Nothing takes quite so much self-discipline as sending other people to war.

Except for blowing goats.

Over and above that issue, though, is the monumental silliness of Glenn's remark. On what planet does that comment even remotely make sense?

Not only incoherent, but so libetarian!

"journalistic classes lack sufficient patriotism"

Is there a more worthless, self-satisfied argument than questioning the patriotism of a hand-wavingly defined group of people?

What Glen fails to mention is that it's the stupid wars that get this kind of treatment. But he likes stupid wars too much to be willing to admit that.

consistency is not a big component of the Jingotarian mindset.

OT, but Kevin, now that you can read the Times Op-Ed stuff, would you please tell everyone what an idiot Roger Cohen is? Today's piece on how lazy the French are (the French, who have better hourly productivity than US workers) is idiotic on so many levels.

Wait a second. I thought conservatives didn't make accusations of non-patriotism?

But you forgot, he's not a conservative! He's a "non-partisan libertarian" that just happens to steadfastly support the most expansive executive government in our history.

I thought conservatives didn't make accusations of non-patriotism?

Kevin, I didn't read any accusations of non-patriotism. What I read was the claim that even among the (perhaps) minority of journalists who are patriotic, they are not as patriotic as conservatives. This is evident from the journalists lack of self-discipline in criticizing America's Commander in Chief in a time of war while the enemy is listening and paying attention to every word we say looking for a sign of weakness.

This an adumbration of the 'liberalism is a character flaw' trope, to be distinguished from 'liberalism is a conspiracy', or 'liberalism is a sin'.

Reynolds' level of hackery exceeds even Kevin's own Bush Cultist trolls.

I thought only irritating European lefties referred to the "political class", and even then it was long before the Internet and blogging made the concept irrelevant. Journalistic "class" is a new one to me. What the hell is that?

A class is not something that you can just start a blog with. Norman Rogers should git over to that idiot's blog and instruct the boobie on what a real class is.

A Freudian might see Reynolds as projecting his own repressed desire to speak out against the government. His superego restrains this urge, and he calls it "patriotism."

Don't forget "liberalism is a mental disease" Matt.

Also, props to Al for making a statement that makes me chuckle (particularly the "criticizing Bush is treason" implication)---but you forgot to suggest that Reynolds also suggested a possible lack of self-discipline. I'm guessing you're leaving that one to El Viajero.

Shorter Al: "I didn't see where anyone's patriotism was maligned, so let me fix that."

Come on people, "Ein Volk, Ein Fuhr, Ein Reich". Get with the agenda already.

I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Full Metal Jacket where a fully-engaged helicopter door gunner yells,

Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC!

Not only incoherent, but so libetarian!

Incoherence is a necessary precondition of the libertarian.

"Patriotism" is a bully word used to abuse those who are not sufficiently behind imperial wars. These wars are intended to open resources up to advantageous contracts. Imperial invasion and occupation creates a situation under which the person writing the contract for land, or labor, or mineral resources is in an advantageous position as compared to the poor, ignorant or embattled man on the spot who is now broke, broken or desperate. These are the most lucrative sorts of contracts when you compare them to contracts between equals. Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine is just a species of this truism.

Far from being for human liberty this kind of imperialist is for a rather mean form of coercion- one in which whole nations are broken and the national direction of a country is dictated, at least in terms of what happens to contracts, externalities, and social justice legislation. Of course the wonderfully profitable 'invader's advantage' is passed off as democracy, progress and efficient use of resources.

BG,RS - now that was funny!

It's more of the same conservative bullshit from Reynolds: Support Dubya's Big Iraq Mistake indefinitely (which apparently involves giving up your Constitutional rights, mortgaging your kid's future, destroying America's military capacity, et cetera) and without question or you're an unpatriotic, traitorous commie with a jones for al Quaeda...

And if Reynolds wants to piss and moan any further about disunity affecting troop morale - the focus of Henniger's WSJ opinion piece - perhaps he should remember that Bush squandered the sense of national (and international) unity we had after 9/11 by lying to everyone about how Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to US security, an al Quaeda collaborator, and had nearly possessed nuclear weaponry...

Yeah...I guess Glenn would consider getting your bullshit called on you a problem. It seems to happen to him a lot...

Does that mean I get to accuse conservatives of being baby killers again?

