The problem was in having time to find it. He gave no reference to where it was other than it being "on war." I was probably up and out of this chair 5 or 6 times in that hour.
B-Bob and gifford: I understand that semantics are crucial here, but one must be very careful in merging old semantics with new-fangled terrorism. President Bush and his administration didn't initiate this. Terrorists did by coming to our homeland and murdering 3,000 civilians from some 80 nations of the world, tearing down two of our national symbols, and disrupting our economy. The Bush Administration is trying to cope with a new world threat and the old rules just don't seem to apply... or work. I don't know many of the answers but I'm quite sure that the solution will not be found in calling Bush a liar and some of the other tricks we've seen from the Democratic candidates.
What the hell does any of this have to do with the right to criticize the government without being labeled a traitor? You keep alluding to it yet have provided no evidence of your conclusion that the "old rules" with regard to criticism of the government cause terrorist attacks. By the way, related to your dismissal of Roosevelt's WWI comments (who probably has more experience in war and politics than you or I): As a tenet of human nature, people seem to always see themselves as in a unique and unprecedented historical situation, the likes of which have never been seen before, and will never be seen again. 3000 dead? That was a slow day in WWI or WWII, and there were a lot fewer people around back then too. Western civilization was destroying itself. Hell, 3000 people were murdered by hand in a day by British soldiers when pludnering certain towns during the 100 years war. The Mongols would regularly slaughter tens of thousands when sacking a town in a single day. I don't even want to know what the civilian death toll was during various firebombings carried out by us in WWII. Finally, when does this state of war of yours end? Various people have asked but you have yet to respond. I'd like to know when I can go back to excercising the most fundamental of democratic rights without being a morally decrepit traitor.
Of course the terrorists that came and attacked us had nothing to do with Iraq. That is one of the reasons that I'm against the Iraq war. I was angered by that attack and want to strike those that made the attack. I don't want to strike out blindly at a country that happens to be in the same region and is a country we don't like. I just want to get the people who are the biggest danger first. Now the fact that Bush did lie several times concerning Iraq is a concern as well to me, but even if I felt that he never lied, I would still be against the Iraq war because I think our war is with terrorists. Anything that takes away from that war is misguided in my opinion. Furthermore any effort to use that war in an attempt to justify an unprovoked attack of a sovereign nation is shameful to all those that lost their lives in the attack by terrorists and in the real effort to fight the real terrorists.
Bob and Rim, thanks for the thoughtful posts. a couple of thoughts: I didn't mean to imply that opposition to this war in particular or opposition to pre-emptive wars in general, is inherehntly unpatriotic, nor do i believe that was Card's point. Rather, it is when that opposition manifests itself in actively wishing for american failure so as to secure political advantage (the nomination, the election) for oneself, or score points against the opposition. now i don't think Dean is unpatriotic, but take a look at his official blog and you'll see many examples of despair over the apture of Saddam precisely because it impacts the poster's chosen candidate. in my estimation, this is unpatriotic, and by lending these people a voice in an offical campaign forum dean is skating dangerously close to the edge himself. moreover, take a look at the "Saddam Captured?" thread and you'll see many similar examples. some posters (i won't name names as i don't want to get into a flame war) are clearly over the edge, others walk right up to it and peer into the abyss, and still others are gracious enough to recognize this an important moment for the country while maintaining their opposition to the war in general. i think the former two can be pretty safely ignored, but for the latter, i'd love to get a answer to the oft-asked questions: - how do you square your opposition to the war with the result had that opposition been heeded, ie Saddam still in power? Is the principle of "no pre-emptive war" so great that it trumps the removal of a genocidal dictator? - is the idea of "we can't remove them all (tyrants) so we shouldn't remove any" so absolute that it would prevent us from doing what in this case is so obviously a moral good? -does "Bush said it was about WMDs and now he says it's about Democracy" stance not prove irrelevant in light of 300,000 mass graves? how do the jesuits, and we have a very dear friend who's a jesuit monk in rome (i've got to ask him these questions!) reconcile these and other moral connundrums? it seems to me you've got to jump through some pretty big logical hoops to do so, but i'm willing to listen. BB, are you at a university, seminary? i assume that you reference to an "abstract noun" means al-queda, and i suppose you're right, there won't be an "end of major hostilities" moment or a treaty of versailles. so in that sense the war on terror is likely to be open-ended, but see my thought above about critizising the president/ war effort. it's not inherently unpatriotic, but, and this is Card's larger point i think, it is a losing electoral strategy, at least in my view, so rock on... RR, i greatly enjoyed this post; it's one of the best i've read from you, insightful, thoughtful, and free of partisan bashing, standards my own posts do not always rise to. more please. regarding Hume, and i may be misunderstanding his point, but i think one could argue that the lure of popularity is what ultimately did in Bill Clinton, and a danger that dean flirts with. Clinton seemed to have very few principles, and adopted a government by opinion poll style, abandoning any pretensions of real leadership in pursuit of his sally field "they really like me" moment. dean's opposition to the war seems deeply studied. he's calculated that it gives him the best chance to snare the nomination and the reality it's mendacity disguised as principled opposition. the question becomes what does he do when he finds it's a losing arguement in the general election? W is the real idealist here, and in a moment of thrilling political daring is the first president to put american power and military might at the service of american ideals. I think this scares the reactionary left and the paleo-con right, and i know it's not what he campaigned on, but 9/11 challenged us to adapt to a new world reality, and W had the courage and the foresight to realize he had to change, and the leadership to effect that change in the face of significant rear-guard opposition. i agree wholeheartedly with Wine and Baldwin, but one must be careful to distinguish between criticism and being unpatriotic. and i also think we must distinguish between being unpatriotic and treason- the two are *not* the same thing. i also think that if you spend any time reading the neocon press you'll see that there is substantial critisism of the president, his handling of the war's aftermath, yet noone wishes that he fail, as they all realize that success is vital to our future as a nation.
