HaloScan.com - Comments

In their defense, the editors at the NY Sun probably can't tell brown people apart. Maybe they need to retain a liberal on staff to disambiguate their file photos and make sure they don't come off like idiots.

(Not that there isn't enough material in the text to make them idiots, of course.)
tonyc | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 10:58 am | #

It does look as though one of the two photos was artificially darkened - I guess Padilla as dirty bomber is meant to be scarier than Padilla as Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia's leader.
Midwest Product | 11.20.06 - 11:05 am | #

Shooter,

Have you considered a job in journalism?
Bullsmith | 11.20.06 - 11:09 am | #

These people are less serious than comic book writers.

Can I just protest this serious slander against comic book writers? Some comic writers are very serious indeed -- even about the middle east, actually.
Stephen Frug | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 11:14 am | #

That article is more farcical than scary in light of news this morning that Rangel is calling to reinstate the draft.
.
greenchilecheeseburger | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 11:15 am | #

Silliness Supreme.

And yet no one with clout (sorry Glenn) calls them on this sort of nonsense. Witness how NOBODY ever questions the oft-repeated mantra, 'we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here'. No one ever points out the stupidity of that remark.

Even yesterday, St. McCain (heartthrob of the Kewl Kidz set) said on Meet The Press that if we 'leave Iraq, they will follow us here'.

First of all, most Iraqis are either settling scores amongst each other or just want us OUT, period. If we left, they probably would just continue settling scores locally. I can't see Muqtada al Sadr saying 'Let's go to Nashville and get those bastards!' once the troops are gone.

Secondly, why can't they come here NOW if they want to? Cross into Jordan, connect at London, and voila, they are here! Why do they have to wait until the fight in Iraq is finished? Is there some sort of design plan that says Iraq first, then the world?

Thirdly. if we 'win' in Iraq, whatever that means, what is to stop 'them' from coming here anyway?
Wouldn't they want to start another battlefield elsewhere? I'm sure that bin Laden won't sit there and say "time to fold up the tent, we lost Iraq, let's call off the jihad'.

Lastly, I love how we have to 'listen to what the terrorists say', and then their words are cherry-picked for our edification. Yes, they hailed the Democrats' victory, but they ALSO pleaded with us NOT TO LEAVE IRAQ YET, as they don't feel they've killed enough Americans yet. A similar Al Qaeda internal memo stating that it is in THEIR interest to keep us tied down in Iraq has been studiously ignored.

Likewise, punditry has IGNORED Ron Susskind's revelation that the famous pre-2004 Election tape of bin Laden was designed (so says the CIA, and why would they lie about this?) to HELP Bush win re-election. No one has asked why that may be--they also ignored Iran's ENDORSEMENT of Bush for re-election (yes, that really happened). OBviously Iran sees his presidency as having worked out well for its interest!
twit | 11.20.06 - 11:28 am | #

I hope Olbermann picks up on this.
SilentPatriot | 11.20.06 - 11:41 am | #

Twit:

This whole "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is based on a WWII model of war, about pressure on one front forcing shifts of troops and so forth. Obviously, as you say, nothing in Iraq will prevent another 20 jihadis (and remember, no Iraqis at all in the last bunch) from coming over here to do who knows what.

So, yes, I agree with you, we have to keep calling them on this. They are the ones who say this is a whole different kind of war anytime anyone suggests humane treatment of captives.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 11:42 am | #

"Even yesterday, St. McCain (heartthrob of the Kewl Kidz set) said on Meet The Press that if we 'leave Iraq, they will follow us here'."

I think McCain has lost his mind.

Three weeks ago, in a Chris Matthews interview, McCain insists 100,000 more troops should be committed in Iraq. I think Glenn did a post on that brilliant strategy proposal.

Now, I read at Think Progress that McCain says 20,000 more troops in Iraq will "break" the Army.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11...-iraq-troops-2/
MD | 11.20.06 - 11:43 am | #

Why did the neocons care so much about Iraqis that they launched a war to remove Saddam, but they haven't cared enough to find a way to stop killing Iraqis now that Saddam has been defeated, captured, and tried?

Just what is it that neocons care about? Every day, I read about another neocon becoming suddenly less sure and bold than he was. Many of them seem to be offering unsolicited denials and clarifications of their statements and strategies.

To whom are they making their case? Is there a board somewhere that is deciding whether the neocons get to continue to have influence? I think it's sufficient that they have been deviously and spectacularly wrong on Iraq and therefore on the Middle East. Haven't they done enough damage to qualify for the lifetime "totally discredited" label? I would prefer to read nothing more about any of them except for coverage of their trials.
insideout | 11.20.06 - 11:43 am | #

These people are less serious than comic book writers.

"Can I just protest this serious slander against comic book writers? Some comic writers are very serious indeed -- even about the middle east, actually."

You can even ask their moms'...who they still live with!

(just kidding.)
howler | 11.20.06 - 11:43 am | #

Remember the Fox News email last week looking for statements by Muslims applauding the Democrats winning Congress? Looks like they couldn't find one, so they made one up.

The terrorists have won at the New York Sun.
mark | 11.20.06 - 11:48 am | #

On the one hand, we find it funny when noodleheads like those at the New York Sun write crap like this.

One the other hand, I don't think it is at all funny that most people do not even seem to know who Jose Padilla is (this would include an entire class of history students I polled recently).

Maybe they're all just waiting for their own fifteen minutes of fame.
Jeff R | 11.20.06 - 11:50 am | #

How are they going to "follow us here" if they don't have one ship or plane? Why doesn't anyone ask that question?
mark | 11.20.06 - 11:51 am | #

This point has been made before, but we are not "fighting a war," but are merely occupiers in a foreign land, and we are facing the customary attacks on our forces that occupying forces can expect to face. If this administration wishes to speak of "winning the war,"(sic), they must first define what they think that means. Obviously, the "we're at war" meme is useful merely as a rhetorical device, as the employment of the phrase is meant to trump all challenges to their usurpation of power and stripping of our Constitutional rights.
Robert1014 | 11.20.06 - 11:52 am | #

You gotta love the New York Spun. It's wierdly well-designed, and their headlines are screamers. The other week they ran one touting what Chalabi thinks about the world.

Cha-who? Bless you.

They give subscriptions to that sorry rag away, so there's always a heap of old ones littering the foyer to my building. Odd that nobody ever seems to pick them up. Well, at least some fools are poorer for sinking their money into the world's most ineffectual propaganda organ.
Septic Tank | 11.20.06 - 12:00 pm | #

José Padilla is also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, and I guess one al-Muhajir is another al-Muhajir in The New York Sun's view.
Adam Durand | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 12:08 pm | #

Al Queda dictates our strategy on the so-called "war on terror"? I always thought it amusing that these boneheads are so preoccupied with what Osama or Abdula think. I think the country and the "strategy" would be better served by capturing the top leaders of Al Queda rather than to pay attention to their propaganda--but that would require planning and intelligence.
writebite | 11.20.06 - 12:30 pm | #

I literally did not believe this. But it's true. I have to go out shortly, and I'll look to see whether this presposterous error is also in the dead tree edition.
jayackroyd | 11.20.06 - 12:34 pm | #

"Maybe they're all just waiting for their own fifteen minutes of fame."

Cha-Ching!
howler | 11.20.06 - 12:35 pm | #

I think McCain has lost his mind.

He hath ever but slenderly known himself.
SteveLG, proudly pre 9/11 | 11.20.06 - 12:45 pm | #

"Maybe they need to retain a liberal on staff to disambiguate their file photos and make sure they don't come off like idiots."

That reminds me of something that happened back when I was an intern in a Republican senator's office in DC in the early 80s. We were sending out response letters to folks who had written to the senator, and I noticed one addressed to "Ms. Julian Bond." When I alerted the powers that be that Bond was in fact male, they weren't so much thankful as they were highly suspicious of me for possessing such knowledge.
Blake | 11.20.06 - 12:47 pm | #

The term "wingnut welfare" is often used to describe the financial support given to right-wing bloviators and publications to disseminate purposeful disinformation...

Yeah, this is more of that. Useless disinformation.

Regular non-political, non-ideological citizens need to know that there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of well-financed wingnuts out there intentionally trying to mislead them. There is no concern for conveying information that would actually inform the American people.

I am so used to listening to this broken record (Bush lies, Republicans lie, wingnuts are propagandists, the media lies, etc.) that I can barely imagine the world any other way. It will be fantastic when these scumbags are harassed into exile.
steve_e | 11.20.06 - 12:55 pm | #

What I can't understand is why the Post, Dick Cheney, the general chattering classes and others take every word from Al Queda as expressing their honest opinion? Do they believe that Al Queda is less capable of spin than say the White House?

We are facing a treacherous enemy. They always speak the truth. Therefore our public official must lie.
Ray | 11.20.06 - 12:56 pm | #

I think McCain has lost his mind.

Though McCain's umbilical link to the real world has been stretched near the snapping point, his public statements are more coherent than MD suggests.

Watch that Matthews clip straight through, and you'll see that McCain is calling for (1) An increase in Iraq deployment of 20,000 troops and (2) Since that would break the current Army, an increase in the size of the Army by 100,000 troops.

He regards the latter as trivially easy, since the only thing holding millions of additional patriotic Americans from jumping into uniform is the fear that "we" are not serious about winning. It is here that his umbilicus becomes untethered from the mothership.
pt bridgeport | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 1:08 pm | #

That is hilarious ... ummm, no, maybe not so funny, on second thought.

How did you catch that, Glenn?

What a bunch of suckers the SCLM thinks we are. The disdain is almost palpable.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 1:09 pm | #

Variations on the "The Bogeyman is coming to get you!" scare tactic has been used since the dawn of civilization by both the easily frightened to justify their near-ogiastic need and desire to wreak violence at and destroy others, and by cynical operators to manipulate the former into doing their bidding.

E.g. the Murder of the Innocents, Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, French Reign of Terror, Kristallnacht, and HUAC.

And, now, this latest version in the form of some wingnut pantywaists' infinite fear of the millions of horrible Islamofascist terrorists and other dark peoples who don't look like Ozzie Nelson, out to kill them and destroy their way of life--and the monstrously evil cynicism with which their pied pipers take advantage of them to hold onto the last vestiges of political power.

How much worse will the rhetoric and even action (e.g. those phony anthrax letters recently sent out) have to get before we finally have our "Have you no shame?" moment and send these cretins back to the holes that they crawled out of?

Like the relatively small number of real terrorists who pose actual threats to Americans and other innocent people throughout the world (and whom, curiously, have yet to be pursued properly let alone captured and neutralized), these malformed creatures can never be completely eliminated or neutralized, but hopefully they can be reduced to the level of a mere nuisance, as Kerry once put it.
Kovie | 11.20.06 - 1:19 pm | #

"What I can't understand is why the Post, Dick Cheney, the general chattering classes and others take every word from Al Queda as expressing their honest opinion?"

It works like this: if it suits the Administration's political goals for al Qaida to be lying, then they are a buch of liars that day. Conversely, if it suits the Administration's purpose for al Qaida to be telling the truth, then that's what they are doing.

It works the same with North Korea. Since we don't want to negotiate with them, if they say they want to negotiate, then they are lying and can't be trusted. It's pointless to negotiate with liars, right? But if they offer a threat, then they must be telling the truth, because it scares the people, and that helps the Republicans politically for the people to be as scared as possible.
Blake | 11.20.06 - 1:20 pm | #

Padilla? I don't think so -- that guy's name is Emanuel Goldstein.
QrazyQat | 11.20.06 - 1:26 pm | #

Actually skin varies over time and exposure to sunlight if Jose has been held in a black hole for the last few years then we would have gotten paler.

Works for 19th century child factory workers it would work for Jose Padilla too. No sinster racist Photoshop needed
ellenbrenna | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 1:27 pm | #

I don't really see him as menacing. He has a direct glare, dark eyes, and thick brows and dark skin. But he looks handsome to me, as handsome as you can look being forced into a mug shot. His facial muscles are not contorted, he is not looking angry or hostile. He is just brown and staring at you.
Nezua Limón Xolagrafik-Jonez | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 1:30 pm | #

Has anyone seen a succinct way of pointing out the hypocrisy that all the same "culture of life" people seem to favour killing lots of Iraqis and other innocent brown people over having any Americans killed?

I mean, if the terrorists managed to pull off a 9-11 every year or two (which would represent a vast upscale in their operations) - that would still represent hundreds of thousands less dead innocent people in the war on terror.

It's a pyrrhic battle. By "winning" it costs us more than "losing."

When I say "us" I mean the human race.

Or, is pro-life really a short form for pro-American-Life-fuck-the-darkies?
Dan D | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 1:32 pm | #

...not that I was in a hole underground for years!
Nezua Limón Xolagrafik-Jonez | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 1:34 pm | #

twit | 11.20.06 - 11:28 am

Well said. I too am continually amazed that no one calls out the sheer idiocy and dishonesty of such nonsense as "We're fighting them over there..." and "Iraq is the central front...". I mean, these are freakin' Karl Rove talking points, just like "Democrats don't want our president to listen to terrorists' phone calls" and "If the Democrats win, the terrorists win".

It's all crap, and we need an army of tough talking pundits to counter these on all the talking heads shows. It's not enough for these talking points to be debunked on TDS, CR and Countdown. They don't even have to be Democrats or liberals. There are some honest and principled conservatives who can do just as good a job--and who might be more convincing to viewers on the right.

I can't believe that the national conversation on such serious matters has been reduced to the level where such crap actually passes for sound thinking and goes unchallenged. No doubt the right was laying the ground for such unquestioned inanity back in the 90's by convincing the public that topics such as Bill Clinton's sex life was more important than national health care and pursuing actual terrorists.

I suspect, though, that the public has finally started to catch on, and that the MSM, as usual, is still a step or two behind the curve, so it continues to allow this patent nonsense to fill the air without challenge. I mean, an MSM that allows a twit (no offense) like Katie Couric to take over Walter Cronkite's old job is clearly out of touch with reality and not serious about doing its job properly.

I suspect that this will soon change, as congressional hearings finally reveal to the public in stark and stunning detail just how dishonest, incompetent and craven these lie, hate and fearmongers really are, and it will no longer be possible or at least smart to side with the right. Time is not on Bush, Cheney and Rove's side. But the wait for the tide to fully turn is nevertheless frustrating.
Kovie | 11.20.06 - 1:40 pm | #

PS: you don't need to alter photos to swing from very dark to light, if you are Latino. You just need sun falling on you vs. being in a hole underground for years. I have pictures that swing like this, too.
Nezua Limón Xolagrafik-Jonez

Take a look at the pictures again!

They are the exact same picture. I'm sure they didn't keep one picture in a hole for a couple of years while leaving the other picture out in the sun.

There is obvious alteration. Could be a poor copy of the original, but they are the smae photo.
Propulgate | 11.20.06 - 1:40 pm | #

Glenn Greenwald mocks the Islamic threat which menaces our very existence.

But in the reality-based community, here's Ace of Spades, (the number two blogger at
http://pajamasmedia.com/pj-blog-list.php
the official Pajamas Media blogroll) writing that we should confront the Islamic threat.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/205733.php

... There are those who shriek in high dudgeon when it's suggested that, at some point, it may be necessary to kill off an awful lot of the Islamic world to secure our own lives. It's unthinkable, at least to them ... Those who refuse to consider what we may have to do in the future to save our own lives are simply being childish. They don't wish to think about such a thing, therefore anyone who does is a "bloodthirsty eliminationist racist." ... During the Cold War, we had nuclear strategists thinking about possible all-out nuclear war with Russia day in, day out. That didn't make them "anti-Russian bigots." It just meant that, unlike most, they were clearheaded enough to think about extremely unpleasant possibilities ...

When will the left blogosphere join the reality-based community, and deal realistically with the thousands of Islamic ICBM's targeted at the USA?

When will the left blogosphere recognize that the Islamic terrorists have overrun Poland and raped Belgium and attacked Pearl Harbor, or anyway they would've if they could've, and that's the same thing?

When will the left blogosphere recognize that Ronald Reagan was wrong to negotiate with the Soviet Union?

When will the lefty bloggers become smart enought to see that negotiating with the Islamic world is equally wrong?
sysprog | 11.20.06 - 1:43 pm | #

Looks like the fine journalists at The Sun removed the photo.
Hank | 11.20.06 - 1:48 pm | #

The NY Sun picture is gone:
http://www.nysun.com/pics/ 43815_..._main_large.jpg
No mea culpa issued alongside the article, just a 404 where the picture once was. I suppose the picture made it to the hard copy; it'd be nice if someone could scan it if it did.
scott pilutik | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 1:52 pm | #

Yes, the picture is gone. Poof! It's magic!

However, the full post from the Sun was fun.

"Listen to what the terrorists say":

"Bush is the stupidest President (the US) has ever had".
Worth listening to, it seems.

Another terrorist truism:
"The Iraqi invasion has done nothing b ut expand the influence and pull of Iran and Shiism throughout the Middle East'.

Again, true.

Then we are treated to a remark about 'Bush and the Israel Gang', which the Sun helpfully says:
'Translation: neocons".

How convenient--falls right into the right-wing scheme to equate neocons with support for Israel, and criticism of them to amount to anti-semitism.