You might try, "The problem is that many conservatives lack sufficient patriotism to actually fight in wars that they support, in particular wars that are waged 'to save civilization itself.'"

You see, Kevin, it's unfair to ask both sides to play by the same sets of rules. The Republicans believe that right is on their side, and that triumph only requires strength of will, so they admire people who will do whatever is necessary.

But what they have noticed is that many Democrats, like you, have a charming but outdated belief in fair play. They've noticed that when they call you on something, you often apologize and back off.

In the case of accusations of lack of patriotism, it's simple: Republicans and generals are patriotic; Democrats and journalists aren't. Therefore it is always wrong to accuse a Republican or a general of lack of patriotism, but it is right to accuse a Democrat or a journalist.
The Democrats and journalists will respond by trying to prove that the charge is false, and since patriotism is defined as Republicanism, they bend to support the other side. So of course the tactic makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Hacksaw on October 18, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Thanks. I'll be here all week. Remember to tip your waitresses and bartenders...

The problem is that our political and journalistic classes lack sufficient patriotism to promote self-discipline, or perhaps sufficient self-discipline to allow them to act patriotically.

of course, I actually agree with him on this statement, but I think we would disagree on the definition of 'patriotism'. seems to me that the political and chattering classes lack the backbone to do the act of ultimate patriotism, which is to stand up to a strong executive and tell the truth. so glenn's right, although not for the reasons he thinks he is.

Once again, I wish people would stop equating militarism with patriotism. They are NOT the same thing.

To be precise, those weren't Reynold's words. They were Dan Henninger's. That's what those little quote marks around a block of text mean.

Actually, I take that back. Those were Reynold's comments about Henninger's comments. Read Comp 101...

As I recall George Bush has said that he was criticizing Dems' judgement, but not their patriotism. However, I don't recall Prof. Reynolds making a similar promise.

I think patriotism may be an issue in the next election, expecially if the surge continues to be more-or-less successful. Various Dems and media figures have left themselves open to a charge of lack of patriotism. E.g.,

-- Jack Murtha publicly announcing that the Haditha marines were guilty before they had been tried or even charged. He trampled all over Constitutional due process in his eagerness to blast our troops.
-- Nancy Pelosi bringing up the Armenian genocide resolution at a time when it could hurt the war effort in Iraq
-- Sen. Reid announcing that the war was hopeless - a comment that would tend to demoralize our troops and allies while encouraging the enemy.
-- Media focus on negative developments in Iraq while ignoring positive news. (There's an amusing video that I saw a couple of weeks ago where a reporter from CNN and a reporter from WaPo explain to Howie Kurtz why a drop in the number of American deaths isn't newsworthy, but an increase in that number belongs on the front page.)
-- Personal criticism of the Commander-in-Chief. Does it occur to Dems that this sort of criticism can harm troop morale? Or, do they not care about troops morale? A patriot would care about troop morale
-- Personal criticism of Gen. Petraeus. E.g., Hillary implying that he was lying about the improvements he testified to. By the way, the passage of time has confimed Petraeus's testimony.

As Imelda Marcos might say, If the shoe fits, wear it.

Reynolds' inability to distinguish criticism from a lack of patriotism is really embodied by the cluelessness of the "approving" quote of Daniel Henninger.

But during Vietnam and again now, we haven't been able to avoid simultaneously putting troops on the battlefield while fighting bitterly amongst ourselves at home for the length of the war.

Christ, that's true since Thermopylae. If they're having trouble with Herodotus and Thucydides, perhaps they should get Cliff Notes. Scoundrels! All of them!

The last refuge, as they say. See also: Goebbels on starting wars. To "ex-liberal," for whom "personal criticism of the Commander in Chief" hurts morale, that's ridiculous. (BTW, did you hold to that standard in 1999?)

So impeaching the Commander in Chief while we're at war in Bosnia is patriotic, but criticizing the C in C for fubaring the war in Iraq is un-patriotic?

I guess the R in patRiotic stands for "Republican"

The problem is that our political and journalistic classes lack sufficient patriotism to promote self-discipline, or perhaps sufficient self-discipline to allow them to act patriotically.

Glenn is nuttier than a tree frog. Patriotism doesn't have a thing to do with our rotting press corpse.