Damn, rimrocker, you really uncorked one hell of a fine post. Card is an excellent SF writer who uncorked a classic himself with "Enders Game", but he is no Democrat... not by any definition I would use, anyway. He wouldn't fall easily under Moderate Republican, either. Again, that's my opinion. But what he's spouting will be, and is, a major part of the Administration's re-election strategy. Painting those who disagree with the Bush Administration as being "unpatriotic". It's just going to get uglier.
(1) As you know, I am truly happy that Saddam is not in power. However, I am not yet sure we will be able, or Iraq will be able, to field a long-term government that is more just and less bloody. It would be hard to end up worse, but I don't know about better yet. I am hopeful. Regardless, I believe we must conduct ourselves in a just and righteous way as a nation. In the long term, if we say the ends justify the means as a rule, then our awkward and polarizing actions could simply proliferate the number of problems we must address. (2) I am not saying "don't remove any tyrants," but I am saying our actions must be as just and righteous as possible. To my standards, our removal of Saddam was not properly bolstered and explained. It appeared arbitrary and unilateral and unjust to 95% of the planet. Now, please note: it is possible that the right path can at times meet with such opposition. In this case, however, I and many other humans were not persuaded that Saddam was a centerpiece of global terror. Maybe we are stupid, but I'm being honest. (3) Irrelevant? I see what you're saying, but the honesty of our representative to the world is very important to me. His honesty to me, to other Americans, and to other nations, is questionable at best. Most people seem to agree that we were determined to attack (perhaps for great reasons), but that we didn't have the respect for interested audiences to deal with them plainly. To be very honest, it sounded just like one of my students who clearly isn't ready for a midterm exam (that answers question 5 ): "Uh, my aunt died two weeks ago, and uh, well, no, I actually get really dizzy when I study, and um, well, I'm having all these problems with my life right now, professor, so..." (4) I am not a Jesuit, but the ways of Jesus advocated non-violence. That's my reading of the Bible anyway. Jesuits seem to promote education and peaceful actions that promote social justice. Most Jesuits I know would go with the cliche that "violence only begets more violence." I disagree to an extent. I think there are clear times when force must be met with force. I will say emphatically, however, that the world would benefit if we had more people like the Dalai Lama and Mahatma Ghandi, and fewer people like Bill Clinton and George Bush. (6) My reference was to "terror," which is an abstract, emotional noun. A world without "terror" will require approximately 6.4 billion labotomies, to be honest.
I don't know if you consider me over the edge or not, but I'll assume I'm not since I inadvertantly started my own Saddam captured thread, happy for the news. 1. I'm extremely happy that Saddam is gone. Though the ends to don't always justify the means. I also don't konw how good it is that he's gone yet. Iraq is more dangerous for the average citizen at this point, but I think it's a growing pain that's very worthwhile on the road to freedom. As long as they truly do get freedom and don't have people riding around telling them that anyone demonstrating against the occupation will be arrested. That's just switching authoritarian rule and isn't a good thing. It may or may or may not be true that Saddam would still be in power. We may have still been in Iraq only with a more international force and bankroll. But assuming that he would still be in power we would still be able to say we didn't lie because some people wanted to go to war and needed to have an excuse. We could still say we were believers in spreading democratic principles through peaceful means and not by forcing our ideals on another people. We might still have the good will of more nations around the world. We'd still have the lives of over 400 troops thousands of Iraqi civilians and countless others still intact. Basically I like to stick to principles. I'll take the result of sticking to principles and ideals whatever that might be. Your question of no pre-emptive vs. not taking out a genocidal dictator is not accurate. Because as murderous as Saddam was he wasn't genocidal. But even still yes sticking to your principles and values is more important. If there is a dictator who continues to violate UN resolutions then we can go to the UN and discuss the proper course to take, and I'd be fine participating in that action. 2. The we can't remove them all so we shouldn't remove one is kind of twisting my understanding of the argument. I understand that people don't say we shouldn't remove any, just that if removing one was the actual reason, why didn't they act to remove others before. 3. The WMD's lie but good came out of it anyway, is important by itself. It's good that something came out of this, but it isn't good that our president lied in order to attack another nation that wasn't a threat to the U.S. So we can be happy that Saddam is gone but not that we were lied to in order to go to war.