How loathesome.
twit | 11.20.06 - 1:55 pm | #

If you haven't heard about the move by Senator Chris Dodd to neuter the Military Commissions Act, you have to read the following post at:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/3235

It is a promising move to remove the unconstitutional powers that the Bush Administration has illegaly seized.
MotherBear | 11.20.06 - 1:58 pm | #

Who says Glenn has no influence in the world of corporate media? It took 'em what, 2 or 3 hours to disappear the evidence? If it is in the paper edition, of course, they'll have a little 'splaining to do, but probably not much.

Unavoidable error, kinda like our cakewalk in Mesopotamia. No big deal.
William Timberman | 11.20.06 - 2:00 pm | #

Hey, hey, hey, now. No need to gratuitously insult all comic book writers!
The Constructivist | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 2:08 pm | #

Now that you all have gotten over the tittilation of inserting a picture of someone with the same name incorrectly -

Does anyone want to address the oh so interesting observation, that Democrats are the terrorist's favorite political party in the US?

No? Not surprising.
shooter242 | 11.20.06 - 2:20 pm | #

I, for the first time, have the honor of teaching a business ethics class in a private junior college.

The cirriculum, reduced to its most basic, is based on a very small book that states the golden rule is the best way to implement a personal AND a business ethical philosophy.

A recurring theme that I keep challenging the students on is, "why do we tolerate X, Y, and Z."

I actually used Glenn's post on the president lying about Rumsfeld's job and then, more importantly, the WaPo's subsequent altering of its own history.

None of the students were surprised and acted, cynically as always, that it was just business as usual.

My question, "why do we tolerate it?" Both the initial lie and then the WaPo coverage?

There was a feeling of hopelessness that filled the room. I then brought it down to more human terms. Why do we tolerate an employer lying to our face? We've all done it. We've all prostrated ourselves to certain degrees in the name of expedienence.

The fun part of it was that after awhile there was a sense in the room that there really is no need to tolerate such behaivor. That it is possible to hold people accountable. The essence of the golden rule.

I'll hold you accountable as you should hold me accountable.

At least I think now there are a couple more souls that don't feel as hopeless in the face of such a propaganda onslaught.
Politically Lost | 11.20.06 - 2:23 pm | #

About those photographs...

It's not just the skin color that is different.

The eyebrows and nostrils are glaringly different.
hmmm? | 11.20.06 - 2:24 pm | #

Does anyone want to address the oh so interesting observation, that Democrats are the terrorist's favorite political party in the US?

Care to prove this statement? (With actual proof, not just stuff off the top of your head).
n | 11.20.06 - 2:26 pm | #

I look forward to the day we learn the full truth of Padilla, what he did and did not do, and what the government did to him in captivity. The length of his captivity without a trial is ridiculous by any standard, and the treatment described by his defense lawyers is troubling.
Batocchio | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 2:31 pm | #

The most compelling example of this jubilation has been the audio message released by the current head of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the elusive Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, who read the election results as a victory for his dark cause.

Gosh, I bet the writers of this have big penises.

What with believing all the spam that comes into their mailbox, and all...
Phoenician in a time of Romans | 11.20.06 - 2:33 pm | #

Does anyone want to address the oh so interesting observation, that Democrats are the terrorist's favorite political party in the US?

No? Not surprising.
shooter242 | 11.20.06 - 2:20 pm | #

Document this assertion, with something more substantial than tidbits from Al Qaeda agitprop videos. I wouldn't take their word about the color of the sky. It's their actions that matter.

Why do you persist in lying like a rug in this forum?
Fluffy | 11.20.06 - 2:35 pm | #

If the total destruction of the World Trade Center, the turning of a Spanish election by train bombs, a similar attack in London, a huge thwarted attack by air from London to the US, the attack in Bali, the murder of a Dutch filmmaker for making an offensive film, the fatwa on Rushdie for writing a book, the mindbogglingly disproportionate muslim reaction to a dozen Danish cartoons, the daily torching of French autos, signature beheadings of innocents the world over, readily available information and materials for nuclear weapons, the stated objective of Iran to eliminate Israel and the United States, the recent fall of Somalia, and countless other incidents over the past few years do not convince you of the magnitude and scope of the evil facing us, I suppose nothing will.

The islamofacists will stop at nothing until they kill or subjugate us. You refuse to see this admittedly very uncomfortable reality. This is not a good recipe for the future.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 2:39 pm | #

"shooter242":

Does anyone want to address the oh so interesting observation, that Democrats are the terrorist's favorite political party in the US?

After you address the fact that, of the two major parties, the Republican party is/was the favourite political party of the Aryan Brotherhood, the neo-Nazis here, and the Ku Klux Klan, not to mention Theodore Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. After you, my dead Alphonse.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 2:41 pm | #

Shorter Who'd a'known:

"They're in the cupboard with the jam! They're climbing up my legs! I can see them peeking out of my wife's blouse!
"Why doesn't Mr. Maudling do something, before it's too late?!?"

This is my favorite quote from the article:

the elusive Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, who read the election results as a victory for his dark cause

Why does the image of someone dressed in tacky robes and wearing a helmet with things sticking out of it come to mind? Sure, everybody blames it on the Dark Wizards ...
grouchomarxist | 11.20.06 - 2:47 pm | #

The bad guys are now celebrating the Democratic Party's sweep of Congress

It wouldn’t be so bad if it was just a tabloid like the Post, but as Kovie pointed out this was Rove’s talking point, delivered no less by both our President and Vice President.

The most compelling example of this jubilation has been the audio message released by the current head of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia

What hardly anyone ever seems to point out to this nonsense is that the entire world was jubilant that the Democrats took Congress – Europe, Australia, Latin America, Africa, there isn’t anywhere where Bush is not despised and that a defeat for him was met with a sigh of relief that maybe the U.S. was finally coming to its senses.

Finally, do you notice that when other Republicans turn against Bush they become “liberals” but somehow, the Neo-Cons are spared this because of their desire for more war. The ones so adamant in their criticism of Bush (Perle, Adelman, etc.) are never accused of Bush Derangement Syndrome – their Neo-con credentials protect them from that charge, but non-NeoCon Republicans are immediately dismissed as “liberal” or having a case of BDS.

A very interesting phenomena. The neo-con lust for permanent war is valued so highly in “conservative” circles, that it now trumps allegiance to Bush and this administration.
zack | 11.20.06 - 2:48 pm | #

You can see various versions of the Padilla picture have been altered on Google's image search results. Not that I'm into the CSI:Bloggerville show but it sure makes you wonder...
catnip | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 2:50 pm | #

Shooter--

You obviously paid NO attention to the post I had above about how the Iranians actually ENDORSED your hero the Dear Leader in 2004, nor to how the 2004 Election Tape by bin Laden was determined by the CIA to be gratuitous support for Bush from OBL.

Who furthers the Al Qaeda talking points and agenda? Think again.

Whodanown--you too fall into the Al Qaeda talking points program by making any and all actions by Muslims seem part of some grand plot. Iran certainly has NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda (even the Sun posting Glenn uses here includes a pretty definitive denunciation of Iran by Al Qaeda). The French riots reflect local conitions in France--not some grand 'anti-crusader' scheme.

'They make war on Islam', says OBL--and you fall right into that trap.
twit | 11.20.06 - 2:52 pm | #

shooter242,

I'm glad to know Osama bin Laden can have you killed merely by saying "I bet people who love freedom are too chicken to jump off buildings"

Are you so stupid as to not consider the possibility that terrorists employ reverse psychology to promote the behaviour they desire?

In either case, it's simply idiotic to base your vote on what America's stated enemies claim they prefer. Either they're lying or telling the truth, but there's no way to be sure, so one should vote their conscience.

Oh...sorry, you don't have one. Ok, just vote Republican then. You'll fit right in.
Dan D | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 2:53 pm | #

"Dark = menacing" is intuitive but it also has ample backing in pyschological research.

Here's just one example, in which Americans of European descent (read "white") were far more apt to view black faces as threatening than they were to see a threat in white faces. This not only helps to explain why this sort of Photoshop propaganda is effective, it sheds light on why white police officers may be more likely to use deadly force against black suspects.

Hugenberg, Kurt & Bodenhausen, Galen V. (2003)
Facing prejudice: implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat.
Psychological Science 14 (6), 640-643.
doi: 10.1046/
j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1478.x
Raj | 11.20.06 - 2:57 pm | #

The islamofacists will stop at nothing until they kill or subjugate us. You refuse to see this admittedly very uncomfortable reality. This is not a good recipe for the future.

As ever, you people completely miss the point. NO ONE who is a serious person is or has been saying that Islamic terrorism (or ANY form of terrorism, much of which is NOT Islamic, such as the sort that terrorized Europe and the mideast througout the 70's and 80's) is not a serious threat that need not be taken seriously--and I CHALLENGE you to come up with proof to the contrary.

What they ARE saying is that this threat, like all threats, needs to be dealt with PROPERLY and PROPORTIONATELY, which invading and occupying Iraq was not only CLEARLY and PROVABLY NOT, but which was actually CLEARLY and PROVABLY the EXACT OPPOSITE of such.

In 2004, when I was asked by an exit pollster after casting my vote (for Kerry, of course), what I thought was the biggest problem facing the US, and which party I felt was better suited to deal with it, my answer was immediate and certain: terrorism (I was in NYC on 9/11), and Democrats.

While I'm no longer convinced that terrorism is the BIGGEST threat facing the US (if only because of the many threats to it that have been created or increased by the Bush administration and GOP), I still stand by the second answer.

While today's Democratic party clearly has much to prove, today's GOP has absolutely NOTHING to offer the country but yet more idiocy, lies and incompetence, which given the very real threats facing us, including of course terrorism, we simply cannot afford yet more of.

Got any more straw men to refute?
Kovie | 11.20.06 - 2:57 pm | #

shooter242,

Does anyone want to address the oh so interesting observation, that Democrats are the terrorist's favorite political party in the US?

That's highly unlikely considering that the terrorists are getting exactly what they want under Bush (decreased civil liberties, push towards theocracy, etc).

Any claims that "terrorists love Dems", such as the pre-election crapola from the extreme right saying "violence is increasing in Iraq because the terrorists want the Dems to win" has been totally disproved considering that the Dems did win yet violence hasn't abated.
Paul | 11.20.06 - 2:58 pm | #

An Idiot wrote: 'Does anyone want to address the oh so interesting observation, that Democrats are the terrorist's favorite political party in the US?

No? Not surprising.
shooter242 '

As usual this idiot does not provide facts nor documentation. This is your faith based Republican Moron in full bloom.

Keep it up Shooter, you keep on proving why you and your party are such pathetic losers.
Anonymous | 11.20.06 - 2:59 pm | #

glenn, you've long been my favorite political blogger, but now you're even doing better investigative journalism than i see anywhere else. i've always thought that the leaders of "al-qaeda in iraq" were, to some degree or another, fabricated (the reason we torture people is so individual terrorist leaders [and threats] can be created, inflated, or both). this picture slip-up seems like a very very big deal to me, and all thanks to you being a real go-getter. good work the keep up.
Utica | 11.20.06 - 2:59 pm | #

"They're in the cupboard with the jam! They're climbing up my legs! I can see them peeking out of my wife's blouse!
"Why doesn't Mr. Maudling do something, before it's too late?!?"

Grouchomarxist everything I listed is a real event that has taken place over the past few years, if not much longer. This is not hysterical paranoia.

Iran certainly has NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda (even the Sun posting Glenn uses here includes a pretty definitive denunciation of Iran by Al Qaeda).

Can't agree on that one, "twit," that's like saying the US has nothing to do with Britain. AQ and Iran are both anti-secular, muslim-based theocracies bent on the destruction of the West. They may not vacation together but they sure as hell have common goals.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 3:00 pm | #

'common goals'?

Please link to the Sun article Glenn links to--you obviously haven't.

Iran wants to extend its influence and the sway of Shiism.

This is in direct opposition to Al Qaeda's claims for Sunniism and a caliphate--which was ALWAYS a Sunni institution.

This would be like saying Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation were 'two of a kind'. Maybe so if you were sitting in Constantinople, not so if you were on the fron lines in 16th century Antwerp
twit | 11.20.06 - 3:06 pm | #

I posted a comment on the Sun's website noting that it was a picture of Padilla. The moderator did not post my comment, but the photograph has now been removed from their site. Pathetic.
pancake | 11.20.06 - 3:09 pm | #

I really do not get it. When did this "class" completely lose its mind, heart, and conscience? I get fear and the exploitation of it. Don't they? The fear of the "masses" I might excuse, or at least find plausible, even understandable.

But the "smart neoconservative" has no such excuse and isn't remotely plausible. Every time I believe s/he cannot exceed his/her own utter incomprehension and incomprehensibility, someone always does.

There must be some "opiate" or "illusion" that intoxicates these folk in the same vein as Marx, Freud, Hitler, and the Evangelical. What in the hell is it? Postmodernists have it too. These adults have morphed into Columbine's angry and fearful adolescents? Why?

Maybe no answer avails, perhaps "illustrating" the problem the only fruitful endeavor. Thanks, Glenn, for taking on this task. But it wasn't only Bush-Cheney that had me nervous, it was the electorate as enablers. The electorate seems to have awakened from its slumbers, so why not the "intelligensia?" Is ideology that sweet?
The Gay Species | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 3:10 pm | #

Does anyone want to address the oh so interesting observation, that Democrats are the terrorist's favorite political party in the US?

I like Arne's response to this the best, but I'll also chime in here by asking why, even if this was true, any credible and serious person would actually give a damn?

Bush's grandfather was, after all, one of Hitler's favorite Republicans. Does that mean that he was a Nazi sympathizer and ally? Kind of hard to see it otherwise.

Whereas I have yet to hear a single credible Democrat actually express the slightest bit of sympathy for, let alone actually aid and abet (in a form that does not depend upon the specious and intentional misreading of out of context remarks or a wildly speculative interpretation of congressional votes or policy recommendations) any actual terrorists.

And whereas Bush has done nothing but help the recruitment efforts of these very same terrorists since before this war began.

Whose party is the terrorists' favorite, then?
Kovie | 11.20.06 - 3:11 pm | #

The most brilliant refutation of the whole thesis that "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" was given last year by Cunning Realist.

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.c...g- strategy.html

But has anyone thought about why we're justified in using another nation as flypaper in the first place, even if it was a viable, effective strategy? What gives us the right to use a sovereign nation as a catch basin for carnage so we can go on blissfully consuming and merrily flipping real estate here? Instead of flypaper, this should be called the "Night of the Living Dead Nation" strategy---using the undead, zombie-like carcass of a failed state for our own benefit. Beyond the sheer selfish immorality of it, has anyone thought about the potential for blowback? How would you feel if we were invaded by the Chinese on a false pretense, and they stated openly that their strategy was to attract and fight the scum of the earth in the streets of New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Chicago so they did not have to fight in Beijing?

Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 3:13 pm | #

Twit no way. Have you heard Iran's recent pronouncements about taking over AQ? Not in a hostile takeover sort of way, in a political sort of way, Under New Management.

And while I do appreciate the distinction, their goals are very similarly aligned, certainly enough so to work towards the "common good," as it were.

Iran is training insurgents, smuggling materiel into Iraq including IEDs, and would like nothingn better than to see us fail there.

(Don't ask me to defend the "realists'" (Baker et al) idea of soliciting Iran's help in stabilizing Iraq. I can't.)
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 3:17 pm | #

The photo was obviously the wrong one, and they ought to have filed a correction as a matter of course.

But they aren't actually saying that the man in the photo (Jose Padilla) is the same person they are describing (Abu Hamza al-Muhajir) unless they are completely confused. Or, quite possibly, trying to confuse the waters.

It's irresponsible journalism however you slice it.
whig | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 3:25 pm | #

Maybe the reason that none of that stuff "convinces us" is that very little of it actually happened.

The Spanish election was "turned" because the party in power lied about the cause of the attacks -- they originally tried to blame it on Basque separatists, and the Spanish people didn't like that too much.

From outside the US media bubble the "huge thwarted air attack" was a lot of smoke and mirrors. Half the suspects didn't even have passports, let alone plane tickets.

The fatwa on Rushdie goes way back, and I notice he's still alive and writing. If the Islamic radicals wanted him dead that badly, he'd be dead.

The "readily available information for nuclear weapons" was put on the internet by your government, the people you support. You're also the chief pro-proliferation movement in the modern world, so claiming that we have anything to do with it (being staunchly anti-proliferation and anti-nuclear weapons ourselves) is ridiculous on its face.

Also, Somalia "fell" about ten years ago and has been in a state of anarchy since then. Any organised movement could step in and form a state. If preventing an Islamic fundamentalist state in Somalia was a big issue for the US, why didn't Bush do something to prevent it starting six years ago? notice that Bush didn't do anything Who's filling the power vacuum now is irrelevant to your argument.
Interrobang | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 3:34 pm | #

Who'd a' known:

The islamofacists will stop at nothing until they kill or subjugate us.

It is not enough to focus on how evil our enemy is. It also matters how powerful they are. Subjugating a country is not easy. Witness our inability after 4 years to "subjugate" Iraq. And that is defining "subjugate" simply as control and maintain order. As has been often mentioned, our army estimated it would take a 400,000 man force to maintain control of Iraq, a nation of 20 million people. We are a nation of 300 million. Going by the same formula, it would take an army of 6 million to subjugate us. I do not see any 6 million Muslim armies preparing to invade.