TBogg pointed out the wingnut pile-on of Sanchez dubbed as the "Lefts [sic] New Drummer Boy" at Flopping Aces from last Friday:

The man did not deserve a fourth star because his leadership of the armed forces during his time there was terrible.  Is it any wonder why he is now talking trash?  The surge is working, the situation in Iraq is improving, and now this man wants to portray Iraq as a failure, and blame it all on Bush.  It's not a failure, it's working.  And any good leader understands when a tactic doesn't work he adapts and changes.  Bush understood this and canned Sanchez.

*

Days after the November 2004 election, while U.S. troops again moved into Fallujah for the slaughter, a dispatch from that city reported on the front page of the New York Times: "Nothing here makes sense, but the Americans' superior training and firepower eventually seem to prevail."

Blue Girl, can there be such a thing as "shorter Al"? I mean, how could he possibly get any smaller?

I love Reynolds' suggestion that journalistic discipline is what matters in a war. Like him, that notion is just dripping with self-canceling ironies!

Anyway, I'm certainly glad to see that that whole stab-in-the-back thing was just a figment of my liberal imagination. That's a relief.

The high indignation over "questioning the patriotism" is aging badly. After the Turkey resolution, and any number of attempts at legislation to hamper the war effort, the only thing that would make the word "sabotage" more applicable would be Democratic politicians actually scuttling equipment transport ships.

The term "aid and comfort" has been redefined upward until it, for all intents and purposes, it has become useless. For example, an American congressman broadcasting to our enemies that we are losing the war no longer falls under this category. Neither do any number of Democratic statements implying that all the enemy has to do is hold on a bit longer and our complete retreat will follow as soon as the Democrats get enough power. So I'm not using the term "treason" here. It doesn't mean anything any more.

It's become fairly blatant, so that for the most part, the Democrats have backed off Iraq as an issue for the same reason that gun control got swept onto the back burner. Except, of course, for attempts like the Turkey resolution, where they still think they can throw a spanner into the military operation without leaving any fingerprints.

The only way "patriotism" can be twisted out of all this is to take the position that America is better off if this war is lost and our enemies succeed. Quite a few Democrats apparently believe this.

Incidentally, it wouldn't hurt to actually read the Henninger column.

General Sanchez said a lot of things you would never have heard about if all our news came from the mainstream media, and he addressed wider issues than were mentioned in the few phrases quoted in newspapers.

Point of contention Tom, er, harry...occupiers do not win or lose, they just occupy until they leave.

BG,RS -

"Occupiers do not win or lose, they just occupy until they leave."

Well I would agree that occupations are neither a winning or losing activity. However, occupiers do win or lose, based on the conditions under which they leave.

I mean did we actually not lose Vietnam because we simply occupied it and then left? Did we not defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WWII because our occupying forces remain?

'Personal criticism of the Commander-in-Chief. Does it occur to Dems that this sort of criticism can harm troop morale? Or, do they not care about troops morale? A patriot would care about troop morale'
--ex-liberal

To use a football analogy - You can advocate the firing of the coach and, at the same time, still cheer for your team. Dipshit.

self-discipline > act patriotically.

Just a plain old non sequitur.

Deflator,

On the other hand, you can't advocate losing the game and still cheer for your team.

Unless you are a Rams fan.

But in geopolitics, you don't get first round draft picks for coming in last.

over and over i say to myself: don't do it. don't get involved in a comments section where the likes of ex-liberal and harry are busy demonstrating their utter cluelessness, their intense stupidity, their substitution of right-wing cliches for thought, and yet one can't help it.

let's take harry's childish clinging to sanchez' rip of the press: yes, poor general sanchez. since he was in charge when abu ghraib was exposed, he was held accountable in the press. the poor dear had his feelings hurt.

and from this, we're supposed to conclude exactly...what? i myself don't disagree with sanchez in the sense that sensationalism is a major element in what captures media attention, but did sanchez ask why? of course not, because that would require him to deal not with his poor little hurt feelings but with the structural realities of power in american society.

as for ex-liberal and his inane list, as usual, we have the game played by clowns who can't begin to define what it is that the troops are supposed to be accomplishing in iraq: by the metrics the white house set, they aren't accomplishing much of anything. that's what destroys morale.