don't you see that this is why we must do everything in our power to make sure we succeed? this is why Dean's rhetoric about bringing the troops home quickly and finding an exit strategy is so destructive, if not unpatriotic. it undermines our ability to bring about the type of democratic society in Iraq we all wish for. here i think you're guilty of saying impressions are more important than deeds. why is it important how the UN, France, Germany and Russia view our actions? the UN failed Iraq when it needed it (unless you were Saddam), so why is it so important that when US security is at stake we must wait for the UN, EU, etc. to approve our actions? this is not leadership, it's passing the buck. kinda sounds like Saddam's disembling when asked to explain where the documentation of the destruction of his WMDs was, doesn't it? the one thing arab societies seem to respect most is power. the sight of Saddam, bewitched, bothered, bewildered and bedraggled may have an extemely positive effect on how we're regarded in the middle-east. not that they'll necessarily love us, but that they'll respect and fear us, which will make us safer in the long run. and i'll see your Ghandi and raise you two MLKs!
Originally posted by SamFisher: What the hell does any of this have to do with the right to criticize the government without being labeled a traitor? <b>Who called whom a traitor?</b> You keep alluding to it yet have provided no evidence of your conclusion that the "old rules" with regard to criticism of the government cause terrorist attacks. <b>The Old Rules I am referring to were Rules of War not Rules of Criticism. Sorry if that wasn't clear.</b> By the way, related to your dismissal of Roosevelt's WWI comments (who probably has more experience in war and politics than you or I): As a tenet of human nature, people seem to always see themselves as in a unique and unprecedented historical situation, the likes of which have never been seen before, and will never be seen again. 3000 dead? That was a slow day in WWI or WWII, and there were a lot fewer people around back then too. Western civilization was destroying itself. Hell, 3000 people were murdered by hand in a day by British soldiers when pludnering certain towns during the 100 years war. The Mongols would regularly slaughter tens of thousands when sacking a town in a single day. I don't even want to know what the civilian death toll was during various firebombings carried out by us in WWII. <b>Try grabbing a 1957 car manual to repair your 2003 car. Good luck! Times change, no? Perhaps it is the mass means moreso than the number. Are you denying that 9/11 marks a new age?</b> Finally, when does this state of war of yours end? Various people have asked but you have yet to respond. I'd like to know when I can go back to excercising the most fundamental of democratic rights without being a morally decrepit traitor. <b>I did respond. I said I didn't know. Do you? Again, who called you a traitor? All that Card said is that there must be a higher good, a greater calling, and a better way. No need to go off the Deep End.</b>
Howard Dean has climbed into his own spider hole of denial if he believes that the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer Joe Lieberman should just switch parties. Then he could spend his time knocking the GOP and Bush. What an ungrateful dork. If Gore hadn't chosen him, he would be just another senator and who would care what he had to say about presidential politics.
Giddyup What's the difference between being called unpatriotic or a traitor? Not very much as far as I can see.
Addendum: It shifts the focus. Example: Speaker A criticizes Policy X, Instead of supporting Policy X, Speakr B questions Speaker A's patriotism. Speaker B criticizes Speaker A, not the policy. See the problem? A valid response in logical terms would be to 1. support Policy X, or at the very least explain why Speaker A's criticism is invalid. But no, let's criticize their patriotism, essentially, launch a personal attack, especially one that is ripe for exploitation like appeals and insults about patriotism. It's intellectually dishonest, unfair, and not productive. And that's all further I have to say about this stupid article. It's been deconstructed enough in this thread to the point where it should be put out of its misery.