As for kill, there is no doubt that these terrorist attacks have killed people. But the scale is hardly comparable to, say, the threat of nuclear missiles during the Cold War. We faced the threat of annihilation then -- and we survived. We face the threat of large-scale terrorist attacks now. We will survive that as well.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 3:36 pm | #

Raj wrote:
Here's just one example, in which Americans of European descent (read "white") were far more apt to view black faces as threatening than they were to see a threat in white faces. This not only helps to explain why this sort of Photoshop propaganda is effective, it sheds light on why white police officers may be more likely to use deadly force against black suspects.

Actually, this study does not apply to all European Americans, only those : "...high in implicit racial prejudice are biased to perceive threatening affect in Black but not White faces, suggesting that the deleterious effects of stereotypes may take hold extremely early in social interaction." The study is available here (pdf):
Facing Prejudice: Implicit Prejudice and the Perception of Facial Threat
ej | 11.20.06 - 3:36 pm | #

The scary thing about this crappola is that a significant number of Americans are gullible enough to believe it and are unable to process actual evidence which makes a mockery of the great Islamic threat scenario.

When enough people are this stupid, it'd pretty easy to sell a war based on lies, empty the treasury and give Israel carte blanche to annihilate the Palestinians under cover of a war on terror.

Oh wait..................
justaguy | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 3:39 pm | #

Who'd 'a:

....and countless other incidents over the past few years do not convince you of the magnitude and scope of the evil facing us, I suppose nothing will.

I think it may be possible to respond to these threats in a reasoned and proportional manner.

Our reaction to terror, would you not agree, has been a absolute train wreck? A disaster of monumental proportions? The worst strategic blunder in our history? So breathtakingly incompetent and haphazardly implemented as to destroy our credibility and good name with just about everyone around the globe? A lie so repugnant (WMD's remember) as to lose the hearts and minds of all concerned in the middle east?

And, that's just what our allies think of us.

Our reaction in this country has been to attack...our basic liberties. How does abrogating the constitutional guarantees we hold out to other nations as a beacon of light help our war on terror? How does eliminating habeus help our cause? Are we not on the side of "good"?

So, what are you proposing? Are we to "kill 'em all"... Will that solve the problem?

It's time to come in from the faith based world and uphold our own damn principles or we're going to lose this country of ours.
Anonymous | 11.20.06 - 3:42 pm | #

From Who'd 'a known at 3:17pm:

Twit no way. Have you heard Iran's recent pronouncements about taking over AQ? Not in a hostile takeover sort of way, in a political sort of way, Under New Management.

You of course can actually document this, can't you?

And while I do appreciate the distinction, their goals are very similarly aligned, certainly enough so to work towards the "common good," as it were.

Which covers quite a lot of territory. Perhaps you can be specific as to where they're respective goals are 'similarly aligned'.

Iran is training insurgents, smuggling materiel into Iraq including IEDs, and would like nothingn better than to see us fail there.

A little late for that, given this occupation we're supposedly running in Iraq has already failed and the country is disintegrating before our eyes.

(Don't ask me to defend the "realists'" (Baker et al) idea of soliciting Iran's help in stabilizing Iraq. I can't.)

Good. One should know one's limitations. Leave the grown-up stuff to the grown-ups and stick with your comic book fantasies.
yankeependragon | 11.20.06 - 3:42 pm | #

Sorry, Whoda, that last one was me. Damn Haloscan. Bane of all commenting existence.
Politically Lost | 11.20.06 - 3:43 pm | #

whoda--

The Iranians are supplying and abetting their clients, the Shiite militias, so they can fight the Sunnis.

If the real aim of everyone there in Iraq was to get US, our 140,000 troops would already be dead meat. All they have to do is cut off the supply lines while keeping us pinned down and we are toast.

Stop looking at things in the neocon 'all Muslims are alike and are plotting to get us' mentality.
twit | 11.20.06 - 3:43 pm | #

"Iran is training insurgents, smuggling materiel into Iraq including IEDs, and would like nothingn better than to see us fail there."
--Who'd 'a known

We have already failed there. The game is over. Everyone knows this too. Al Quaida knows it, the politicians here know it (both rep and dem) the media here, over there, and throughout the world all know it. Only a few gullible dupes in the US like you don't seem to realize yet that we have failed. We have already lost.

Right now Iran is hoping we stay there as long as possible and is doing everything they can think of to jkeep us there because as long as they kep us there the factions can,k to some extent, be united against the US rather then just attacking each other and possibly causing some backlash to Iran. Once we leave most people there will be consumed with the need to just kill their immediate neighbors, including some Iranians. They depserately want us to stay, as do the terrorists who find Iraq a better and better pbreedign ground and more and more useful source of their own propaganda the longer we stay there.
Archimedes | 11.20.06 - 3:44 pm | #

Shooter,

You may very well be right that terrorist interpret the existence of a loyal opposition and the normal workings of democracy as weakness. But that just proves they don't understand democracy, not that they are right.

After all, before Islamic terrorists, the Communists mistook our democracy for weakness. And before that the Nazis and Japanese militarists. And before that the German Kaisar probably mistook democracy for weakness. Well, here we are, and where are they?

What none of our enemies have ever understood is that democracy is, in fact, a strength. And one of the great strengths of democracy is that it makes it easy for us to remove (or at least reign in) leaders who make a mess of things. If only the Communists, say, or the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein could have gotten rid of their incompetent leaders as easily, can anyone doubt they would have been better off?
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 3:46 pm | #

As we recently learned, Democrats are Americans' favorite political party in the US.
Professor Foland | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 3:58 pm | #

As we recently learned, Democrats are Americans' favorite political party in the US.
Professor Foland | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 3:58 pm | #

Which clearly proves that a majority of Americans belong to Al Qaeda.
justaguy | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 4:01 pm | #

Maybe the reason that none of that stuff "convinces us" is that very little of it actually happened.

It all happened, there is not a single item that can be challenged. And your comment about the Spanish elections is your presumption-vs. mine. So I concede to you that the bombing may not have changed the outcome--but so what? 191 people died in a terrorist attack.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 4:01 pm | #

What none of our enemies have ever understood is that democracy is, in fact, a strength.

Yes, but only when we're disciplined and patriotic enough to resist the urge to actually use it! That is what us foolish Democrats never fail to realize, unlike our courageous and resolute Republican brothers and sisters!
Kovie | 11.20.06 - 4:04 pm | #

The "main_large" version of the picture is gone, but they still have the "main" version on their server:

Link to picture

Here's a screen shot of it, if they remove that one.
hooboy | 11.20.06 - 4:09 pm | #

From Who'd 'a known 4:07pm:

I don't want to live to see the destruction of one or more of our major cities, it will make 911 look like a mosquito bite.

Very good. Something we both can agree upon.

So perhaps you can explain how wrecking our army, pissing away our international standing, and voiding our moral authority in Iraq helps stop this nightmare scenario of your in any way, shape or form.
yankeependragon | 11.20.06 - 4:19 pm | #

Don't worry about our moral authority yankee, just be scared. They're coming to kill us for godsakes.
Politically Lost | 11.20.06 - 4:22 pm | #

From Who'd 'a known 2:39pm:

The islamofacists will stop at nothing until they kill or subjugate us. You refuse to see this admittedly very uncomfortable reality. This is not a good recipe for the future.

What I see is a jumbled batch of attacks and incidents (some of them of debatable authenticity and accuracy) assembled to raise the spectre of an "international islamofascist conspiracy".

Perhaps you'd care to draw us a diagram as to precisely how these many events are interconnected in the manner and to the ends you suggest.

Or perhaps you'd better get your medication changed. You seem to be suffering rather severe paranoid delusions.
yankeependragon | 11.20.06 - 4:23 pm | #

Who'd a' known: "The islamofacists will stop at nothing until they kill or subjugate us. You refuse to see this admittedly very uncomfortable reality."

Yeah yeah yeah...and before them, the Commies would "stop at nothing...yadayadayada."

With the fall of the Soviet empire, a terrible power vacuum was left...terrible because there was no great, all-consuming threat that the neocon-authoritario-fascists could point to as an all-purpose boogeyman to justify any increase in American arms expenditures or to compel imperialistic expansion of American power to other nations' shores...so the supposed NEW all-consuming threat of the Islamofascists is the wet dream of these anti-American conmen. A few hollow threats by stateless terrorists, or even by a figurehead leader of Iran--made more as posturing to the home team--and somehow we're supposed to be convinced that they represent more to us than a criminal nuisance?

America has caused much wider physical destruction and killed many thousands more innocent people in the last five years than Osama bin Laden or his confederates will ever dream of achieving...and WE HAVEN'T STOPPED. We are much the greater criminals than they...and we've been at it longer.
Robert1014 | 11.20.06 - 4:25 pm | #

So it seems he's running Al-Qaeda in Iraq (and rooting for the Democrats) from prison

They must be giving the prisoners fantastic phone privileges between waterboardings. Maybe we've been too critical of Gitmo. Seems like the services there are very accomodating.

Is there a photo of the real guy online? I'd like to see if he looks anything like Al Qaeda Chief Padilla. This assumes there is a real guy and not a voice manufactured in Langley.
.
EW0 | 11.20.06 - 4:36 pm | #

The calculus has changed with nuclear weapons. I think we will survive, but at what cost, and to what degree? I don't want to live to see the destruction of one or more of our major cities, it will make 911 look like a mosquito bite.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 4:07 pm | #

And Bush's policy of deliberately undermining the NPT helps mitigate this scenario how exactly?
justaguy | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 4:44 pm | #

ej,

Sure, the degree to which this sort of propaganda works is a function of the viewer's level of prejudice. I mean, you could also argue that this study had to do with blacks and whites and therefore has no bearing on perceptions of dark-skinned hispanic men. The mosaic formed by this and a host of other studies is quite clear: Dark = scary for a significant portion of the U.S. populace.

Thanks for linking to the study!
Raj | 11.20.06 - 4:45 pm | #

Shooter, Who'Da, all other people who question the democratic process,

To expand on Enlightened Layperson's 3:46 post, the reason why so many other political systems have failed and democracies (or our republic style of democracy) have not is because of the will of the people.

Democratically elected leaders have the support of the people. Now it is true that in our 51%/49% elections nearly half don't have their views expressed, it is also true that those people have the belief that they can win in the NEXT election and thus be heard then. Meaning, people believe their voices can be heard and they can influence their government's direction. By believing such, they are willing to support the government.

It is this support that allows a government to survive. Any dictatorship or communist regime can pop up, but a lengthy government can only exist with its poeples' support. Why? Because without that support, when a government hits hard times financially/goes against its peoples' will/makes a bad decision, the governmental system is called into question. This doesn't happen with democracy, because democracy has the ability to adapt to changing conditions based upon its peoples' will.

This is also the reason why terrorism fails to find root in citizens here. Why would an American want to blow up a building when they know they can influence their country's decisions through the power of their vote? (Unless they're crazy, see McVeigh, T.)

The problem, however, is that true democracy is a house that is built on specific footings, namely that all people are equal (that's how we determine who votes), that all have the rights to fair trials (that's how we trust the government, by assuring that no one is improperly jailed despite their beliefs/actions/etc. but are jailed only for specific actions WE through our elected representatives have determined to be wrong), that elections are free, etc.

When these footings are eroded for ANY reason, the house becomes less stable. You can argue the merits on why such and such a footing should be removed or diminished, but doing so will make the house less stable GUARANTEED. Why? Because if you are willing to do such to one footing at one time, then you are willing to do it to another at another time, and eventually all your footings are gone.

HOWEVER, a footing can be replaced or reinforced through the will of the people. Meaning, if all people want their house to have an addition for Gitmo-style detainees, the footing needs to reflect that. A consitutional amendment has to be passed or the supreme court has to interpret the constitution in such a way that the footing is changed, thus enabeling this new architectural plan.

Bush's interpretation, his lawyer's interpretation, etc. are not how we alter the constitution. His doing such is part of the reason the people spoke a couple weeks ago and removed much of his party from office. DEMOCRATICALLY. A bomb could have been used, but it's not as powerful as our vote.

The reason I say all of this is that one of you stated that Al Quaida is happy with our election results. Who gives a crap? Retards may also be happy with it but it doesn't matter. What matters is the will of the people. If our will is to vote as Al Quaida wants us to than that is our will. That is the beauty of democracy; it reflects us as a people.

Now, if you think Bush is right and he does stand by his convictions, than:
1) Why didn't he put his ideas on how to prosecute the war on terror up as a new consitutional amendment at the same time as doing them?
2) Why did he press charges against Padilla before the court could rule on it? Why didn't he wait for the outcome, if he knew he was so right?

As to your/Republican's frequent references to 'legislating from the bench,' if you feel it is so horrendous, than why don't you and why hasn't your party proposed state and federal consitutional amendments to mandate it cannot happen?

I bring these up as your party seems so willing to do things to subvert the democratic process instead of simply following or changing the actual process that it makes your party untrustworthy. And being untrustworth puts our political system in jeopardy, per above. And when you put our political system in jeopardy, you are in essence terrorizing it. Meaning, you and your party are terrorists. Which is why you were thrown out of office a couple weeks ago.

Now, as terrorists, would you rather be exported to Iraq and left there with what you call Al Quaida (who per your beliefs are the only other terrorists, thus your ally) or would you rather be detained indefinitely? Because I would feel safer without you and your/your party's actions around, and by your definition that gives me the right to treat you as I wish.

Finally, I know some of you may say that China is a communits government and has survived. TO that I say that first, they haven't been there that long and likely won't be communist in 50 years. In addition, it has survived only by keeping its people under the barrel of a gun, and by until recently having such a large percentage of its population be rural and thus helped by a communist type government, as the theory of communism predicted. In addition, Chinas transition from rural to urban has survived by providing wages to those who became urban far and above what they are in rural areas. Moreover, it is slowly letting capitolism into it, which will (as history shows) create a class with power over the government and thus a say in it. This may lead to democracy or not, but will definitely lead away from communism.
realitybased | 11.20.06 - 4:51 pm | #

Who'd a' known: ...The islamofacists will stop at nothing until they kill or subjugate us. You refuse to see this admittedly very uncomfortable reality.

Robert1014 | 11.20.06 - 4:25 pm | #
...A few hollow threats by stateless terrorists, or even by a figurehead leader of Iran--made more as posturing to the home team--and somehow we're supposed to be convinced that they represent more to us than a criminal nuisance?
Robert1014 | 11.20.06 - 4:25 pm | #

Actually a dirty bomb in a container at the Port of New York could kill & injure a tremendous number of people, probably a number in the same range as the "excess" dead number for Iraq cited in the Lancet recently. Responding to Who'd a Known's hyperventilated rationale for war on this subject with the word "nuisance" is problematic. Islamist terrorists have the potential to be greater than a "nuisance" -- what they do not have is the potential to be greater than "criminal". Not, that is, unless American's continue to allow the Who'd a Knownites in our administration to elevate them into something more than criminals.

That is what guys like him do with their rhetoric -- they elevate these scum. That is the second reason to oppose their framing of the situation. (Second after the "excess" dead and maimed.)
Fluffy | 11.20.06 - 4:52 pm | #

Well maybe "dirty" bomber meant he needed a bath. And with all that water boarding in prosion the dirt has washed off so he looks lighter now. Plus you probably don't see much sun shine in the hole so he's not nearly as tan now. There problem solved.
Jack Shit | 11.20.06 - 4:57 pm | #

"what they do not have is the potential to be greater than "criminal".

Right Fluffy, I'd like to see you run some forensics on a nuclear blast site. That would be the crime.

Crime is dealt with after the fact. Terrorism cannot be handled that way, for obvious reasons.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 4:58 pm | #

Of course terrorists are a threat. Of course they can hurt us grievously. But can they destroy our democracy? No. Not with a thousand dirty bombs. Our democracy can only be destroyed from within. And it will be done in the name of security. If we allow it.
Raj | 11.20.06 - 4:59 pm | #

It is not enough to focus on how evil our enemy is. It also matters how powerful they are...We faced the threat of annihilation then -- and we survived. We face the threat of large-scale terrorist attacks now. We will survive that as well.

Enlightened I am afraid the last two scenarios are being joined at the hip. The calculus has changed with nuclear weapons. I think we will survive, but at what cost, and to what degree? I don't want to live to see the destruction of one or more of our major cities, it will make 911 look like a mosquito bite.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 4:07 pm | #

You gotta love the way Who'd uses that ellipse, removing the fact that EL covered nuclear weapons. As if no one will remember what they read two minutes ago.

As for kill, there is no doubt that these terrorist attacks have killed people. But the scale is hardly comparable to, say, the threat of nuclear missiles during the Cold War. We faced the threat of annihilation then -- and we survived. We face the threat of large-scale terrorist attacks now. We will survive that as well.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 3:36 pm | #,
blueperiod | 11.20.06 - 5:00 pm | #

>I don't want to live to see the destruction of one or more of our major cities, it will make 911 look like a mosquito bite.

So maybe we take some of the money from the Iraq debacle and hire the Dutch to build some decent levees for the remaining Gulf Coast cities?
snoey | 11.20.06 - 5:08 pm | #

I don't want to live to see the destruction of one or more of our major cities,

Whoops too late.... New Orleans - 2005
ckelly | 11.20.06 - 5:10 pm | #

"You gotta love the way Who'd uses that ellipse, removing the fact that EL covered nuclear weapons. As if no one will remember what they read two minutes ago."