America could be better off if this war is lost. America has no enemies in Iraq that can succeed with its loss. America's enemies are its leaders who started the war.

Just as losing was ultimately the best thing to ever happen to both the Germans and Japanese, losing may help the US become a better nation, but only if it renounces aggressive war, reduces its offensive military capabilities and punishes the traitorous leaders who started the war in Iraq. That's patriotism.

The problem is that our political and journalistic classes lack sufficient patriotism to promote self-discipline, or perhaps sufficient self-discipline to allow them to act patriotically.

What a fucking idiot. That reads like something said by a Nazi or Communist party official.

I mean did we actually not lose Vietnam because we simply occupied it and then left? Did we not defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WWII because our occupying forces remain? Posted by: Hacksaw

Short, easy answer for two really stupid questions: no.

Now go read a book. Learn some history.

Jeez JeffII, how about you learn some basic reading comprehension. The whole point was that these were stupid questions because they reflected, well, the point I made in the original comment.

The Coonservative Deflator: To use a football analogy - You can advocate the firing of the coach and, at the same time, still cheer for your team.

But, not in the middle of a game. If you walked into the locker room at halftime and told the team that they had no chance to win because their coach was as dumb as a chimpanzee, do you think that would motivate them to play harder in the second half? Of course not.

Brojo: Just as losing was ultimately the best thing to ever happen to both the Germans and Japanese, losing may help the US become a better nation

That's because the US is a highly moral nation. (That is, we're highly moral compared to other real-world nations. No doubt we fall short compared to some imaginary, Platonic ideal.) Throughout our history, nations who lost wars to us were generally treated well.

But, losing to Imperial Japan or to Stalin or to Hitler was the worst thing that could happen to various unlucky nations and peoples. Our enemies in Iraq don't have the power of those three, but their morality is no better.

howard, things are such a mess right now in Iraq that it's easy to imagine that we've accomplished nothing. But, if you step back and look at our original objectives, some of them have been accomplished. Saddam's horrendous rule is ended. (The Kurds are thrilled and most Shia are happier today than they were under Saddam.) There is a democracy in place, albeit a weak one. There's no risk (at the moment) that Iraq will develop WMDs. Compare these with Iran, where none of them has been accomplished. Iran is a greater risk to the US and the world than Iraq today precisely because of what we've accomplished.

And who, in Reynolds' view, gets to be the arbiter of what constitutes "sufficient patriotism"?

Bad enough that he questions the journalistic class (would that there was one left, I mean, remaining-no partisan inclination inferred).

What's troubling is that he pastes an e-mail, with which he agrees (thoughts from reader Scott Wallace, which to some degree parallel my own worries), from someone who expresses the most unamerican sentiments he could.

whether one is going to abide by the result and support the team or try to sabotage the effort in a backdoor attempt to get one's way. Surely this strict constructionist is aware that the founders thought it really important that each Congress control the purse strings. War funding, like Iraq, simply can't happen using a blank check, although it would seem that what's his name thinks is the "result" that must be supported.

This whole e-mail is too unamerican to bother with. KD, I'm stunned you still even skim this guy let alone link to him.

Jeebus, where do these people come from?

Jeez JeffII, . . . The whole point was that these were stupid questions because they reflected, well, the point I made in the original comment.
Posted by: Hacksaw

No it's not. You were making what you thought was a clever response to BG. The problem being, of course, is that you aren't clever. Your examples weren't germane to the current situation in the least.

JeffII,

She wrote: "Occupiers do not win or lose, they just occupy until they leave."

I observed that: "Occupiers do win or lose, based on the conditions under which they leave."

I tossed out Vietnam and Germany/Japan following WWII as example where how the conditions under which occupiers leave do in fact connect to occupiers winning or losing.

Not sure where the disconnect for you lies.

Perhaps I don't handle my drugs as well as Rush does, since I don't abuse them or take them other than as prescribed, and could have worded it better....but still, in the cases you cite, the U.S. military was up against a standing military of another nation. That is not the case in Iraq.

Hacksaw: I mean did we actually not lose Vietnam because we simply occupied it and then left? Did we not defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WWII because our occupying forces remain?

Here's a simple question, and please be sure I mean it with no offense: are you retarded?

