Just keep telling yourself how brave you are for dissenting -- as if somehow the dissent itself is more important than the substance of the argument.
And keep twisting my arguments if it helps you justify calling me a coward, something I daresay you would never do to my face.
The bottom line is this: the Democratic leadership has admitted on several occasions now that they are (or were) politically afraid to take a principled stand on the war (see Daschle just last week), and it is on this point that I called them craven -- this constant attempt to recouch their position in the terms they find most politically expedient because power (getting elected) is more important than principle.
That many many military vets and current military agree with me on this should suggest to you that the "chickenhawk" charge is irrelevant to the point.
So rail all you like. But I've been consistent because I believe the cause is right and worthy.
Jeff, the dissent is not important to the substance of the argument. The dissent is important to the difficulty of making the argument. I don't concede the substance of the argument, but since the substance was so transparently weak, it didn't require anything more than a paragraph.
(If I didn't believe that the argument is more important than the person that wrote it, I wouldn't be the advocate of pseudonymity that I am.)
I didn't twist anything, and I have little patience for your attempt to reverse the onus here. You called Democrats and their base cowards, and continue to do so. Your complaints about politicians were rendered meaningless when you attacked said base. The base is not the leadership, and it is ludicrous to suggest that the base's opposition to Iraq is due to political calculation. As I said earlier, the opposition from the base existed throughout the long period where questioning the war was seen as unpatriotic, and that base in turn called unpatriotic by the very liars and scoundrels you defend.
The leadership's political calculation is also meaningless. the Republicans have displayed no greater political courage; in fact, they have displayed considerably less.
Yes, they were afraid, but they were afraid because of people like you, who attempt to equate support for a president and his pet war with support for the United States and the ideals upon which it rests. They are not the same thing, as an honest defender of the war would admit.
You, clearly, do not.
As for whether you gain credit for actually believing in the war? My only question is this:
Considering all the financial and social incentives you have to support it, why on earth should I, or anybody, believe you?
Oh, one other thing: that vets agree with you does not give you the right to make the accusation of cowardice. They didn't say it, you did.
That you're hiding behind those who served in this very comment says a lot about your bravery.
Oh great. Not only are non-military supporters of the war "chickenhawks", now everyone who criticizes the opposition, speaking "power to truth", is a chickenhawk too.
D, I'm not buying this argument of yours that it's so difficult to dissent and oppose the war. Hollywood, acedemia, and most urban cultural centers are all anti-war bastions, which adds up to quite a support network. Indeed, it's the pro-war person who's got to be discreet in those environments. But enough with the martyrdom.
You say that Jeff is pro-war in order to profit and to make the right kind of friends. I don't know what that's about specifically, but you must surely concede that there are situations where one must make anti-war noises in order to win friends and influence people (or to gain tenure, say).
And it's braver to remain pseudonymous? That's absurd, of course.
No, I don't concede anything of the sort, Brian, although it's a popular canard of the right.
Even the arch-realist Hans Morganthau pointed out that those who study politics and international relations will inevitably get in trouble, because they will state uncomfortable truths that will inevitably be called treasonous or worse. it isn't the left calling the right treasonous and anti-American, and as we've seen, it isn't the right speaking truths.
As for "cultural centres" and the difficulty of opposing the war? Go ask Phil Donahue why the highest-rated talk show on MSNBC got canceled. Hint: it wasn't due to ratings. That the Baldwins don't like what's going on in Iraq doesn't mean that Viacom, Disney, and GE are going to invite the wrath of Washington and the FCC. Disney dropped Fahrenheit 9/11 for a reason.
Yes, it is easier to use your own name when you're advocating the popular position, and yes, it is the pro-war position that was the popular one until very, very recently. The "Bush screwed up a good idea" position is STILL the most popular one among the Democratic cognoscenti. You can leverage your real-world knowledge, experience, and affiliations to argue from authority- which happens constantly, and you can employ real-life allies and friends to boost your argument.
Using a pseudonym means that your arguments stand or fall on their own- no argument from authority or exploitation of connections is possible. You don't have a guaranteed audience generated from your political affiliations, and there's no reason for anybody to take what you say seriously, except for the credibility of the argument itself.
(If your typical AEI or Heritage drone wrote pseudonymously, nobody would ever pay attention to them.)
Goldstein, again, has no standing or reason to call anybody a coward, and it is the accusation of cowardice that is most objectionable here. If he hadn't employed this tactic, this post wouldn't exist.
Commenting by HaloScan