Blueperiod what are you smoking? It's only Monday man.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 5:11 pm | #

Who'd 'a:

So, do you now agree we've made a train wreck of the war?
Politically Lost | 11.20.06 - 5:21 pm | #

Well, no one's asked HooDah, so I guess I will. In what way, exactly, does the Codpiece-in-Chief's conduct of the war on terrorism to date lessen the chances of nuclear immolation?
William Timberman | 11.20.06 - 5:26 pm | #

This is a case of missing the forest because one is too busy looking at individual trees. It is not important what the precise names or likenesses of the terrorists really are. So what if the Sun displays a stock photo of an Islamic terrorist instead of an artist's sketch? The important thing is that the terrorists are out to kill as many of us as possible by any means available.
anonymoose | 11.20.06 - 5:27 pm | #

Lest we forget, the New York Sun was also the venue for Amir Taheri's infamous scam about Iran putting yellow stars on Jewish folks' clothes.

What a rag.

Regards, Cernig
Cernig | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 5:28 pm | #

The important thing is that the terrorists are out to kill as many of us as possible by any means available.

a) How do you know this?

b) If what you say is true, then how are you planning on combatting this threat?

c) How does destablizing a secular country in the Middle East further combatting this threat?

d) How does threatening regime change in a large Shia country, which has opposed Al Queda and expressed sincere regret at the deaths caused on 9/11 by Al Queda, assist in combatting this threat?

It seems to me that if you do indeed believe what you say you believe, then everything your president has done has made the problem worse. 'splain me how it ain't so.

(It also seems to me that if you truly believe what you say you believe, the only possible solution is to kill all Muslims. But that would be crazy, wouldn't it?)
Svensker | 11.20.06 - 5:40 pm | #

Crime is dealt with after the fact. Terrorism cannot be handled that way, for obvious reasons.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 4:58 pm | #

You're right. So why haven't we taken the proper steps to protect our country from such an attack? Why haven't we spent even a fraction of the money we've spent in Iraq to protect our harbors and borders? Who'da, Why hasn't your president done what's necessary to protect you in NYC? Who'da, we're suposed to be spending money to defend our country, not spending it to go over to another country we have little understanding of, only to beat a hornet's nest. And then, have the audacity to sit back and leave ourselves vulnerable. The strategy of your president is going to come back to bite us. Why aren't you holding him to account?

All of the above are rhetorical questions in the mind of the wingnut. It's like that old Larsen cartoon with bubbles over a human and a dog. In this case the human is saying we need to protect ourselves over here. The dog (wingnut) only hear's blah, blah, blah, blah.

Lastly, I can't believe that you'd actually believe that a distant and arguably primitive culture could subjugate a superpower. Just how much confidence do you have in our might?
greenchilecheeseburger | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 5:42 pm | #

greenchilecheeseburger: Just how much confidence do you have in our might?

Well, it trumps right doesn't it? That's enough for HooDah....
William Timberman | 11.20.06 - 5:45 pm | #

Just like you liberal commie peaceniks to miss the point of the article, that the ISLAMOFASCISTS have now perfected CLONING!

There are undoubtedly armies of terrorists out there now, who all look like this, and you're concerned with trivial, quaint things like truth or the Bill of Rights?
shootme424 | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 5:47 pm | #

anonymoose--

Yes,as thousands of detainees can attest, the US governement cares not about the faces and identities of the real terrorists. It's just that folks are out to get us, so the more locked up the better!

Pretty much sums up the Bush years in a nutshell.
twit | 11.20.06 - 5:47 pm | #

Who'd a' known:

I am afraid the last two scenarios are being joined at the hip. The calculus has changed with nuclear weapons. I think we will survive, but at what cost, and to what degree? I don't want to live to see the destruction of one or more of our major cities, it will make 911 look like a mosquito bite.

I assume by this that you mean you fear Iran will give nuclear weapons to terrorists, who will smuggle them into the country. If that is, in fact, our greatest danger, then I would suggest setting some priorities.

Rioters burning cars in France is something we can live with and treat as merely criminal. Iran giving nuclear weapons to terrorists is not. It would logically follow, then, that our top priority should be keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Securing any existing nuclear weapons or sources of plutonium would be next.

Keep our nuclear weapons secure, and terrorism becomes a much more manageable threat, I would say.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 5:48 pm | #

Why am I not surprised the NY Sun can't tell the difference between the guy Bushco has been waving in our faces as Public Enemy #1 and the current Al Qaeda leader in Iraq leading the jubilation at the Democrats' victory? Isn't the Sun owned by Murdoch? And isn't Fox News the people who somehow forgot that Mark Foley is a Republican, not a Democrat? Journalistic integrity, or just simple reason, really is just a distant dream to these people.

RE the picture: obviously, I can't say that the paper didn't darken the picture to make Padilla look even swarthier and thus more frightening to those of us who piss our pants in fear at the very thought of icky brown people, but picture density and color in publications is notoriously shitty, esp. on newsprint. And the web is not much better. They can color correct, but it's really up to the judgment of the picture editor. You'd think, however, they would make an effort to get the CORRECT icky brown person on there. Guess not. With people like this making it their special mission to inform the public, it's no wonder few people know what the hell is going on.
LL | 11.20.06 - 5:50 pm | #

So what if the Sun displays a stock photo of an Islamic terrorist instead of an artist's sketch? The important thing is that the terrorists are out to kill as many of us as possible by any means available.

Ah, ignorance is bliss.

If they are out to kill us why do act in such a manner as to make us less safe?

Why don't you wingers ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
Anonymous | 11.20.06 - 5:54 pm | #

That was me again. Blast you haloscan.
Politically Lost | 11.20.06 - 5:55 pm | #

AQ and Iran are both anti-secular, muslim-based theocracies bent on the destruction of the West. They may not vacation together but they sure as hell have common goals.

The US, Iran, and the Vatican tend to end up voting together against a range of family-planning and pro-choice initiatives at the UN. I guess that makes them all anti-secular, anti-woman theocracies -- and hence, you know, they may not vacation together but they sure as hell have common goals. Stop the Amerislamipapists before they kill our ladies!
FlipYrWhig | 11.20.06 - 5:57 pm | #

That's The Actor Kevin Eldon!
Who Is Haloscan? | 11.20.06 - 6:05 pm | #

So, do you now agree we've made a train wreck of the war?
Politically Lost

Exactly where did I admit that?
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 6:10 pm | #

If they are out to kill us why do act in such a manner as to make us less safe?

Why don't you wingers ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
Anonymous

Uhm...because we don't know what the hell you're talking about?
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 6:12 pm | #

So what if the Sun displays a stock photo of an Islamic terrorist instead of an artist's sketch? The important thing is that the terrorists are out to kill as many of us as possible by any means available.
Translation: "Fear trumps truth, so why should accuracy matter to a paranoid?"
Rick | 11.20.06 - 6:17 pm | #

Keep our nuclear weapons secure, and terrorism becomes a much more manageable threat, I would say.
--Enlightened Layperson

I agree, the devil being in the detail "our." It's a big world, and unfortunately countries like Pakistan have been a source of nuclear proliferation. The other problem--which is an argument for the Bush Doctrine--is that a sovereign nation with a sizeable population and resources can build its own nukes. After all, the technology is 60 years old.

But I do agree with you. Garden variety suicide belt terrorism is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Nuclear terrorism--or even nuclear mullahcracies--is not.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 6:19 pm | #

Exactly where did I admit that [we've made a train wreck of the war]??
...and delusions always trump reality.
Rick | 11.20.06 - 6:19 pm | #

Lastly, I can't believe that you'd actually believe that a distant and arguably primitive culture could subjugate a superpower. Just how much confidence do you have in our might?
greenchilecheeseburger

So you agree with me!! It's a huge problem. Forget about the source of the problem for now. The fact is that these little Davids with their suicide belts have got us at each others' throats. We can't agree on the war, we can't agree on the nature of the threat, we can't agree on much of anything, and meanwhile they continue their terror operations around the globe.

Muslim populations are expanding at a rapid rate, while the populations of Europe and Japan are shrinking dramatically. Italy and Japan are having 1.3 births per woman. This is not even close to sustaining their populations.

And they seem to be "winning" the war in Iraq.

So: Is the US a great country? Absolutely. Are we powerful? Very. Can we defeat the Islamofacists? Not at all clear, sadly.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 6:28 pm | #

Exactly where did I admit that [we've made a train wreck of the war]??
...and delusions always trump reality.
Rick

Well Rick I guess it's an easy question, maybe you can show me since the other commenter could not.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 6:29 pm | #

*sigh*

By now, the spectacular way in which some of our right-wing friends can so completely miss the point shouldn't come as a surprise...
Rick | 11.20.06 - 6:40 pm | #

"what they do not have is the potential to be greater than "criminal".

Right Fluffy, I'd like to see you run some forensics on a nuclear blast site. That would be the crime.

Crime is dealt with after the fact. Terrorism cannot be handled that way, for obvious reasons.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 4:58 pm | #

Aside (momentarily) from the fact that we'd rather stop a nuclear attack before it happens -- forensics can be run on nuclear events. Forensic atmospheric tests determined that the recent nuclear test in North Korea involved a plutonium device. Atmospheric testing in Western Europe identified Chernobyl in the immediate aftermath of the meltdown, when the USSR was still trying to lie about it.

However, the political faction you support has done nothing substantial to prevent this kind of attack on a major American city. Our ports do not test containers using the "best practice" methods that are employed in the major exporting centers of the far east. Tout your take on security after you lot have made some real attempt to attain it.
Fluffy | 11.20.06 - 6:43 pm | #

Does the Sun columnist stop to consider that pretending it's relevant which party the "terrorists" prefer to be in power grants them the intelligence and wisdom to make that evaluation? Wouldn't the Sun rather deny they have any such expertise?
ash | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 6:46 pm | #

Who'd a' known he was this stupid:

The islamofacists will stop at nothing until they kill or subjugate us.

What a childishly stupid thing to say. We can't subdue a country 1/30th our size with the most powerful military inthe world. And yet in your piss-yellow universe some how they're supposed to come across the ocean and "subjugate" us.

I mean, this is the HEIGHT OF STUPIDITY. I would think that even a self-respecting Freeper (oxymoron?) wouldn't fall for something this stupidly childish.

I mean, it's embarrassing. I would be HUMLIATED to have ever said something this stupid in my life.
Moses | 11.20.06 - 7:20 pm | #

Does anyone want to address the oh so interesting observation, that Democrats are the terrorist's favorite political party in the US?

Both Osama bin Laden and Iran endorsed Bush in 2004. For obvious reasons: he's an idiot stuck to a tar-baby and isn't man enough to correct his mistakes.

Sheesh. Need better trolls.
Moses | 11.20.06 - 7:22 pm | #

Who'd 'a known:

Twit no way. Have you heard Iran's recent pronouncements about taking over AQ? Not in a hostile takeover sort of way, in a political sort of way, Under New Management.

Nah. We don't read Freeperville hallucinations or Little Green Snotballs paranoid rantings.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 7:29 pm | #

There are still some of the conservative bent who open their minds to each new perversion of fact that issues from the mouth of the President, even after years of both the scares and promises of victory being proven false, one after another. The assertion that Iran and al-Qaeda are part of the same cause is about as accurate as saying Hitler and Stalin were part of the same cause, because they were both anti-American and had the word 'socialist' in their organizational name. Iran is overjoyed to see the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now they can build up their own strength and aid Hizb Allah while the US and Britain fight the Ba'ath and Taliban for them.
Former Iranian president Khatami encouraged the US troops to stay in Iraq. It's on the record. If the US succeeded in breaking the Sunnis maybe then both Iran and the Kurds would consider the US presence superfluous, but that is a long way off, if ever.
Multisect | 11.20.06 - 7:31 pm | #

"Who'd 'a known" said:

Uhm...because we don't know what the hell you're talking about?

First true thing he's said. Give that man a little gold star and a piece of candy.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 11.20.06 - 7:39 pm | #

Who da

I assumed you agree because you won't answer.

So, I take it that you don't think what we have done in the GWOT has been an unmitigated disaster and has made us infintely less safe. Fine. I think there is ample evidence to support my assertion.

Further, we have attacked ourselves (by limiting basic freedoms) rather than implemented the most basic of security reforms.

Please, explain two things:

a) How does abandoning Afganistan to the Taliban assist our efforts?

b) How does the occupation of Iraq (remember this is the country that did not attack us) in its current state, assist us in promoting safety from our "enemies"?

I feel that those two issues are a train wreck in our Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.

Now, maybe I'm crazy but I think there is clear and convincing evidence that what we've done, lead by these ignoramouses, has made us incredibly less secure. Obviously, you disagree and I'd love to hear how those two issues have made us safer and have furthered the cause of our GWOT.
Politically Lost | 11.20.06 - 7:40 pm | #

(Don't ask me to defend the "realists'" (Baker et al) idea of soliciting Iran's help in stabilizing Iraq. I can't.)
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 3:17 pm | #

They're negotiating. It's what countries do. We negotiated with the Soviets. Negotiation is normal, sane behavior, to avoid killing each other.

You do know that the Iranians helped us organize Afghanistan after our occupation? That they wrote the Afghani constitution with us as partners? That cooperation only ended when our genius leader declared them part of the "Axis of Evil"? The Iranians almost invaded Afghanistan in '99 because of Sunni extremism -- the Iranian Shiites are radically opposed to the Arab Sunnis, and have been for 1200 years. They know we'll be gone soon enough, but their neighbors will remain for centuries...
jojo | 11.20.06 - 7:57 pm | #

Who'd a' known: ...The islamofacists will stop at nothing until they kill or subjugate us. You refuse to see this admittedly very uncomfortable reality.

This is delusional in so many ways that there’s really no realistic, reasonable response. Intelligent conversation and dialogue with a person this far gone is impossible.

Can the terrorists they’re describing blow some shit up and kill some people? You bet, and that’s definitely a threat. But subjugation? Give me a break.

Has anyone on the right (who even pretends to have any credibility) ever explained in any possible, plausible way how this country could be “subjugated” to Islamofascists?

Has some “deep thinker” like Mark Steyn, or Vic Davis Hanson or, heck, even Hugh Hewitt or Hinderaker ever wanked forth even a preposterous scenario where this could possibly happen?

::::: ??????? ::::::::

I mean, really, take any sane person off the street and ask him the likelihood of American women wearing Burkas because the Democrats won Congress, and they’ll look at you like your insane for even asking the question.

Yet, somehow, this insanity is common talking point among our trolls (such as they are) and also on the most extreme right wing sites where Dhimitude is a common term.

Most Americans don’t have a clue what that even is; yet, the frightened insecure bullies who read these sort of blogs have worked themselves into such cringing, cowardly, crouch that they are expecting to be forced to bow to their terrorist Muslims masters any day now.

Jeeebus, jumping, jehosophat on jihadist shtick – relieve of us of this insanity!
zack | 11.20.06 - 8:02 pm | #

From Who'd 'a known 6:28pm:

So you agree with me!! It's a huge problem. Forget about the source of the problem for now.

Yes, let's forget about trying to solve the actual problem and just blow stuff up. Its worked wonders so far, hasn't it?

The fact is that these little Davids with their suicide belts have got us at each others' throats. We can't agree on the war, we can't agree on the nature of the threat, we can't agree on much of anything,

Yes, its so hard living in a diverse society with a multiplicity of opinions and ideas, isn't it? Especially when the populace is guaranteed the legal right to say and think what they wish.

So much better if we were all monochrome and couldn't read and think for ourselves, wouldn't it? Worked wonders back in the old USSR, didn't it?

and meanwhile they continue their terror operations around the globe.

As any serious student of the subject can tell you, there have always been 'terrorists' attacking the larger society. The only difference is now they've gotten smarter and can do more damage thanks to our current level of technology.

Muslim populations are expanding at a rapid rate, while the populations of Europe and Japan are shrinking dramatically. Italy and Japan are having 1.3 births per woman. This is not even close to sustaining their populations.

Oh, I see. They've going to "out-breed" us, eh? Well, don't worry. We can just fall back on the Mormons and the 'Quiverfolk' families to ensure we have plenty of clean, whitebread Christian boys and girls to do our own 'human wave' attacks with.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/200.../20061127/ joyce

And they seem to be "winning" the war in Iraq.

"Seem" to be???

Do let us know when you've decided on what the exact metrics for "victory" are. Your crowd never exactly stated them.

So: Is the US a great country? Absolutely. Are we powerful? Very. Can we defeat the Islamofacists? Not at all clear, sadly.

I doubt they'll want to after your crowd have sold us out to the Chinese and let the Christofascists completely undermind both our educational and electoral systems.
yankeependragon | 11.20.06 - 8:04 pm | #

That liars lie is not news.

That liars run our news businesses is also not news.
krog | 11.20.06 - 8:10 pm | #

Enlightened Layperson | 11.20.06 - 3:46 pm
But that just proves they don't understand democracy, not that they are right. After all, before Islamic terrorists, the Communists mistook our democracy for weakness. And before that the Nazis and Japanese militarists.