...criticizing America's Commander in Chief...
Al (or fake Al), perhaps you're just being tediously, deliberately irritating.
America doesn't have a Commander in Chief - it has a President. The American military has a Commander in Chief.

I mean did we actually not lose Vietnam because we simply occupied it and then left?

No, we lost Vietnam because we never successfully occupied it. When you're successfully occupying a country, aircraft maintenace people don't have to wear flak jackets and walk armed onto the flightline. I've never actually been to a US Air Force installation in Germany or Japan, but I suspect that in those places the maintenance people don't carry weapons.

Blue Girl: Perhaps I don't handle my drugs as well... Need some help? Uncle Thersites is here for ya. ;)

From the Constitution:

Section 2:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Here's a simple question, and please be sure I mean it with no offense: are you retarded?

Retarded and employed by the DOD? This is even worse than I thought.

I wish I had a buck for every time I've uttered that last sentence in the past six years.

I wish I had a buck for every time I've uttered that last sentence in the past six years.

What would you do with all the antlers?

I wish I had a buck for every time I've uttered that last sentence in the past six years.

What would you do with all the antlers? Posted by: thersites

Make one of those uber-Western chandeliers?

I've never actually been to a US Air Force installation in Germany or Japan, but I suspect that in those places the maintenance people don't carry weapons.

I saw some Airmen playing with Super-Soakers on the tarmac at Rhine Mein once. Does that count?

And Thers - I'll gladly send the drugs if I can send the backpain too...:)

Hacksaw at 4.06 Short answer, no. Really, really bad examples. (though I see JeffII's been there)

harry: The only way "patriotism" can be twisted out of all this is to take the position that America is better off if this war is lost and our enemies succeed. Quite a few Democrats apparently believe this.

Well I can't speak for what Democrats think but as for me certainly the world would be better off and I think America the democracy (as opp. to America the Empire) would be better off (just as Argentina was better off after it lost in the Falklands).

I am sick to death of hearing the fake opposition Dems in Congress moan about not having enough votes to end the war in Iraq. They give lip service to the myth that the only way to end the war is to write a bill saying "the war is now over" and send it to Bush for a prompt veto, then override the veto. They then throw up their hands, saying "Well, as you can see, we don't have the votes to override any veto, so there's no way to end the war. Sorry folks."

This is disingenious and vividly illustrates who the Dems are really serving: the establishment, not their constituents.

Here's how to end the war: No bill specifically ending the war is even necessary. Remember those supplemental funding bills the Cheney regime has to constantly ask for, to continue funding the Iraq war piecemeal instead of in yearly lump sums attached to the actual defense budget? That's the achilles' heel of their war effort. The next time Bush asks for another $80 billion or whatever to keep the Iraq bloodbath going, all the Democrats have to do to end the war is to say: NO. To say "We won't allocate one more penny for your illegal war". Last I checked the Dems have a wafer-thin majority in both houses. With no Dems voting for the next spending bill it won't be passed and thus it won't make it to Bush's desk for signing. Bush (and especially his puppetmaster Cheney) may have concentrated an inordinate amount of power in the hands of the executive branch, but even they can't send spending bills to their own desk. That necessarily has to come from Congress. If it never reaches his desk he can't sign it, and will have 2 choices: 1.pull the troops out while there is still enough money left in the pipeline so to speak to allow an orderly withdrawl (and anyone who has five or more brain cells knows that the money isn't going to run out the next day, that's a non-issue that the right wing tries to use as a scare tactic but it is ridiculously dumbed down and simply not true; they don't wait until they have $5 left before asking for another supplemental OK?); or 2.don't pull them out right away, and leave them to wither on the vine in Iraq until the money DOES completely run out and they have to withdraw from Iraq chaotically, burning their supplies and vehicles. Either way the war will end pretty soon if the Dems refuse to vote on supplementals. They don't have to write a bill saying they are cutting off funding; this is only a fig leaf so they can pretend to be doing something to end the war when all they are doing is purposely spinning their wheels. All they have to do is to NOT VOTE ON SUPPLEMENTALS. Pretty effing simple. The people NOW need to DEMAND in so many words that if the Democrats are a genuine opposition party that they will carry out the will of the people and NOT VOTE on supplementals. If they are a fake opposition party as I feel they are, and are acting not in the people's interest but playing for the same team as the Republicans, then continue with more of the same hand-wringing and impotent nonbinding resolutions that resolve nothing. Decision time Democrats. Which are you? Genuine? Or fake opposition? I think I already know the answer to that one but why don't you surprise me?

