us believe voting decisions are based on rational thought and deliberation. Our colleges and universities across the country have departments of “political science”. The assumption is there is a “science” of politics. We have opinion polls, focus groups, statistical and real time analysis. All of these techniques are designed to influence and measure public opinion. They run the gamut from “soft” to “persuasive” and finally “push” methods of “manipulation”.

However, what seems to be the case is the part of the brain most associated with reasoning does not respond to rational political stimulation. Research conducted at Emory University using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) suggests political decisions are driven by the unconscious and emotions.

According to Drew Western, who led the study, “…partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it with the elimination of negative states and activation of positive ones.

Therefore, part of our emotional and unconscious reaction to stressful stimuli is our “fight or flight” response.

These reactions infuse what Carl Jung identified as a nation’s “collective unconscious”. Since 911, the threat of weapons of mass destruction, whether fictitious or not, as well as other terrorist assaults abroad, have ignited our defense or stress mechanism –“fight or flight” response.

Examined in this way, Lamont’s victory was a win for those who favor flight— isolationism; they want our troops home from Iraq and the clock turned back prior to 911.

There are the fighters that want to stay in Iraq and bomb the ME into the Stone Age, as long as Israel survives unscathed. Fight is man’s most common response mechanism. This mechanism, today, is sublimated by violent movies, video games, and in its extreme violent criminal behavior, as for example its use in politics—the infamous Willie Horton ad.

The flight response desire for unsatisfied safety is indicative of psychological dysfunction: anxiety, depression, sexual impotence, suicide and psychosis.

There is the likelihood a society where the collective unconscious is dominated by the flight response is vulnerable to dominion by a fight response directed society. For example, the flight response evidenced by Great Britain and its Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain resulted in the deaths of more than 50 million before Britain and the United States engaged Nazi Germany.

These are the emotional and unconscious buttons that can be pushed by either side in this election, one side may attempt to use both.

Our choices are pushing the flight button of anti-war isolationism, or the fight button of establishing, if you will, an American “beachhead” in the Middle East . It is possible Iraq may have to be divided along ethnic lines, nonetheless, even if this occurs, we will have our ME proxy and base of operations to wage war against terrorism outside the United States . This rationale may be the confirmatory information needed to satisfy the fight response, while it will remain non-confirmatory to those that are flight response directed.

However, the solace of knowing it will happen “over there” may dissipate the flight response. Consequently, this election, as the ’04 vote, could become a choice either of fight or flight and possibly and mixture of both.

The Democrats have put forth its “6 in ‘06” agenda which, true to form, appeals to the rational, except for its call for withdrawal from Iraq .

The Republican message is quite simple. Terrorism is an imminent threat. We all witnessed it on 911. We foiled attacks in August. There have been other attacks since 911. We know from the President of Iran that 52,000 suicide bombers are ready to attack. Do we fight, or to we do what the Democratic Party suggest—succumb to our flight response and runaway. We have a place outside of the United States where we are fighting terrorists. It is Iraq .

The Democratic agenda does contain emotional attributes—elimination of poverty, universal health care, environmentalism. However, in our current climate these issues are meaningless in a world which is in chaos, our personal safety jeopardized, and our fight or flight response is running riot.

For recent commentary on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

For more information on the Emory University study: Scientific American.com and

Huffing ton Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/biology-of-rhetorical-fai_b_24940.html

http://garart.squarespace.com