And yet we've lost or drawn every major armed conflict since WW2, due to lack of political will to win. With that record they seem to understand democracy well enough. We are after all, about to add to the loss column.
The more interesting consideration, is what will happen after we leave. Both to us and the Iraqis

And one of the great strengths of democracy is that it makes it easy for us to remove (or at least reign in) leaders who make a mess of things.

Like I said, we're about to add another loss to the column.

If only the Communists, say, or the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein could have gotten rid of their incompetent leaders as easily, can anyone doubt they would have been better off?

EL, my initial impulse is to say... of course, isn't that what we are obviously trying to accomplish? Democracies generally don't attack other democracies.
But that said, I recall quite a few that think Iraq was better off under Saddam. There's also the consideration of civil war and occupation of post US Iraq by Iran, that the "leave now" crowd won't address. If we leave precipitously several observations are possible from the fundamentalist side.......
* the US is unlikely to use force outside it's borders for at least a generation. No matter what.
* US occupation can be pushed out by sustained conflict.
* It's time to invade Israel again.
* Islam has free rein to push theocracy and develop nukes without hinderance.

We will have effectively surrendered, pursuing "peace" at any price. Is there any doubt this works in favor of Islamic fundamentalism? Consider the Hezbollah manipulation of the media and world opinion by hiding behind civiilians, and staging photos and video. I'd say they understand democracy very well indeed.
shooter242 | 11.20.06 - 8:12 pm | #

Enlightened Layperson:

Thanks for reminding us of that quote about the sickening immorality of the flypaper strategy.

Who'd a:

No, I was mocking your hyperventilations. Especially the way you went all Count Floyd about the so-called London airliner plot.

Do I think terrorism is a serious threat? Sure.

But it's literally the price we pay for having a fragile, high tech infrastructure. A small group of people can take advantage of the ever-increasing power and subtlety of our technology to inflict damage way out of proportion to their numbers.

There are literally thousands of ways that a determined (and lucky) group of people could inflict major casualties by sabotaging our infrastructure. Like, the really dangerous, highly toxic stuff that goes on near, or in, and through population centers in this country. A heck of a lot less muss and fuss than some involved conspiracy to smuggle a dirty bomb into the U.S.

But you know what, there's also the possibility that somebody goes postal or just plain screws up, or something that should have been replaced wasn't, and we could have our own Bhopal. Life is just unfair that way.

Not that cargo entering our ports shouldn't be screened for radioactivity. Or that hazardous industrial sites shouldn't be inspected, and required to hire competent security. Or that intelligence-gathering on groups with violent ideologies isn't a good idea. (That's targeted intelligence-gathering, btw, not the Bushites' Panopticon wet dream.)

That's the difference between sensible precautions, and something as massively lunatic as fighting Islamic fundamentalism by destroying one of the few secular societies in the ME.

None of this is glamorous, and all of it takes lots of money, plus considerable cooperation and good will on an international level. Resources which, btw, Captain Clueless and his crony crew have been burning through like a meth addict with a stolen platinum card and the PIN.
grouchomarxist | 11.20.06 - 8:15 pm | #

shooter simply repeats the whole panopoly of right-wing lies.

The US has had a bunch of successful military interventions since WW2. It has also made some colossal blunders.

Why is it so hard for the right-wing to tell the truth?

Liars lie.
krog | 11.20.06 - 8:16 pm | #

a) How does abandoning Afganistan to the Taliban assist our efforts?

b) How does the occupation of Iraq (remember this is the country that did not attack us) in its current state, assist us in promoting safety from our "enemies"?

I feel that those two issues are a train wreck in our Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.

Now, maybe I'm crazy but I think there is clear and convincing evidence that what we've done, lead by these ignoramouses, has made us incredibly less secure. Obviously, you disagree and I'd love to hear how those two issues have made us safer and have furthered the cause of our GWOT.
Politically Lost | 11.20.06 - 7:40 pm | #

Good questions, and you're likely to get no answers or a lot of self-justifying weasling in reply.

Other questions for Hoo Da, in a similar vein:

1. Should Pakistan be our ally? What influence should we attempt to use with them to stop them cutting back door deals with the Taliban? How can we stop them transferring nuclear secrets and technology?

2. What do we do if there is a shooting war between Turkey and the Kurds inside Iraq or on the Turkish border?

Those are answers you need to come up with might quickly, there, Hoo Da Aphrodite.
Max Renn | 11.20.06 - 8:23 pm | #

krog,

Because what they want is global imperium, a Pax Americana. The live in a fantasy world, where eternal American dominance is not only possible, but morally correct. The blunders have primarily been the failure of the most extravagant elements of that plan, and accepting that means accepting that the right-wing plan is a monstrosity, both practically and morally.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 8:24 pm | #

Those are answers you need to come up with might quickly, there, Hoo Da Aphrodite.
Max Renn

I feel under absolutely no more pressure to answer these questions any more than you do, Max. The middle east is a dilemma with no easy answers. Pakistan, for example, is a nightmare, with fragile military leadership and islamofacists waiting in the wing. Anyone who claims to have a nice, neat solution is a liar or a fool.
Who'd 'a known | 11.20.06 - 9:01 pm | #

Worried about emboldened Islamists building theocracy? US allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Israel have been doing that for decades. New US allies In the Baghdad Green Zone are doing that in Iraq right now.
Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here? After the Communist troops we were promised would land at Waikiki after a cut and run from Vietnam arrive we can worry about that.
Build an Iranian bomb? The IAEA and CIA say there is no proof.
Of course the North Korean actual nuke is not enough of a threat to require military action, because the NK's are
1) far from Israel, and
2) have no oil.
Multisect | 11.20.06 - 9:06 pm | #

The live in a fantasy world, where eternal American dominance is not only possible, but morally correct. The blunders have primarily been the failure of the most extravagant elements of that plan, and accepting that means accepting that the right-wing plan is a monstrosity, both practically and morally.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 8:24 pm

So tell us, who would you rather be dominant instead of the US?
shooter242 | 11.20.06 - 9:09 pm | #

The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.

The report went on to state the world is flat, water is wet and if you drop an apple, it will fall.

It concluded with a proposal to adopt whatever combination of go big, stay long, or get out will give the looters enough time to wrap up the oil contracts.
.
EW0 | 11.20.06 - 9:17 pm | #

he live in a fantasy world, where eternal American dominance is not only possible, but morally correct. The blunders have primarily been the failure of the most extravagant elements of that plan, and accepting that means accepting that the right-wing plan is a monstrosity, both practically and morally.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 8:24 pm

So tell us, who would you rather be dominant instead of the US?
shooter242 | 11.20.06 - 9:09 pm | #

I rest my case. Here we see the radical right's view of the world: the only option is empire. The rest of their arguments is only supporting polemic for their insatiable power lust. This is the same exact thinking you would have received from Mussolini's followers, and Hitler's scum, that power must be an end in itself.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 9:18 pm | #

I rest my case. Here we see the radical right's view of the world: the only option is empire.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 9:18 pm

Hmmm. Let me rephrase the question then.
If we withdraw from the world stage as a military power, who would you prefer to replace us?
shooter242 | 11.20.06 - 9:27 pm | #

So tell us, who would you rather be dominant instead of the US?

If the world does require a dominant power, then I'd rather that it be a US-led or dominated coalition than the US alone, let alone a non-US-led or dominated coalition.

But I thought that we already had that in the form of both existing organizations such as the UN and NATO, and of ad-hoc coalitions such as the one that Bush I and his staff so ably put together before the first Gulf War.

So why should we go it alone? That is neither necessary, as evidenced by past experience, nor wise, as evidenced by the present one in Iraq. Wisely composed strategic alliances are what has held the world together in the past, and as far as I can tell can do this in the future. But going alone is a recipe for disaster.

And in any case, I question the need, wisdom or practicability of continued dominance of certain parts of the world by other parts. That is an imperial, colonial and militaristic model that is simply no longer tenable as multipolar power centers develop to replace the bipolar one that existed throughout the cold war and unipolar one that has existed since its end.

It is a recipe for another world war. Just study the history of the decades preceeding the first world war. And given that Islamic and other forms of terrorism threaten more than just the US and west, the need for global alliances to combat it--and not unilateral action--seems self-evident.

There are far better ways to contain and even destroy AQ than invading a sovereign country that never had meaningful relations with it, or by trying to go it alone as the world's policeman. And your question oversimplifies the range of solutions.
Kovie | 11.20.06 - 9:29 pm | #

OK, those are rhetorical questions beneath your reply. I can accept that.

I will make a concession. Our policies are a class A clusterfuck I'll admit but, since there are no easy answers I'll let the issue drop.

As for who should be dominant...

The best way to be dominant is to hold our ideals as our guiding principles. We've have failed to do just that. Our military dominance may be the most powerful ever known on the face of the planet, but we've squandered the good will that makes dominance possible.

We're going to have to ask for a seat at the table from now on, instead of it being customary for the US to be at the head of the table.

heh
Politically Lost | 11.20.06 - 9:30 pm | #

Shooter,

Did I say simply withdraw and leave a vacuum to be filled by another? Why would I possibly prefer another country to be hegemonic? Again, is that the only option, the world under one dominant state?

If that's the case, then democracy and freedom is a hopeless dream for most of the world's population. You can't have an imperial system (one hegemonic state) and have a functional democracy.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 9:34 pm | #

If we withdraw from the world stage as a military power, who would you prefer to replace us?

shooter242

You really do lash together the shoddiest straw men, don't you?

No one's saying we should scrap the military and overwhelm our enemies with peace and love.

There's a mighty big difference, though, between being a military power and ruling the world. The first is feasible, the second isn't -- outside of your dreams, that is.
grouchomarxist | 11.20.06 - 9:38 pm | #

And in any case, I question the need, wisdom or practicability of continued dominance of certain parts of the world by other parts. That is an imperial, colonial and militaristic model that is simply no longer tenable as multipolar power centers develop to replace the bipolar one that existed throughout the cold war and unipolar one that has existed since its end.
Kovie | 11.20.06 - 9:29 pm | #

I question the stability and morality of any dominance. Empires are only possible when there is a power gradient due to technology, or some central natural resource. With the increasing technical equality across the world, the only thing in the long term that has kept us (and the Soviets/Russians) dominant is the fact that we hold a gun at the world's head. And as India, Pakistan, NKorea and Iran are showing, that condition is not permanent.

If we had a shred of vision, our current dominance could be parlayed into a more stable system, rather than having the current system inevitably fall apart on us. We still could lead in a general nuclear disarmament which still left us in a strong position. But if we had a shred of vision, we would have negotiated our way out of Iraq back in '04 with Syria and Iran while we still had the upper hand. Ah, the panoply of situations we could have come out of with reasonable results if we had been willing to deal...
jojo | 11.20.06 - 9:45 pm | #

There's a mighty big difference, though, between being a military power and ruling the world. The first is feasible, the second isn't -- outside of your dreams, that is.
grouchomarxist | 11.20.06 - 9:38 pm | #

The problem is that since WWII, it had been possible for us and the Soviets to rule the world in our duopoly. But things always change, and our right-wing lives in the same world as Russia's unreconstructed communists, forever dreaming of a dying empire, and willing to take us all to hell to save it. The French made a hell-hole of Algeria because they couldn't see that the age of empire was over. When they could have set up a reasonable transition, instead they gave themselves years of bloody civil war.

Isn't it sad that Afghanistan was the Soviet Union's Vietnam, and now our Afghanistan is the same Afghanistan (and Iraq). At least the Soviets weren't so stupid as to actually repeat our mistakes in Vietnam, actually in Vietnam.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 9:53 pm | #

The argument, that liberals want the US to withdraw from the world, is just another right-wing lie. Straw men are more clever rhetorical devices, something beyond their ken (not Barbie).

Another right-wing lie is that liberals -- nee realists -- want us to abandon Afghanistan to the Taliban.

Afghan governance has historically been imposssible. The USSR tried to conquer Afghan in the 80s and failed miserably. Afghanistan is not a country but instead is a collection of tribes. In the 1960s, buses would be attacked by bandits on horseback, much like the stagecoach robberies of our fabled TV westerns. The idea that anyone, Taliban or not, could "take over" Afghanistan is an absurdity that only Bushboy could entertain. And he has of course.

The right-wing is flatulently vapid and it is amazing that they have been taken seriously for so long by so many.

Perhaps this can change.

But we will have to endure a wave of violent and purple complaint that the Dems or the libs or the (fill in the blank) lost Iraq, despite the fact that it was unwinnable from day zero.
krog | 11.20.06 - 9:54 pm | #

jojo,

Well, for one thing, the Chinese dominated the North Vietnamese. Also, the Russians intervened as much as they could on the WINNING side of a civil war.

Note to right-wing dominatrices: If you are going to intervene in a civil war, you need to choose the winning side. If you are going to start a civil war, you need to support the winning side.

But the right-wing loonies can't find that in their bibles, so they blunder on...
krog | 11.20.06 - 9:57 pm | #

Did I say simply withdraw and leave a vacuum to be filled by another? Why would I possibly prefer another country to be hegemonic? Again, is that the only option, the world under one dominant state?

If that's the case, then democracy and freedom is a hopeless dream for most of the world's population. You can't have an imperial system (one hegemonic state) and have a functional democracy.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 9:34 pm

If we retreat from the world stage as I think we will, someone will step up and start exerting pressure. Say Iran for instance. We already have an example of what happens when dictatorships are left to their own devices, in Darfur. The EU is unwilling to interfere as are we. If we leave Iraq, it's just a matter of time before it falls to a stronger state. Would we mount another campaign to liberate Iraq? I don't think so, it would just be melded into another theocracy.

You would be right about the hopeless dream of democracy and freedom. Without a push in that direction, there will be a push in the direction of totalitarianism. The Dutch, Swedes, and French are experiencing just such pressures.

Life is about conflict whether you like it or not. The only choice you have is which direction you want to struggle.
shooter242 | 11.20.06 - 10:02 pm | #

Harper's has an article that should become a classic for us, a touchstone to be used to measure future right-wing skullduggery.

The article is Stabbed in the Back, and concerns that mendacious claim that the US lost the war because the libs betrayed their country. Of course, we know that it was the realists who decided that the liberal support for the Vietnam war was ridiculous. Go to harper.com and look for it.

No doubt the Bushboys are right now preparing their case that the liberals and the Dems made "us" lose the war against Iraq. Be a scout, be prepared!
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:02 pm | #

MOre lies from shooter.

Iran is a regional power in the middle East. It does dominate.

We supported Saddam Hussein in his costly war against Iran.

Then we removed Hussein, therefore unleashing Iran.

Duhhhhh!!!!
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:03 pm | #

Well, for one thing, the Chinese dominated the North Vietnamese. Also, the Russians intervened as much as they could on the WINNING side of a civil war.
krog | 11.20.06 - 9:57 pm |

The Chinese tried to dominate them -- but the Vietnamese hated them as much as the US or France. They were in a shooting war by '79. All our paranoia about the Communist dominoes was just insanity, unable to differentiate between an external communist domination as in Eastern Europe, and uprisings against colonial masters. So we lost states to "communism" that could give a rats ass about the ideology, who were simply looking for allies in their struggles for independence. It's not terribly different from our French alliance during our own War of Independence -- did that make us monarchists, or French dominated?

The history of the last fifty years is the death throes of the European imperial system that has lasted half a millenium, with the border marcher states taking their turn at the helm as the system disintegrates.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 10:06 pm | #

jojo,

You are right about more current events. But the Chinese dominance at the time of the Vietnamese prevented Russia from intervening more than it did. Later, the Vietnamese threw out the Chinese in order to establish their governance. The Vietnamese played their cards well in order to preserve their own interests.
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:11 pm | #

As to the deathly influence of the European imperial system, we could usefully turn our attention to the slaughters of Africa for another, if not better, example.

Africa is such a mess largely because the Europeans created arbitrary nation-states that exacerbated tribal rivalries that existed long before the white men's presence there.
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:14 pm | #

You would be right about the hopeless dream of democracy and freedom. Without a push in that direction, there will be a push in the direction of totalitarianism. The Dutch, Swedes, and French are experiencing just such pressures.

Life is about conflict whether you like it or not. The only choice you have is which direction you want to struggle.
shooter242 | 11.20.06 - 10:02 pm |

No, shooter don't lie. He just doesn't recognize any possibility for freedom. He gives us propaganda about "good" empires, that we can choose between a better and worse slave master, but we can't escape slavery.

The fantasy about totalitarianism in Europe? The danger obviously isn't from a small, even if dangerous minority. That's just agitprop to advance the inevitability of empire. It's laughable to suggest that the Dutch will be wearing burkhas, short of genocide. The danger to the Europeans since WWII has been us and the Soviets. We've just been the lesser of two evils. But that fear is gone, and you can see Europe pulling away from us, surely and inevitably.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 10:14 pm | #

USSR's and now the US's intervention in Afghanistan is just another example of how militaristic adventurism in tribal areas cannot be successful.

In Iraq, the US overthrew a Sunni-minority dictatorship and bureaucracy. Of course, the new Iraq will be dominated by Shiite forces, many of whom were supported and trained its Shiite neighbor, Iran, during Hussein's rule in Iraq.

All of this action in Iraq was correctly predicted by the US opponents of Bush's war against Iraq.

The Bushboys didn't listen five years ago and they won't listen now. Instead, they will try to blame the realists (calling them Dems and liberals) for the colossal failure of the misconceived Bush adventure in Iraq.