Actually Reynolds (as he has done before) goes MUCH further than that. He also approvingly quotes his reader Scott Wallace (of whom Reynolds says that his views "to some degree parallel my own worries"):

"The problem, to me, goes beyond the war. It goes to the very heart of the democratic ideal -- that the loser on any issue, to a certain extent, needs to shut up and get on board, as payment for being allowed to participate. Its like poker -- you don't put your chips on the table, play some hands, and then take your money out of the pot if you should lose -- because other people put their money down in good faith, and would have paid up if they had lost.

"The left has made it perfectly clear that the only legitimate outcome of any debate is the one where they get their way. If they don't, they grumble, and protest, and tear apart, and sabotage, and try to delegitimatize the other side -- what they never do is say 'well, people have spoken, we disagree, we will continue to state our side, but within limits, and now let's go forward and make this work'.

"A marriage based on an arrangement like that is never going to work. And a nation based on a democracy won't either, because the other side decides two can play that game. And eventually it is going to occur to one side that if the power struggle became more of a, say, 'historically traditional' model, there seems to be a enormous differential in the potential of each side to field strength on the physical plane. At that point, it becomes tempting, and less aggravating, for one side to just cut the Gordian knot."

Kind of hard to misinterpret the threat in those last two sentences, isn't it? Of course, given that a consistent 65% of the American people in the polls now favor pulling all our troops out within a year (which isn't exactly any sane person's definition of "losing politically"), any attempt at a military coup may not work out quite the way the Reynoldsites think. But then, if they manage to get enough armed troops on their side, they can always emulate Burma. (And that's quite apart from Wallace's hilarious claim that only the Left "grumbles, and protests, and tears apart, and sabotages, and tries to delegitimatize the other side.") In any case, let me congratulate Glenn on his self-proclaimed invention of an entirely new political ideology: Fascist Libertarianism can't have been easy to come up with.

BG,RS -

Thanks for your rational response, in stark contrast to some others. As noted above, I was reacting to your comment that "Occupiers do not win or lose, they just occupy until they leave." And while I think I understand what you were driving at, I suppose I was taking issue with the wording. Because in the end, as I wrote, the way in which an occupier leaves is essentially the determinant of victory or loss.

I tried using some obviously silly examples (i.e. oh so we didn't win WWII because we are still occupying Japan and German) to undersore the point, but this seems to have eluded the comprehension of some here (whom I take it believe I was actual arguing this as opposed to posing a rhetorical question).

In response to your question, I agree that the US presence in Vietnam is different than the one in Iraq, although I would also note that if we consider the US occupation of Germany and Jaan following WWII then it's hard to say Iraq resembles that either. If by occupation we mean the US is running the country (as we did in Japan), then that may have been true in Iraq under the CPA but isn't today. If on the other hand we mean by occupation that the US is the largest military/security force in a country, well then Iraq is more like Vietnam.

That's an interesting diversion, but the bottom line remains the same. Occupation, as a tactic, may not entail winnin or losing. But it does entail buying time to allows conditions to develop to allow (or compell) the occupier to leave. And based on the conditions, the occupier will have won or lost.

If people disagree with that, then by the logic of your original statement, the US cannot lose in Iraq, it can only leave. And I'm pretty sure that is not what you were trying to say.

Because in the end, as I wrote, the way in which an occupier leaves is essentially the determinant of victory or loss.
No argument there. And I misread your rhetorical question, yes.
Maybe I'm arguing with the definition of "occupying," though. We "occupied" the Philippines, for example but it was hard to feel like we were "occupying" when I was diving under my bunk every other night.

"...they are not as patriotic as conservatives. This is evident from the journalists lack of self-discipline in criticizing America's Commander in Chief in a time of war while the enemy is listening and paying attention to every word we say looking for a sign of weakness."

Come on Al, the only states where nobody ever disagrees with the government's policies are the states with secret police.

Besides, why is it so vitally important that terrorists think we're all in lockstep agreement? I mean, it's not like that's gonna stop them from trying to blow us up.

Whoops Meant to say...but it was hard to feel like we were "occupying" Vietnam when I was...

