Hey basso, nice reply again. (1) I agree with you hear, and I disagree with the idea of a quick exit. We have to clean up the mess. I do not think Dean is unpatriotic to have a different view. (2) No, I think if you read my full point I address that. Opinion polls don't always mark the just course. I said that. (3) I hold us to a much higher standard than Saddam. I don't mean to be flippant, because I think many people think it's fine to use spin and shallow rhetoric to achieve our goals, while I advocate honesty and treating audiences with respect. (4) That's a generalization I've heard others make, and I'm no expert on "arab societies." Perhaps you are correct. The collateral damage, physical and mental is nontrivial, however. As for having them respect us, our image in the Arab world has gone into the toilet, according to everything I've read. Maybe that is not true, and maybe it is a necessary step toward forcing a pseudo-democracy upon them. I still maintain, as a bottom line, that we cannot weed the world as if it was our backyard. People are not weeds, and we do not own the Middle East (well, yet).
SJC, re my bastardized french (i wanted to write "b*stard french" but then that would be redundant, n'est-ce pas?), as i said my written french is quite poor. i've spent a lot of time woking in france, paris, strasbourg, colmar, mulhouse (aka the armpit of alsace), nimes, and can carry on a decent conversation, but i never really studied so my grammar sucks. what i meant to say was "as one says in french, insupportable," which literally translates as unsupportable, but has a stronger meaning, something akin to "beyond the bounds of...or beyond the pale." would that be correct rimbaud? as to the difference between "unpatriotic" and "treasonous" i agree w/ GU that the latter is always the former, but the reverse is not always true. Card notwithstanding, most of the protesting from dems about being called unpatriotic is in fact defending a negative, ie, "how dare they question my patriotism because i disagree with the war" when in fact no one has done so. it's not unlike the dixie chicks protesting about their first amendment rights being violated, when in fact the reverse is true. speech however, while it may be free, is not w/out consequences, i feel much of the left wants to wantonly critisize w/ facing the consequences of their criticism, ie, a substantial portion of the populace would find their remarks objectionable or even unpatriotic. rim- i think clinton was one of the most supremely gifted politicians of our time. he had an ability to connect with people, "feel their pain," that was quite remarkable, and was certainly the source of a lot of republican frustration. no matter how much dirt they had on him "slick willy" could still find a way out. i voted for the man the first time and had very high hopes for him- i thought he could be a JFK for our time, young, energetic, telegenic, charismatic, and he certainly made you think he felt deeply about issues that really mattered. it all turned out to be a facade however, and i think clinton's will ultimately become known as a potempkin presidency- there wasn't any "there" there, just a rampant, voracious appetite for attention. oski, it's because he panders to them, they're the voice of his campaign, the force that's driving his nomination. it's as if the entire republican party suddenly jumped on the pat buchanan bus to nowhere. bb, our image in the arab world was not exactly stellar before 9/11. it might be worse now, but i'm not sure that's really germane. we were already 'the great satan." so now we're 'the great satam w/ forked tongue, but the will to stand up for what we believe in." that's a step up in my book. lastly, i shared an excellent bottle of wine with an old friend this evening. She's an old-style new york liberal jew; the only republican she's ever voted for was lowell wiecker. we never discuss politics, and we were talking about my daughter, when out of the blue she says "i can't believe what's happening with Howard Dean. how can he say 'I'm not sure iraq is better off w/o Saddam when they're digging up mass graves? if they nominate him i'm going to have to vote for Bush." perhaps it means nothing, but i will say again, dean's unnuanced opposition to the war is a losing startegy come november.
I'm sure that you won't do any campaigning for Dean, but I would point out to her that at the moment there is alot to be unsure about. I do think it's only transitional and that eventually they will be much better off without Saddam. But crime is higher, kidnapping especially has gotten really bad, people don't have phone service to call for help when crimes happen, and there are car bombings and fire fights all over the place, so for right now there is a lot to be sure. Here is an article about it. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0910/p05s02-woiq.html So certainly in some respects people may well be, at least temporarily, not better off. Like I said I believe this will improve, and this sacrifice is still worth freedom and democracy if that is what is able to be acheived in Iraq.
Will you please cite one instance where I have indicated that the part beyond the "I hate Bush" is my concern... I agree that there are people like that. Remember a few months ago when those California Democrats got caught on tape "planning" to do what they could to extend the financial stress through the next election cycle... so that Democrats would benefit? That "ridiculously small minority" all just happened to hold elective office.... TOGETHER. Yeah, how much of a minority is that! No discernment whatsoever! Sorry but unless your performance improves, you will not be considered for the job as my biographer...