Bush and his fellow-travellers don't have the wits or the guts to admit the truth about their failures.
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:21 pm | #

Shooter,

A man in the 14th century would have said that the choice was between Catholicism and Islam. You could only pick sides, but you had to live under one or the other repressive system. He would have been wrong, as the succeeding centuries showed, with the ultimate death of both of them as systems of political control. Limited freedom was possible, with universal literacy and Republican governments. So you say the end of history is here? I say you're a fool if you think so.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 10:23 pm | #

OT:

So Michael Kramer just lost it, right? And out came all that intolerable racist venom. I'm not buying.

No human being in his right mind with a public persona, no matter how racist, would say the things he did, drunk or sober, without intending to do so. Then we have Jerry Seinfold off stage but on camera telling everyone not to laugh--- "it's not intended to be funny." Thanks for the stage directions, Jerry. Without you to guide us we would have been rolling in the aisles cracking a rib right around the really hilarious lynching imagery.

I think Kramer and Seinfeld et al are pimps for the trash the BoR crowd and are laying the groundwork in the war to do to the First Amendment what Bushco did to the Fourth. Must have been a big night for Alan D.

What a stroke of luck there was someone there to film it on a cell phone.
EW0 | 11.20.06 - 10:25 pm | #

What a childishly stupid thing to say. We can't subdue a country 1/30th our size with the most powerful military inthe world. And yet in your piss-yellow universe some how they're supposed to come across the ocean and "subjugate" us.

No, size is of little consequence in an existential struggle for survival. What really matters is the will to power ("der Wille zur Macht"). And if you Democraps have your way, it's open sesame for the IslamoFascists.
anonymoose | 11.20.06 - 10:26 pm | #

Posing limited and false alternatives is just one face of totalitarianism.

Orwell in 1984 illustrates this point quite clearly.

No, it is shooter and his ilk who are the totalitarians. They are the ones who want war and will pursue their deathly mission with mindless ferocity and vapid rhetoric.
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:27 pm | #

USSR's and now the US's intervention in Afghanistan is just another example of how militaristic adventurism in tribal areas cannot be successful.
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:21 pm |

Well, there's also the intentional pull into regions where success is impossible. Osama did it to the Soviets (with our funding) the same way he's doing it to us (with Saudi funding). It's unbelievably imbecilic to have the same jujitsu pulled on us that we pulled a few decades ago on the Soviets. Were all our guys who read Sun Tzu forcibly retired? Or is it as simple as morons taking over?
jojo | 11.20.06 - 10:27 pm | #

anonymouse now resorts to Nazi rhetoric to make his argument that the advocates of freedom are the true totalitarians.

Amazing. How low can these right wingnuts stoop?

If we only have the will to win, victory will be ours. That is the fascist essence of the Bushian rhetoric. And anyone who disagrees is of course a fascist in such mindless nonsense.
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:30 pm | #

jojo,

And now we have the ultimate spook to head the US Defense Dept, Robert Gates.

These fascists just can't quit. They have their (dis)honor to protect!
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:32 pm | #

No, size is of little consequence in an existential struggle for survival. What really matters is the will to power ("der Wille zur Macht"). And if you Democraps have your way, it's open sesame for the IslamoFascists.
anonymoose | 11.20.06 - 10:26 pm | #

So know you're reviving Nazi ideologies? I mean, you even post it in the original German -- you'd think you'd at least try to hide the source. That whole will to power thing worked real well for Germany. The whole world is just a big S&M game to you, isn't it? It's all a fantasy of applying power, of humiliating your opponent, without any rational basis beyond expressing your power. Or did you mis-post?
jojo | 11.20.06 - 10:32 pm | #

Mis-post is his label on another blog?
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:33 pm | #

Or is anonymoose unwittingly claiming that it takes a fascist to recognize a fascist?
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:35 pm | #

krog,

I don't believe shooter. He's gone so over the top that he's an entertainment. Now anonymoose has gone directly to fascism; most likely a fake. DaleyRocks, however, really does believe this nonesense -- he's let it out in moments of despair that he hates commenters here because "they think they matter." That's too sad to be an intentional head fake.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 10:36 pm | #

Or perhaps the Bushboys next will run up the flagpole another round of "Arbeit macht frei" in order to see if anyone will salute?
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:38 pm | #

Maybe shooter is just a ruse, another character from Seinfeld that has strayed after loosing his leash.
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:39 pm | #

Anonymoose:

Another bit of German you should know, given how swimmingly things are going for your party in Iraq:

Nie wieder 1918! It was pasted on broken bits of wall all over Germany in 1945.
William Timberman | 11.20.06 - 10:43 pm | #

anonymoose | 11.20.06 - 10:45 pm | #

Vapidity breeds vapidity, anon ?
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:47 pm | #

OMaybe shooter is just a ruse, another character from Seinfeld that has strayed after loosing his leash.
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:39 pm |

A lot of TV characters seem to be escaping lately into the wild. I think it started with Reagan, and ever since we've been living in a particularly painful episode of Mr. Belvedere, where we learn that he's a fascist in hiding. Ergo, the funny mustache.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 10:47 pm | #

So know you're reviving Nazi ideologies? I mean, you even post it in the original German -- you'd think you'd at least try to hide the source.

You are being willfully obtuse. My point is that we triumphed over the Nazi Fascists because of our superior will to power harnessed by appropriate leadership. And if we follow the right leadership (i.e. NOT the Democraps), we will similarly triumph over the IslamoFascists.
anonymoose | 11.20.06 - 10:47 pm | #

A man in the 14th century would have said that the choice was between Catholicism and Islam. You could only pick sides, but you had to live under one or the other repressive system. He would have been wrong, as the succeeding centuries showed, with the ultimate death of both of them as systems of political control. Limited freedom was possible, with universal literacy and Republican governments. So you say the end of history is here? I say you're a fool if you think so.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 10:23 pm

The man in the 14th century would have been correct for centuries, yes?
And then the choice would have been Catholicism and Protestantism....
And interestingly, violence was the instrument of change I presume? Revolution?

Of course the end of history is not upon us, but the shape of the future is yet to be written. As it's famously said, history is written by the victors. If we leave the field, we will not be the authors.
shooter242 | 11.20.06 - 10:49 pm | #

So know you're reviving Nazi ideologies? I mean, you even post it in the original German -- you'd think you'd at least try to hide the source.

You are being willfully obtuse. My point is that we triumphed over the Nazi Fascists because of our superior will to power harnessed by appropriate leadership. And if we follow the right leadership (i.e. NOT the Democraps), we will similarly triumph over the IslamoFascists.
anonymoose | 11.20.06 - 10:47 pm |

No, I'm clearly understanding you, even if you're accent is fairly thick. You say we need the right "leader" to harness our "will to power." That is the heart of Nazi ideology right there. Maybe you're saying that we were better Nazi's than the Nazi's? More will to power, rather than better mathematician and physicists? Do Einstein and Turing fall under your "will to power" rubric? I don't think the (former) Jew and (latter) homosexual would agree on that cause of our victory.
Anonymous | 11.20.06 - 10:52 pm | #

Now that anon has been assailed for his use of Nazi rhetoric, he responds with scatological insults. And more nonsense.

In WW2, both sides had the "will" to win. Only one did. Thank goodness it was the US.

WW2 is totally unlike Bush's crazy war on Iraq. The US entered WW2 reluctantly, only after its naval force in the Pacific was almost completely destroyed. In sharp contrast to anyone who exercises their wits, Bush attacked Iraq under false pretenses and launched an unnecessary war that cannot be won. Instead, he created a larger disaster in the Middle East that no one -- NO ONE -- can prevent.

Please stop confusing apples with skunks, anon.
krog | 11.20.06 - 10:55 pm | #

The man in the 14th century would have been correct for centuries, yes?
And then the choice would have been Catholicism and Protestantism....
And interestingly, violence was the instrument of change I presume? Revolution?
shooter242 | 11.20.06 - 10:49 pm |

Umm, no. The major instrument was the printing press. The groundwork was being laid in the 14th century by Italian traders who were already bucking both systems in extending their trade routes through the Caliphate, resulting in the spread of knowledge such as the printing press from the far east into Europe. Additionally, they were laying the framework of the Renaissance through scientific and artistic endeavors that would lead to the failure of the preceding systems. Violence was merely a proximate cause after all the real work had been done, getting rid of the "dead-enders" in the words of your heroes.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 10:58 pm | #

Damn haloscan.
Anonymous | 11.20.06 - 10:52 pm | #
jojo | 11.20.06 - 11:00 pm | #

Anonymoose, If you'd spouted any of that nonsense at SHAEF, I suspect General Eisenhower would've had you hanged.

And he was a Republican.
William Timberman | 11.20.06 - 11:00 pm | #

Again, anon poses a false alternative, this time between Cath and Prot. (Still one of the five major religions in the real world, something that cannot penetrate anon's silly shell).

A more correct alternative is between mindfulness and mindlessness.

We can continue along the mindless route, portraying the Middle East as the home of "Islamofascists" and wasting more American and Muslim lives, or we can be patriotic men and women and realize that Bush's fantastic and deadly illusion is the path that an actual fascist would continue to pursue.
krog | 11.20.06 - 11:01 pm | #

WW2 is totally unlike Bush's crazy war on Iraq. The US entered WW2 reluctantly, only after its naval force in the Pacific was almost completely destroyed.

No, you are being delusional. It is well documented that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen, and he let it happen, to galvanize the will of the American people to undertake the titanic struggle to make the US the leading superpower on Earth.
anonymoose | 11.20.06 - 11:02 pm | #

So, what have we learned today?

Primarily, that underneath all the right-wing nonsense, we have unreconstructed fascism. A world-view composed of 1) a hatred of those who refuse to be good slaves (DR, earlier thread); 2) that a mystical "will to power" harnessed by a powerful "leader" is needed for victory (anonymoose)' and 3) that the world is driven by violence, as the expression of that will (shooter).

Well, at least you can say you're not vulgar Marxists -- more like vulgar Hegelians.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 11:06 pm | #

WW2 is totally unlike Bush's crazy war on Iraq. The US entered WW2 reluctantly, only after its naval force in the Pacific was almost completely destroyed.

No, you are being delusional. It is well documented that FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen, and he let it happen, to galvanize the will of the American people to undertake the titanic struggle to make the US the leading superpower on Earth.
anonymoose | 11.20.06 - 11:02 pm |

So, the proper course of action for a "leader" (I won't slip into the German) to intentionally lead his troops into a killing field, to propagandize his people through a big lie, so that their power can be expressed over the world?

You'd then support Georgie doing something, like say funding terrorist to fly planes into several of our national landmarks, to "galvanize" our national will to dominate the world?

Which part of Nazism are you against? I'm not clear on that. Is it that they weren't successful that you hold against Nazi Germany? And which part of the US do you like? Because, clearly all that constitutional nonsense, must be just that for you, a lie to lead the people to their proper place in the world. This democracy and republic stuff can't hold water with a hard-headed realist (mysticist?) like you.
jojo | 11.20.06 - 11:13 pm | #

anon continues his fantastic journey.

Roosevelt did not consent to the murder of thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor.

anon will stop at nothing with his nasty nonsense. To claim that Roosevelt was a traitor to America is simply evil.

US radar detected the Japanese air attack. It was dismissed by military commanders who didn't trust what was then a new technology.
krog | 11.20.06 - 11:08 pm | #

No, it's worse than that. Anonymoose believes that vast treason in the name of a higher order is morally right. That if you thought by murdering vast numbers of innocents, you could express your "will to power" that that is a moral right. Not just a historical fact, but actually how the world always, and must, work. He's a moral retard, who appears to be unable to recognize his complete fascist nature (I'm obtuse when he calls on a fuhrer to lead our "will to power"!)
jojo | 11.20.06 - 11:22 pm | #

Roosevelt did not consent to the murder of thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor.

I am not claiming that FDR knew ahead of time the precise details of the Japanese plan of attack on Pearl Harbor, or even that he knew that that was where the Japs were planning to attack. But he knew in a general way that they were thinking about it and he deliberately let down our guard to goad them into it. It's like a boxer who deliberately exposes his body to the blows of his opponent so as to set up a devastating knockout counterpunch.

I have the feeling that President Bush has something similar in mind for Iran.
anonymoose | 11.20.06 - 11:38 pm | #

I think jojo has encapsulated anonymoose's derangement.
I had to research his allegation and lo and behold where did it lead me? Free Republic, where else. There was even evidence of revision of Bush's accountability for Iraq. I'm sure given a thousand more full moons someone will have to start believing the hypnotic chant "it was Clinton's fault"
This is what we seriously engage here? I thought the level playing field for an honest discourse was neutrality and fairness.
Instead we find ourselves debating the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, for the source of our homily. sheeesh
Jim Montague, formerly known as "brainfaht"
Jim Montague | 11.20.06 - 11:53 pm | #

“Terrorism is a terrible danger to us, but ... a greater danger is whether the terrorists will change who we are.”
- - Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift
sysprog | 11.21.06 - 12:03 am | #

I think that what anonymoos is trying to tell us is that fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here didn't work in WWII either.

Gawd, I hope some of our German friends from the other day are listening. If we needed an example for them of our genuine committment to free speech, this is as good as any I could imagine.
William Timberman | 11.21.06 - 12:04 am | #

anon apparently hopes that Iran will give GWB a route to Armageddon.

Their God should help both anon and GWB. Someone should.

Unbelievable. Sweet dreams, mine will be, unlike anon's.
krog | 11.21.06 - 12:14 am | #

Shooter:

So you agree with the terrorists, you do see democracy as weakness? Doubtless during the Cold War you would have agreed with the Communists in equating democracy with weakness. And you lament that during the Cold War we settled for a draw in Korea and lost in Vietnam.

But in the end we won the Cold War. We're still here and the Communists are gone. What does that tell you? It tells me that war is only one dimension of power and sometimes not the most important one. The Soviet Union failed, not because we defeated them in some epic battle, but because their whole system was rotten to the core and crumbled of its own weight. The Communists won in Vietnam. Now they are abandoning Communism. What did we lose, in the long run?

Islamicism, Islamofascism, Islamic fundamentalism, or whatever you choose to call it is a far more barren ideology than Communism. People whose goal is to turn the clock back to the seventh century may, indeed, cause great murder and mayhem, but they are doomed to fail in the end.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 11.21.06 - 12:17 am | #

And while I'm at it, you do realize that you're a fascist, don't you anonymoose? There'll be no more bilge from you about the depth of your American patriotism I trust, not after this....
William Timberman | 11.21.06 - 12:19 am | #

Shooter,

Oh, yes, we will withdraw from the world stage, just like we've done under every other Democratic president in the last 65 years.

Roosevelt.
Truman.
Kennedy.
Johnson.
Carter.
Clinton.

Isolationists, all.

Seriously, are you old enough to remember that Clinton was assailed by the Republicans for not withdrawing sufficiently from the world stage?
Nowhere Man | 11.21.06 - 12:47 am | #

anonymoose says: "I have the feeling that President Bush has something similar in mind for Iran."

I can't imagine a worse decision in all of American history that George Bush would involve the American public in an Iranian war.
The American people will not only not stand for it, they will publicly revulse it.
I can't imagine a sitting American President going against public will to the degree he wills his own impeachment or worse.

Embroiling this country in a possible Word War III scenario would guarantee the end of Conservatism and the Republican party for possibly all time. What pithy smugness.
Jim Montague | 11.21.06 - 12:57 am | #

Roosevelt did not consent to the murder of thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor.

I am not claiming that FDR knew ahead of time the precise details of the Japanese plan of attack on Pearl Harbor, or even that he knew that that was where the Japs were planning to attack. But he knew in a general way that they were thinking about it and he deliberately let down our guard to goad them into it. It's like a boxer who deliberately exposes his body to the blows of his opponent so as to set up a devastating knockout counterpunch.

I have the feeling that President Bush has something similar in mind for Iran.
anonymoose | 11.20.06 - 11:38 pm | #

Everytime, anonymoose beats me to the next line. So, FDR didn't know the exact numbers dead; he just committed treason by letting our guard down temporarily. I'm sure that's quite satisfying to the widows. And now, he's hoping for Bush to commit treason in the same vein?

This is the folks the right can put up? These are the Limbaugh fans? DR, Shooter and particularly AM are clearly articulating fascism. That's the cancer in our body politic. You can't call Godwin's law on me any longer.
jojo | 11.21.06 - 1:01 am | #

My point is that we triumphed over the Nazi Fascists because of our superior will to power harnessed by appropriate leadership. And if we follow the right leadership (i.e. NOT the Democraps), we will similarly triumph over the IslamoFascists.
anonymoose | 11.20.06 - 10:47 pm | #

I still believe that, like in the last century, we will more likely beat them with Tom&Jerry cartoons, short skirts, high heels, Disney, and soft drinks. It's Americans' cultural disinclination to a "will to power" that provides the world some hope against this sort of murderous high Romantic idiocy.

Timberman, didn't someone slur Hegel above? I thought the Nazis' "will to power" crap derived from Schopenhauer, by way of Nietzsche?
Fluffy | 11.21.06 - 1:05 am | #

Embroiling this country in a possible Word War III scenario would guarantee the end of Conservatism and the Republican party for possibly all time. What pithy smugness.
Jim Montague | 11.21.06 - 12:57 am | #

I think you're missing the logic. It's not a practical consideration of winning involved. It's simply the creation of eternal war, in order to express our "will to power." We've always been at war with East Asia...