It's those damn cats!

I wish I had a buck for every time I've uttered that last sentence in the past six years.

Yeah, with the GWB econ and the downward-spiraling dollar, wishing for nickels just doesn't cut it anymore...?

Btw, am I the only one pissed at GWB for taking away our (USAmerican) ability to make fun of Canadian money? The bastard!

Thanks for your rational response, in stark contrast to some others.

Treating you with disdain *is* the rational response.

ex-liberal, if the purpose of our splendid little adventure was to depose saddam, let's go home.

that purpose was "mission accomplished" 4.5 years ago.

what undermines the troops today is that for 4.5 years, they've had no mission.

wake me up when you discover one, wouldja?

There is no victory in Iraq: regardless of how many people we kill, what agreements we negotiate or contracts we sign, no matter how many hospitals we build, how much electricity we generate, what statements we coerce or bribe out of what leaders, or who we stick in power or kick out of it, no matter how many crimes, sins or murders are committed, nor how few.

We have no enemies in Iraq worth the name, just ants who don't like us. What we're doing in Iraq is fulfilling self-valedictory fantasies at the cost of US and Iraqi lives: that's it. There are almost literally zero consequences if we 'lose', and no rewards of any significance if we 'win'. The whole thing makes only the vaguest sense, even as a concept, as an act of altruism, and a good rule to follow about altruism is: don't use guns to be altruistic. It doesn't work well. So, even as a concept, it's a terribly flawed concept.

To call it an act of national security is to mock the idea of national security. It's like the British Empire in 1870 trying to claim their empire is endangered by Sudanese dervishes who don't even believe that other continents even exist.

Glenn Reynolds must be a Communist. That's exactly what a communist would say about
journalism.

Yo, Reynolds. Time to leave the ole U.S. of A. Try Russia, China, or Cuba. Those countries reporters are very patriotic.

Once again with a slam at Glenn Reynolds -- why do you hate this guy so much? Glenn doesn't question your patriotism, he questions the way you show it... as Mickey Kaus's girlfriend put it, you guys love America the way OJ loved Nicole.

Interesting that you should make that comparison, minion. An authoritarian husband or father who strips his wife/child of freedoms, furiously shouts down any dissent, accuses his wife/child of not loving him enough when she disagrees, and employs random violence to try to solve his problems--all of which actions, of course, have been perpetrated on this country by the Bush administration--seems to much better fit the profile of an abuser.

"The left has made it perfectly clear that the only legitimate outcome of any debate is the one where they get their way. If they don't, they grumble, and protest, and tear apart, and sabotage, and try to delegitimatize the other side -- what they never do is say 'well, people have spoken, we disagree, we will continue to state our side, but within limits, and now let's go forward and make this work'.

Just as, for example, the right wing said "let's go forward and make this work" during the Clinton Presidency......oh, wait. Never mind. Bad example.

Once again with a slam at Glenn Reynolds -- why do you hate this guy so much? Glenn doesn't question your patriotism, he questions the way you show it... as Mickey Kaus's girlfriend put it, you guys love America the way OJ loved Nicole.Posted by: minion

Kaus is a complete fucking moron. Ergo, anyone who would date him would have to be, if possible, even stupider than he is.

Btw, am I the only one pissed at GWB for taking away our (USAmerican) ability to make fun of Canadian money? The bastard! Posted by: Disputo

Make fun of? It's worse than that! It makes the once affordable Canadian vacation expensive.

Reynolds and his reader want it both ways. This lawyerly garbage is a whole lot of blabber without saying anything at all:

Remember, the phrase I wrote-- the loser on any issue, to a certain extent, needs to shut up and get on board,--had that qualifier, "to a certain extent." ...So it's all confusing. I seem to be saying that civil (and not-so-civil) disobedience is as American as apple pie (and it is!), and also that people should render unto the law what is the law's, even if they disagree with it (and they should!). Hypocrisy!

You said it, man.

By the way, yes, I am the Danny that responded to this inane post by Reynolds.

JeffII: It makes the once affordable Canadian vacation expensive.

Worse than that; What if they start coming here? Imagine a shopkeeper's humiliation the first time some uppity foreign tourists asks "how much is that in real money, eh?"

Does this mean we can begin class warfare again? Please?