Franchise, these are growing pains, and will be eventually sorted out as a stable, democratic government takes hold. we should all be wishing and working for it's success, not reveling in the temporary chaos that may now exist (not saying you are, just a general comment).
I agree, and that's why I pointed out that I believe it's transitional. I was only saying that claiming that we can't be sure that right now the Iraqis aren't better off, isn't a far out claim beyond all believability. But you are 100% correect that it most likely will be sorted out, and we should be hoping for democracy to take hold.
"I can only conclude that the visceral anti-Americanism just runs deeper than any other set of values that is meaningful on the left and hence the obsession with and the disparagement of what they define as a neoconservative approach to international affairs. " --Richard Perle This is, I believe, a very good example of the unpatriotic.
Read what he's saying... he's obsessed with the perceived obsession of the left over the neo-con philosophy... and because the "left" is critical of his beliefs, they are anti-American. There is no acknowledgement in his thoughts or actions that the critics might have a point or that there is something that could be done better, or something needs to be set straight or investigated more completely. He's worse than the guy that says "My country, right or worng," because he's identifying his self and beliefs as the country.
so, the criticism itself is not unpatriotic, yet the criticism of the criticism is? i think you're reaching a bit here. if being a blowhard were unpatriotic, that would disqualify each of the nine dwarfs from office.
Basso... He accused everyone to the left of him on the political spectrum as being driven by anti-americanism. There is nothing similar to that in any of the candidates rhetoric. They may say, these guys are stupid and wrong. They may asay that they are using their positions to benefit like-minded people, but you don't hear them saying everyone to the right of me is driven by anti-americanism.
perhaps it read as everyone to the left of perle, but that's a perverse reading of his statement, since people like colin powell are to the right of perle. he was referring to the lunatic fringe of the left, the berkeley wing, if you will. Dean certainly encourages them, even if he hails from berkeley easy, burlington.
I still don't believe that the Berkley left is all Anti-American either, even if that is what he was referring to. Do you really place Powell to the Right of Perl? I'm curious on what issues you feel that Colin Powell is to the right of Richard Perl? What has Dean said that is Anti-American? Dean's non liberal stances on cutting income taxes, balancing budgets, gun control, etc. have been pointed out time and time again, but people seem to buy in to the label that Dean is way far to the left. The guy is strongly anti-Iraq war, but that doesn't make him a berkley left liberal.
Berkeley is pretty much a yuppie palace now, honestly. We'll have to find a new disparaging label for the left, sorry.
sorry, i really should proof-read, Powell is to the leftof Perle, definitely. i think some of dean's anti-war rhetoric gets very close to the line, and certainly his reckless charge that Bush was warned by the Saudi's about 9/11 was irresponsible, if not actually unpatriotic. moreover, he provides an official forum for the berkeley wing in his blog, and some of the nutcases there make the "american taliban" look like an eagle scout.
As RM95 already said, Dean never charged that Bush was warned by the Saudis about 9/11. Did you read that from Novak, or are there other sources repeating this false claim? I don't ask to try and blaim anyone for getting information from that source or to bash people who read that source or whatever, I'm just really curious as to what sources are spreading this.
OK, this guy takes the cake for wrapping himself in the flag and with god. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$GB3TUTOJWIO2ZQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/12/19/wgod19.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/19/ixworld.html Corruption claim governor says he was called by God By David Rennie (Filed: 19/12/2003) The governor of the strait-laced New England state of Connecticut has rejected calls for his resignation over corruption allegations, saying he is in direct contact with God. In a performance worthy of a fallen "televangelist" John Rowland, who has admitted accepting favours and gifts from powerful businessmen, defended his position by saying the Almighty had called to him "loud and clear" in his "adversity". Mr Rowland, a Republican who faces a federal inquiry into the awarding of lucrative state contracts, spoke flanked by local soldiers recently returned from Iraq. He hailed the capture of Saddam Hussein, conceding that the operation did not involve any troops from his state, but adding: "It could have been any one of our Connecticut servicemen or women." He declared that such heroism "puts everything in perspective real quick". . . .
You gotta love conservatives who hide behind God when they can't follow the rule of law! Rowland will soon follow in Judge Moore's footsteps...