Or, in Hegelian terms, we must have the antithesis to justify our thesis. Remember the burning of the Reichstag!
jojo | 11.21.06 - 1:07 am | #

Timberman, didn't someone slur Hegel above? I thought the Nazis' "will to power" crap derived from Schopenhauer, by way of Nietzsche?
Fluffy | 11.21.06 - 1:05 am | #

Now, don't slur Nietzche. He hated the Nazi predecessors of his age. But I'm more than willing to slur Hegel, and his Prussian state-worship. Hegel, and Marx his antithesis -- the left hand and the right -- now those guys need to be buried.
jojo | 11.21.06 - 1:11 am | #

I still believe that, like in the last century, we will more likely beat them with Tom&Jerry cartoons, short skirts, high heels, Disney, and soft drinks. It's Americans' cultural disinclination to a "will to power" that provides the world some hope against this sort of murderous high Romantic idiocy.
Fluffy | 11.21.06 - 1:05 am | #

Umberto Eco's latest, The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana is a good take on Mickey vs. Mussolini. Spoiler: Mickey wins.
jojo | 11.21.06 - 1:15 am | #

What an enjoyable session.Thanks to Glenn, and the community. I remain on the path to enlightenment. I hope to God so does anonymoose, et al.

Jim Montague, formerly known as "brainfaht"
Jim Montague | 11.21.06 - 1:44 am | #

Judicial Watch, in the news again.

Judicial Watch, August, 2006:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/24/judicial- watch-smear

Judicial Watch, November, 2006:
http://judicialwatch.org/6041.shtml

Nov 20, 2006
Judge Orders FBI to Correct Disclosures Concerning Government Evacuation of Saudi Royals and bin Laden Family After 9/11
FBI’s Exemption Argument “Strains Credulity”
(Washington, DC) -- Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation to submit “proper disclosures” to the Court and Judicial Watch by December 15, 2006 concerning the U.S. government’s evacuation of Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family from the United States immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks...

###
Court Order:
http://judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/ FBICourtOrder.pdf

“On its face, the FBI's ... assertion ... strains credulity.”

sysprog | 11.21.06 - 2:13 am | #

OT

What was really amusing was watching Bill O'Reilly try to deflect the earnest befuddlement of a woman journalist guest on his show he was heatedly attacking for saying she intended to cover the OJ TV program.

But you have been pounding on this all week, she protested, giving it nothing but publicity. If you didn't want people to watch, why you are talking about it so much and bringing it to everyone's attention?

That's not the point, said O'Reilly. I object to having these horrible things on the air. It's a disgrace. Then he used the five minutes of his show which hadn't been focused on this one story moving on to something else.

In an interview last week, Judith Regan, the publisher, said ReganBooks, an imprint of HarperCollins, had signed a contract with “a manager who represents a third party” who owned the rights to Mr. Simpson’s account.

And who exactly was that? I could venture a guess but will keep my suspicions to myself. I don't know if it is still legal in this country to publicize one's suspicions. Or was that Germany where it's become illegal.....................again?

Rupert Murdoch canceled the project Monday. Because the News Corporation and ReganBooks decided on their own to cancel the book and the television special, that money is likely to still have to be paid.

Not surprised. People don't work for nothing concocting these agenda driven hoaxes. Scriptwriters don't come cheap.

Erin Crum, a spokeswoman for HarperCollins, said some books had already been shipped to stores. Those books will be recalled and destroyed, Ms. Crum said.

Burned, no doubt.

The executive said Mr. Simpson’s book was covered by a standard publishing contract.

Whew. So nobody else, like Lyle Stuart, can publish it either. That's saves time because someone would have actually have had to write the thing.

Bowing to intense pressure from both outside and inside the company, the News Corporation yesterday canceled its plans to publish a book and broadcast an interview with O. J. Simpson in which he was to give an account of how he might have murdered his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald L. Goldman.

The company was responding to a week’s worth of ferocious criticism. Critics called for boycotts of advertisers who might sponsor the television broadcast on the Fox network; numerous broadcast stations announced that they would refuse to carry the program; television hosts like Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel — which, like Fox, is owned by the News Corporation — were vocal in their opposition to the telecast; and various bookstores said they might not stock the book, which was titled “If I Did It.” The book was to be published by ReganBooks, also owned by the News Corporation.

What isn't?

But one thing I love about Bill O'Reilly is how principled he always is. You can count on him to bite the hand that feeds him all those millions if it's a matter of conscience.

The decision to cancel the twin Simpson projects was greeted with widespread expressions of relief. Michael Angelos, a vice president of Pappas Telecasting Companies, which told the network Friday that its four Fox-affiliated stations did not intend to broadcast the interview, released a statement calling the network’s decision “a victory for the people who spoke out.”

It was quite a victory. They all celebrated by going to watch Saw ll after which they entered into negotiations with the producers to pick up the film rights to the sequel.

The statement concluded, “This special would have benefited only O. J. Simpson, who deserves nothing but contempt, and certainly no benefit.”

As contrasted to the snuff movies which have just about taken over the Hollywood movie industry which are of such socially redeeming value to the principled masses who are alleged to have been so shocked and awed by the never to be seen OJ book.

But let's all work together, shall we, to make sure laws are passed which prohibit this type of objectionable material from being published, aired or spoken. And I personally would argue for long mandatory jail sentences for anyone who attempts it, maybe even put them on terrorist and no fly lists.

(All italicized quotes from the NYTimes which, while the city sleeps, carries on its lonely vigil for truth, justice and the American way.)
Eyes Wide Open | 11.21.06 - 2:40 am | #

Whoops I missed this sentence posted above:

It's like a boxer who deliberately exposes his body to the blows of his opponent so as to set up a devastating knockout counterpunch.

I could have truncated my posts to "Michael Richards"---"OJ" followed by that one sentence.

I'm not exactly thrilled that it's the First Amendment that is being set up for the devastating knockout counterpunch.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.21.06 - 2:52 am | #

Fluffy: Timberman, didn't someone slur Hegel above? I thought the Nazis' "will to power" crap derived from Schopenhauer, by way of Nietzsche?

This I probably shouldn't answer, but since you've asked.... As far as which philosophers' works are thought to have been taken in vain by certain nasty historical characters, Fluffy is undoubtedly correct that Schopenhauer and Nietszsche are those most often cited; then again, Jojo isn't mistaken about Hegel's unfortunate dalliance with authoritarianism.

If we're going to go down that road, though, we'll have a lot to complain about, from Aristotle to Heidegger to Sartre and his defenses of Stalinism.

My own personal take on all of this is that generally speaking, philosophers shouldn't be blamed for what psychopaths take away from their work, any more than we blame the Bible for the villainies of Jerry Falwell or James C. Dobson. Philosophy, like religion, can be dangerous, and should be understood more as exercise for healthy minds than as a complete defense against lunacy.
William Timberman | 11.21.06 - 3:03 am | #

LL,

I'm not sure how they managed to mess up the colors as much as they did, though--simply adjusting the brightness, contrast, color levels, etc., shouldn't jack up the red level to the insane point that it is in their photo. On the other hand, yeah, I've seen colors at least that far off in newspapers--but on the web? What did they do, try to scan it in from their newspaper?
. | 11.21.06 - 3:14 am | #

Late as it is, I have second thoughts about anonymoose's brief foray into philosophy. Doesn't it seem altogether too neat, especially the cheesy German quote? Do you suppose he's having us on, or might it be that someone, as a joke, adopted his handle in order to make his philosophical antecedents more explicit than they've ever been to anonymoose himself?

Would it were so.
William Timberman | 11.21.06 - 3:19 am | #

Heavy bong hits of pure Straussian dope.
Q | 11.21.06 - 4:32 am | #

Will Zur Macht = Will To Power, originally by Nietzsche, and heavily distorted by his antisemitic sister.
Old Fart! | 11.21.06 - 5:12 am | #

Yes, it's true...Nietzsche was more interested in breaking crockery in western consciousness than in France. De Sade likewise, for all the good it did either one of them.

Simpler solutions always seem to prevail; there are more Trent Lotts in heaven and earth, Old Fart, than are dreamt of in anyone's philosophy.
William Timberman | 11.21.06 - 5:29 am | #

“On its face, the FBI's ... assertion ... strains credulity.”
sysprog | 11.21.06 - 2:13 am

* No flights left before the lifting of general restrictions on Sept 13, is Vanity Fair claiming special exclusions of some sort for the Saudis?
* Does Vanity Fair think the Saudi Royal family should have been detained indefinitely?
* The Saudis were questioned before leaving, does Vanity Fair think they should have been tortured or something?
* Can I presume the judge is incredulous about the redactions only, and not that the Saudis left the country?
* Would it be possible that you are intentionally misrepresenting the issue?
shooter242 | 11.21.06 - 6:37 am | #

Seriously, are you old enough to remember that Clinton was assailed by the Republicans for not withdrawing sufficiently from the world stage?
Nowhere Man | 11.21.06 - 12:47 am

Indeed I am. In fact, there are assertions that Clinton used the military in some 60 different actions, though I can't find a listing.

People tend to forget conservative opposition to invading Iraq, Novak and Buchanan, most notably.

If we leave Iraq before it's stabilized, I will happily advocate no military use anywhere outside the US. We could bring the troops home from all countries we have a presence in, and watch the world convulse itself from the comfort of of our national living room.
shooter242 | 11.21.06 - 6:50 am | #

People whose goal is to turn the clock back to the seventh century may, indeed, cause great murder and mayhem, but they are doomed to fail in the end.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 11.21.06 - 12:17 am

I can imagine the Romans saying something similar about the barbarian hordes. That didn't work out too well for the Romans did it? Forgive me if I don't like the idea of submitting myself and my family to Islamofascism for X-number of generations before struggling to emerge from it's gruesome grip. Is there some reason that we shouldn't try to dominate the future for democracy rather than give way to totalitarianism?

And you lament that during the Cold War we settled for a draw in Korea and lost in Vietnam.

And Bosnia, and the First Gulf War, and Clinton's Gulf War, and Haiti, and Somalia. Apparently we won Grenada and Panama only in the last 60 years. Someone elsewhere wrote that the US is a nation with ADHD, I agree. We are so wealthy and insulated from the struggle for survival, that the will to win evaporates after the revelation that war involves death. In the information age that will to win is a fleeting phenomenom in a sea of competing currents of greed and fear.

The Soviet Union failed, not because we defeated them in some epic battle, but because their whole system was rotten to the core and crumbled of its own weight. The Communists won in Vietnam. Now they are abandoning Communism. What did we lose, in the long run?

Untold millions of lives executed in Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, and North Korea to enforce the party line. But interestingly that doesn't seem to matter. Those people aren't American, they are expendable while we wait to see how ideology plays out. From the looks of it, quite a few are content to do the same thing while seeing what happens with Islam.
shooter242 | 11.21.06 - 7:18 am | #

I also posted a comment that they filtered out. Time for a blogger ethics panel.
jayackroyd | 11.21.06 - 7:59 am | #

I'm struggling to embrace the concept of how, exactly, does the immersion of 150,000 of our brave troops into an intractable civil war in Iraq, a conflict of enduring irresolution between Shiite and Sunni, keeps America safe from the deadly hegemony of "islamo-fascism"?

Despite the laughable assertions from the terminally discredited neoconservatives that Iraq is the "front line" in the "war on terror", the facts clearly show that we're not fighting "terrorists" in the traditional sense in Iraq. We're sitting ducks ineffectively attempting to ameliorate the eternal strife between sects there.

Now, if those trembling under their beds in incapacitating fear of the islamo-fascist huns poised at our borders ready to install the crescent flag over the Capitol in conjunction with a 7th century style muslim caliphate in America would posit the expenditure of 150,000 of our finest military warriors and 100's of billions of dollars to the mountainous regions of the Afghan-Pakistan border to ferret out the metaphorical head of the snake they uncontrollably convulse over...
angrypoodle | 11.21.06 - 8:11 am | #

Where does Eyes Wide Open find the time and tin-foil to indulge all of her conspiracy theories?

Good heavens, now she’s got her knickers in a knot about Jerry Seinfeld and some shadowy group, or something called the “BoR crowd” that’s out to murder the First Amendment.

Is she even trying to make sense anymore, or are her numerous off-topic posts just intended to give us comic relief? Was there supposed to be a punch line in there?

She then gets worked up about the cancellation of the O.J. extravaganza on Fox, and pretends it’s because about devious laws that are about to be passed to stifle controversial material from being “published, aired or spoken” but fails to notice that no laws were responsible for this, but public pressure, which makes her post pointless – and once again not all that funny.

In short, I think our little Randroid (Mona’s term) needs to take a break. And as Digby points out, she’s not the only one.

Kevin Drum had a description of Randroids the other day that seems to be rather on target:

“a bunch of high school kids who got hooked on Ayn Rand and then forgot to grow out of it. They had obsessive personalities but no serious experience of the world, and this toxic combination led to a genuine, sincere, completely delusional belief that Atlas Shrugged wasn't a monomaniacal flight of fancy, but a blueprint for society that could actually be put into practice.”

Obsessive personality, completely delusional, monomaniacal flights of fancy --yes, I think that pretty well describes EWOs latest contributions to our comment thread.
Now what? | 11.21.06 - 8:31 am | #

From shooter242 at 6:50pm:

People tend to forget conservative opposition to invading Iraq, Novak and Buchanan, most notably.

Characters with neither power nor stature sufficient to garner more than a yawn.

Face facts, kid: your leaders wanted this war, and they got it. Quit trying to parcel off responsibility.

If we leave Iraq before it's stabilized, I will happily advocate no military use anywhere outside the US.

How very big of you. Perhaps you can outline exactly what steps need to be taken to 'stabilize' Iraq now that's its been broken down to the social bedrock?

I won't hold my breath waiting for a response.
yankeependragon | 11.21.06 - 9:07 am | #

From shooter242 at 7:18am:

And Bosnia, and the First Gulf War, and Clinton's Gulf War, and Haiti, and Somalia. Apparently we won Grenada and Panama only in the last 60 years.

Give that our intervention in Bosnia effectively ended the ongoing conflict there, the Gulf War was Bush41's act, Operation Desert Fox was a limited objective air campaign, Haiti wasn't an actual military intervention, and Somalia was a set by Bush41 for Clinton, I'm hard pressed to see your point.

Someone elsewhere wrote that the US is a nation with ADHD, I agree. We are so wealthy and insulated from the struggle for survival, that the will to win evaporates after the revelation that war involves death.

An interesting if questionable premise. Did the British public feel the same during the Boer War, or Punative Expedition into China, or the rest of its imperial actions that didn't turn out so well?

In the information age that will to win is a fleeting phenomenom in a sea of competing currents of greed and fear.

Probably explains why all our 'retreats' have been under Republican Presidents: Eisenhower from Korea, Nixon and Ford from Vietnam, Reagan from Lebanon, Bush41 from Iraq.

Untold millions of lives executed in Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, and North Korea to enforce the party line. But interestingly that doesn't seem to matter.

They do matter, primarily because of the enormous potential wasted by those systems. Sadly, when you consider the only other alternative - an actual, all out shooting war between 'east' and 'west' - during that time you end up with only one outcome: nuclear exchange.

Those people aren't American, they are expendable while we wait to see how ideology plays out.

Hence your blithe dismissal of the many studies that have projected the number of civilian deaths in Iraq since this disaster began.

From the looks of it, quite a few are content to do the same thing while seeing what happens with Islam.

Says the supporter of the wholesale death and dismemberment of hundreds of thousands of Iraqs and Americans in the fool's errand his leader has marched us into.
yankeependragon | 11.21.06 - 9:18 am | #

Shooter, Daley, Who'da et al,

If the threat of nuclear terrorism is so big and we can't afford to ever let it happen - what price is too big to pay to prevent it?

Why don't we just amend the constitution and say in the name of stopping terrorism, no one has any civil rights - I mean, no price too big, right? If we got rid of that pesky bill of rights, we could deport all Muslims, and we could have a nice national database on everyone in the country, making sure they all went to a state-approved Christian church where they would on a regular basis do things no Muslim ever would. We'd all feel very safe, I'm sure.

Suspected terrorists could be tortured and summarily executed, sparing us all a long trial and making sure that no secrets are revealed.

I think we should do it - and if any of you oppose me, well, you're just soft on terrorism and not serious about facing our threat of NUCLEAR ATTACK. Terrorists will be dancing in the street if you win out over me in an election, because they know I'm serious about killing them all and you aren't.

So, Daleyrocks, Shooter, Whod'a, are you guys with me or are you with the terrorists?
Disgusted Beyond Belief | 11.21.06 - 9:21 am | #

From Who'd a known at 9:01pm:

The middle east is a dilemma with no easy answers.

At least you're honest about that, though one wonders then why you're so supportive of such an unproductive action as this expedition into Iraq.

Could it be you aren't being wholly honest here? Color me surprised.
yankeependragon | 11.21.06 - 10:14 am | #

Forgive me if I don't like the idea of submitting myself and my family to Islamofascism for X-number of generations before struggling to emerge from it's gruesome grip. Is there some reason that we shouldn't try to dominate the future for democracy rather than give way to totalitarianism?