This is a good point that you make, and I agree times have changed and the style of combat and probably wars have changed too. I could talk more about that and this administration, but it would be getting off topic, so I won't right now. Since we have to fight differently, and the terrorist threat certainly have increased changes do need to be made. But the democratic principles that Teddy Roosevelt was talking about have not changed. The principles of democracy, and of war as a last result haven't changed either. If all of those things have changed then why are we fighting, the terrorists have already destroyed our values and what the nation stands for and has stood for since it was formed. Bush has told us that the terrorists hate our freedoms. If that's what they hate then the last thing we want to do is limit them in any way.
Being unpatriotic can involve just a lapse in judgement and is typically not a permanent assignment. Being a traitor is much more deliberate and generally is permanent. Certainly, being traitorous is being unpatriotic but I don't think you can say vice-versa with certainty.
Card didn't call for anyone to be jailed or shut up in any way. He merely suggested that now is not the time and place for this kind of political opportunism. This is a very hard time for this country... and the world. Calling Bush a liar day in and day out publicly can do nothing but embolden our enemies. Our civic and democratic duty is to do something constructive. Yes, criticism can be constructive but more often than not it's means of delivery is just plain destructive.
Thanks for the love. I think the opinion poll thing for Clinton has been overblown by a few particulars and GOP spin. He did many things that went against the grain of public support, including bailing out Mexico, Free Trade, Balkans, etc. I also don't think you can look at his record of accomplishment and say he was not principled. On many issues, he was very principled, but he also realized compromise was sometimes necessary. I suspect he used polls to see where the compromises could fall and what the country wanted to be led on. (In contrast, this administration uses polling all the time... they just don't admit it... and they make policy for the reelection polls instead of using the polls to inform policy.) I always thought Clinton's big failing was the source of his strength... Toxic Charisma... the guy has charm... way too much of it. He also knows how to read people and is probably the greatest personal politician since Lincoln, certainly since FDR. The combo of toxic charisma and knowing instantly what people are thinking is a heady brew made more intoxicating by power. I dare say if I had that skill set, I would find it hard not to abuse, not to take advantage of people, not to see what I could get away with, and yes, extremely hard to pass up seductions that I knew I could pull off. I also recognize that if Clinton were someone I disagreed with, I would hate him with a passion just because of that skill set. Just a little less and he would have been a better President.
That's up to interpretation. What you consider a lapse in judgement by oneperson could be a strong moral conviction in said person's mind, ie if said person doesn't believe the war in Iraq will make America safer, so he's against it, then you consider being against whatever Bush says as a lapse in judgement. BTW, you guys have been arguing this all wrong. Giddy is going after the "I hate Bush and would like to see America fail if it makes him look bad crowd." You know, the BS that T_J says about anyone and everyone who leans left? The thing is, it's not that people like that don't exist, the thing is, they are a ridiculously small minority. I don't know why Dean is considered to be in this crowd and also, it's not like there aren't any right leaning people who would like to see American failure if it led to Democratic President losing the next election. The thing is, you guys don't have to defend that because those people don't represent you, it's not your problem. It's Giddy's problem if he believes that there are lots of people like that when there really isn't. Let him believe what he wants.
I can't help you there...only basso really can. I understand your point and he could have been saying that it just didn't make sense in the context and I, honestly, did not think of that possibility. Not really a proper/smooth usage of French in that reading, either, though...but that lies more in common usage and not grammar. Again, basso would have to clarify if he was making a declaration or asking a question. giddy, You really are no fun. bob, You should easily beat me. I don't think I particiapte enough to get too many votes...among other things (such as you being more likeable).
I agree that there are times when the criticism goes beyond the bounds of being constructive. But I guss there are different definitions of what those boundaries are. When someone lies(Bush said that the U.S. had found WMD in Iraq already, Condi Rice claimed those aluminium tubes could only be used for one thing and that was developin weapons grade plutonium, and the list goes on.) in an effort to build support for attacking another nation then that person must face the consequences of their actions. They must face those consequences even if some good came out of those actions. And if those consequences are being called a liar then so be it. I think that at least some of the people saying that are angry at being lied to not because they don't like America. You have Lawrence Eagleburger, a supporter of this war and someone who has worked with many of the hawks on Bush's staff previously confirm that he knew that some of them were hoping to go to war and that there would not be a diplomatic settlement to the Iraq problem. So you have people who don't want peace to work, and that gives them the motive to lie, and makes being lied to not happy. So complaining about those lies seems necessary so that it doesn't happen again, not unpatriotic. As for this giving strength to our enemies I disagree. How will the U.S. showing it's freedom, and not only allowing, but encouraging free speech give any boost to our enemies? If anything it may show them the error of their ways. You are also correct that Card didn't call for anyone to be thrown in jail or anything like that. But it does seem like he is calling on politicians to not voice their opinion when they see something they believe is wrong, especially something as important as war and the loss of human life.