In what way are you and your family in grave danger of being forced to submit to "Islamofascism for X-number of generations before struggling to emerge from it's [sic] gruesome grip"? Have you taken up residence in Jalalabad or Peshawar?

I can't believe how some people either continue to overreact to and misinterpret 9/11, or else exploit this for their own political ends. So, are you a Malkinite or a Rovian?

AQ got lucky--really, really lucky--on 9/11, and we got stupid--really, really stupid--which is why it happened. And NOT because the devious mustache and beard-twirlers back in those high-tech caves in Afghanistan (and now NW Pakistan) are incredible geniuses who are now putting the final touches on their sure to succeed unless we nuke them all into oblivion plan to take over the world. The "Bin Laden is a genius" theme is about as plausible as the "Rove is a genius" theme--which makes sense, since they and their buddies are basically mirror images of each other.

To express a profound fear of an Islamist terrorist movement that has about as much of a chance of overthrowing western democracy and replacing it with a repressive Caliphate as I do of opening a rib n' beer joint in downtown Mecca, is to reveal either one's own extreme fear of all things alien and/or extreme ignorance of them.

And to recommend that the best way to prevent such a massively implausible scenario is to impose democracy upon others by eternally dominating them is to misunderstand both democracy and geopolitics.

Your fear--and your proposed solution to dealing with that which you fear--is tantamount to fearing an alien invasion from Mars and preparing for it by covering the US with a glass dome.

Yes, these Islamic terrorists are very dangerous, and yes, we should do all that we can to contain if not destroy them. But only to the extent that is proportionate to the actual practical threat that they pose, and only in ways that actually work and make sense.

And imposing democracy on their societies is not only not such a solution, it does not and will not work, and, as we've seen in Iraq, the attempt at imposing such a "solution" ends up being worse than the original problem.

This "destroy the village in order to save it" solution is crazy--and dangerous. As are the fears that you continually express here. It's ok to come out from under the covers. And hopefully see things as they actually are. Just turn on the lights and you'll see that there's no bogeyman under your bed. Just a couple of devious mice with a non-nuke rocket launcher.
Kovie | 11.21.06 - 10:29 am | #

Judge Rejects Request for NSA Documents
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/T...tory? id=2669018
The money quote from U.S. Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle: "even if the program is ultimately determined to be illegal, it doesn't change the fact that the materials are classified and are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act."
bamage | 11.21.06 - 10:31 am | #

Now what?:

In his brilliant Closing Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
On Senate Debate Of Flag Desecration Amendment the Senator observes:

Our flag is a cherished symbol. As are the freedoms for which it stands, including the freedom to express unpopular speech or ideas -- even extremely unpopular ideas.

What you call conspiracy theory and I sometimes refer to as agenda driven hoaxes are often variations of what Dana Millbanks of Wapo calls "symbolism." Since the beginnings of this country there have been those (usually including the community of lawmakers) who have thought the use of certain types of symbolic actions were useful in terms of conducting the business of a Constitutional Republic.

I don't. I prefer the straight- talking direct approach such as that used by Martin Luther King in which he eloquently made his case and inspired a nation to follow his lead.

The groups who use certain types of "symbolism" as a tactic often try to achieve their ends by first massaging and manipulating the public to make them receptive to laws they intend to put on the books, wars they intend to fight, etc. .(Andrea Mitchell: "The White House says the idea was to highlight an important milestone in Iraq, Saturday's referendum on the proposed constitution, and thank the troops for their sacrifice" referring to a staged Bush event with the troops.)

One of the biggest dangers of the symbolic, indirect approach is that there are often unintended consquences as people are guided to support actions based solely on their emotions and without having had sufficient chance to participate in open, clear debates about the issues.
Eyes Wide Open | 11.21.06 - 10:33 am | #

“Terrorism is a terrible danger to us, but ... a greater danger is whether the terrorists will change who we are.”
- - Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift
sysprog | 11.21.06 - 10:49 am | #

And while I'm at it, you do realize that you're a fascist, don't you anonymoose? There'll be no more bilge from you about the depth of your American patriotism I trust, not after this....

My patriotism doesn't take a back seat to yours or anyone else's.

I was expressing my real admiration for FDR. His New Deal was an unmitigated disaster that profoundly prolonged and deepened the Great Depression and we are still suffering from the aftereffects of that misbegotten program. But you have to give the man credit - he had a real will to power. He picked exactly the right moment to draw us into WWII and did it so astutely, turning American public opinion completely around. At that point all our European rivals, Japan and China had beaten each other to a bloody pulp leaving the slate clean for our armed forces to sweep up the pieces. And it finally turned our economy around to boot. It was brilliant!

Embroiling this country in a possible Word War III scenario would guarantee the end of Conservatism and the Republican party for possibly all time. What pithy smugness.

Let me correct you. President Reagan won WWIII singlehandedly by finally unleashing our technological superiority in the Star Wars program. The Soviet Union collapsed in a futile attempt to keep up.

President Bush will similarly win WWIV against the IslamoFascists.
anonymoose | 11.21.06 - 10:55 am | #

Untold millions of lives executed in Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, and North Korea to enforce the party line. But interestingly that doesn't seem to matter. Those people aren't American, they are expendable while we wait to see how ideology plays out. From the looks of it, quite a few are content to do the same thing while seeing what happens with Islam.
shooter242 | 11.21.06 - 7:18 am | #

How about a little balance (a la Fox)? Most of the communist deaths were due to economic failures -- starvation primarily, not executions, with a good chunk in civil war. It's fair to put that at the door-stop of the commies, but then we have to treat the capitalists the same way. How about the Irish potato famine? How many dead there at the feet of capitalism? How about the African's starved due to market forces undermining local economies? How about the Africans dead due to patents on AIDS drugs? Or lack of vaccinations through-out the third world which would cost a pittance of the global economy? How about the millions in North America dead due to the Indian genocide and slavery? And the dead in the decolonization of India and Pakistan? And that's without even getting into the mass-murders in Indonesian, Iran, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and so on at the behest of our government. Are we counting war-crimes in the commies' list? Then our number jump up again...

We'll meet the commie's in hell.
jojo | 11.21.06 - 11:03 am | #

From anonymoose at 10:55am:

My patriotism doesn't take a back seat to yours or anyone else's.

Something you and the highly-committed Wehrmacht (ironically translates into "Defense Forces") have in common. A pity you, like they, can't see the ultimate ends towards which you are fighting.

Let me correct you. President Reagan won WWIII singlehandedly by finally unleashing our technological superiority in the Star Wars program. The Soviet Union collapsed in a futile attempt to keep up.

The SDI, which continues today under the rubric of "missile defense", was and is a technological boondoggle that accomplished nothing beyond enriching key defense contractors and encouraging the myths you accept as fact.

President Bush will similarly win WWIV against the IslamoFascists.

I'm all ears as to how a barely literate, barely sane manchild like George W Bush is going to 'defeat' a nonexistent ideology (which can't be shot, stabbed, or blown up, btw).

So, pray tell us precisely how he's going to accomplish this great miracle.
yankeependragon | 11.21.06 - 11:10 am | #

Al Qaeda wants to take over the whole world and is on the verge of ruling all of Europe, and they are working hand-in-hand with Democrats.

Jesus Christ, what are these people smoking? On the verge of ruling Europe! HA HA HA HA HA!

Jesus, yeah, the Huns couldn't do it, Napolean couldn't do it, Hitler couldn't do it, the Soviets couldn't do it, but Al Qeada...watch out. Oh, I know, it's because the Democrats are helping!

Good grief!
Jake | 11.21.06 - 11:10 am | #

What you call conspiracy theory and I sometimes refer to as agenda driven hoaxes are often variations of what Dana Millbanks of Wapo calls "symbolism."

Huh? I have no idea what “agenda driven hoax” you are talking about.

Michael Richards had what may be a career ending meltdown proving that he’s no standup comic - he forgot to be funny, he didn’t know how to handle hecklers – a good comic can make them part of his routine, not drive the audience away in disgust.

What’s the agenda? Where’s the hoax? Where’s the threat? Richards wasn’t arrested, wasn’t charged with a crime. He just won’t be asked to perform at this private club again.

I have no idea what “symbolism” you are talking about. A private club can exclude anyone they want if they find them to be disruptive to their patrons, just like Glenn bans people on this blog.

Maybe someone other than EWO can explain what she’s trying to say, but I’m missing it completely. Sorry.

I don’t see the threat, or any agenda.
Now what? | 11.21.06 - 11:15 am | #

Anonymoose, I think I get it now. You're another of Sascha Baron Cohen's brilliant inventions.

Bermuda shorts and jackboots. Brilliant.
William Timberman | 11.21.06 - 11:21 am | #

Let me correct you. President Reagan won WWIII singlehandedly by finally unleashing our technological superiority in the Star Wars program. The Soviet Union collapsed in a futile attempt to keep up.

President Bush will similarly win WWIV against the IslamoFascists.
anonymoose | 11.21.06 - 10:55 am |

Fascist-boy, the Cold War was won by copiers, fax machines and computers. At best Star Wars helped illustrate the industrial advantage of the West. But Gorbachev's major worry wasn't a shooting war with us. It had become clear that the Soviets weren't able to fulfill their promises in terms of wealth, and something had to be done in terms of industry. You might be mistaking him for Stalin, but not everyone is under your and old Joe's illusion that the only value is military aggression.
jojo | 11.21.06 - 11:43 am | #

Something you and the highly-committed Wehrmacht (ironically translates into "Defense Forces") have in common. A pity you, like they, can't see the ultimate ends towards which you are fighting.

Yankeependragon, you don't give AM enough credit. He knows his goal -- it's for his fascism to win, because the only option is fascism, their's or our's.
jojo | 11.21.06 - 11:45 am | #

WT,

Yeah, AM and Shooter are facades -- but Cohen is much more complex than these simple-minded satires. However, DR is the real thing. He's too sad for a satire.
jojo | 11.21.06 - 11:47 am | #

William Timberman said,
Anonymoose, I think I get it now. You're another of Sascha Baron Cohen's brilliant inventions.

Anonymoose is always a fun read. This paragraph is high art.

This is a case of missing the forest because one is too busy looking at individual trees. It is not important what the precise names or likenesses of the terrorists really are. So what if the Sun displays a stock photo of an Islamic terrorist instead of an artist's sketch? The important thing is that the terrorists are out to kill as many of us as possible by any means available.
thelastnamechosen | 11.21.06 - 11:56 am | #

Shooter, are you seriously claiming that during the Cold War we had the moral obligation to invade Russia and China, subdue them, and impose democracy at gunpoint? We are attempting that in Iraq and, in case you didn't notice, it isn't going too well. Now you are calling on us to conquer the whole world. The Soviet Union died of imperial overreach. Your proposal would set us up for the same fate.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 11.21.06 - 11:57 am | #

From jojo at 11:45am:

He knows his goal -- it's for his fascism to win, because the only option is fascism, their's or our's.

Actually, I doubt he's that clever or clear-headed enough. I honestly doubt anonymoose has actually thought through what it is they're advocating.

Much in the same way I doubt all that many otherwise God-fearing and patriotic Germans let themselves actually think about where all those Jews, gays, Orthodox Christians, and Trade Unionists were being shipped to.
yankeependragon | 11.21.06 - 12:06 pm | #

Actually, I doubt he's that clever or clear-headed enough. I honestly doubt anonymoose has actually thought through what it is they're advocating.

Much in the same way I doubt all that many otherwise God-fearing and patriotic Germans let themselves actually think about where all those Jews, gays, Orthodox Christians, and Trade Unionists were being shipped to.
yankeependragon | 11.21.06 - 12:06 pm |

They may not have intellectualized it, but they knew enough. And so does AM. How else could it be that he finds his CT that FDR intentionally had Pearl Harbor bombed to express our "will to power" as justification for his love of FDR? The implications are clear, even if he doesn't actually follow it out consciously.
jojo | 11.21.06 - 12:10 pm | #

yankeependragon,

A large portion of the German populace was against the Nazi's, but they waited too long to act. They knew what was happening, remember the large left-of-center and hard left that reemerged immediately after the war. But, like us, they thought it would blow over.

My grandfather was Jewish. He knew there were monsters, but thought it would blow over, that nothing had to be done. My Prussian grandmother knew better and dragged him out of German in '32 kicking and screaming.
jojo | 11.21.06 - 12:17 pm | #

Enlightened Layperson | 11.21.06 - 11:57 am
Shooter, are you seriously claiming that during the Cold War we had the moral obligation to invade Russia and China, subdue them, and impose democracy at gunpoint?

No. You presented the proposition that Communism came, went, and....."What did we lose, in the long run?" As if it were a fad gone bad.
We lost not only the lives of those purged, but also the lives of Americans in proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, while idiots like Kerry shilled for mass murderers there and in Nicaraugua. Who thinks the Khmer Rouge coming to power months after us leaving Vietnam was a coincidence? The killing fields were real and we had culpability.

We are attempting that in Iraq and, in case you didn't notice, it isn't going too well.

No it isn't but they've only been in the democracy business for a couple years. Do you think we should just abandon the Iraqis to civil war and retribution like we did in Vietnam? I don't. Stay put as a moderating influence for them and the entire region. We broke it, we stay till it's fixed.

The Soviet Union died of imperial overreach. Your proposal would set us up for the same fate.

We've reached into one country. Imperialistic? No.
Your basic point was that in the tides of time we may come out ahead of ideologies that seem doomed to internal failure. While that may be true , it's a lot like watching a neighbors house burn without helping to see what happens next. A lot of unnecessary damage is inflicted during the wait, and there is no guarantee that the future of the house and it's occupants will be rosier than before.
shooter242 | 11.21.06 - 12:50 pm | #

Shooter,
We've reached into one country. Imperialistic? No.

You're a liar or a fool. We have bases through-out the world. We've funded and directed death squads in every dirty corner. How many Chileans died at the hands of our proxies? How many Guatemalans? We toppled the democratic government in Iran in the '50s, supported an Indonesian purge in the '60s. If you want to believe we're the good guys, you're morally corrupted. At best, we're less bad than some of our opponents.

But of course, you believe that imperialism is inevitable. So own up to it. Say, "we are better imperialists than the Soviets," rather than propagandistic, mealy mouthed statements.

Why are fascists so afraid of speaking straight?
jojo | 11.21.06 - 1:03 pm | #

No it isn't but they've only been in the democracy business for a couple years.

Democracy is, however, not a business, and to call it that is incredibly cynical and naive. Our democracy is several centuries old, and when founded benefitted from many centuries more of long and hard experience in developing and implementing democratic ideas and institutions, often by trial and error. And we also benefitted from a fairly homogeneous population in terms of religion and ethnic background during our critical first century. And even then, we had to go through a horrible civil war before we were ready for the world stage.

Iraq has none of these preconditions, and there is absolutely no way that it can establish anything resembling a real democracy in a reasonable time frame. This has nothing to do with any inherent qualities in Iraq or Iraqis that precludes democracy, but rather more practical, cultural, social, religious and other factors that preclude a democracy any time soon--as in within the next few decades. Are you prepared to keep US forces there in high numbers for that long? I'm not.

Do you think we should just abandon the Iraqis to civil war and retribution like we did in Vietnam? I don't.

Yes. We should certainly give them all the financial and other help that they need, and perhaps keep military advisers in a strictly non-combat or peacekeeping role. But our active, large-scale military involvement in Iraq needs to be concluded asap.

And btw, it seems to me that Vietnam clearly benefitted from our departure. Are you saying that it didn't? Based on what, its current success? Or are you just upset that we allowed it to self-determine as a quasi-communist state?

Stay put as a moderating influence for them and the entire region. We broke it, we stay till it's fixed.

Some moderating influence. And while in theory I agree with the Pottery Barn rule, we are clearly not doing too well with our Crazy Glue solution. Because it is crazy.
Kovie | 11.21.06 - 1:57 pm | #

Here is a screenshot of the article:
The Bad Guy

Another Picture showing the NY Sun logo.

I don't know if these images are interesting to anybody - but they are interesting to me :)

Enjoy!
duffolonious | 11.21.06 - 2:00 pm | #

From shooter242 at 12:50pm:

No. You presented the proposition that Communism came, went, and....."What did we lose, in the long run?" As if it were a fad gone bad.

It was ideology that failed, like dozens of others that have by tried and failed in time.

We lost not only the lives of those purged, but also the lives of Americans in proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam, while idiots like Kerry shilled for mass murderers there and in Nicaraugua.

'We' lost nothing in comparison to the many countries that suffered our interference or indifference.

Who thinks the Khmer Rouge coming to power months after us leaving Vietnam was a coincidence? The killing fields were real and we had culpability.

For which you can thank your man Nixon for. It was his brilliant idea to invade and devastate the country after all.

Seems to be a trend with your lot.
yankeependragon | 11.21.06 - 4:20 pm | #

it's a lot like watching a neighbors house burn without helping to see what happens next. A lot of unnecessary damage is inflicted during the wait, and there is no guarantee that the future of the house and it's occupants will be rosier than before.
shooter242 | 11.21.06 - 12:50 pm |

You're leaving out the important fact that it was YOU who set your neighbor's house on fire, you psychopath.
somenyguy | 11.21.06 - 6:31 pm | #

Happy Thanksgiving! Thank you for the material you put up for us village outlanders. You make a difference, and I thank you for that.
Scrivener | Homepage | 11.24.06 - 2:58 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan