Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Ecco il Nemico

Here’s a nice, big chocolate Easter bunny for you: Maryscott O’Connor, perhaps the angriest of all the Angry Left. It seems she has a compulsive personality; is anyone surprised by that revelation?

Discussions - 52 Comments

Dr. Charles Krauthammer named this angry, compulsive, irrational, and reckless behavior Bush Derangement Syndrome. This behavior and the democrats utter lack of substantive ideas on the issues facing our country are the achilles heal of the leftist regressive cause. The vast majority of folks in the center and the right are disturbed by the extremism of the Maryscott O’Connors, kos kids, and the rest of the rabid regressive crowd who need George Bush as a reason to get up in the morning. The we hate George Bush mantra was a losing cause in 2000, 2002, and 2004. The voters keep telling the regressives that hating George Bush isn’t enough and asking where are your ideas? Will 2006 be any different? Probably not, here is hoping that the Washington Post and the rest of the msm continue to serve up a steady diet of these ugly, hate filled, and extremist stories that have always offended the American public.

You can’t close these gates of invective.

I had heard that Sen. Biden on Chris Matthew’s "Hardball" basically lost it. Schreeching for Pres. Bush not to invade Iran. he said something along the lines of ’My God, we’re losing in Iraq......’

Those are very comforting words to our troops over there; is it not? Guess our troops from Delaware are comforted by Joeyboy’s support.Eh?

the picture with that article is worth a thousand words...

I consider myself a conservative, but I have to point out that it’s hardly just those on the left who seem angry. I think there’s a big divide in the country right now, and that there are very angry people on BOTH sides of the debate. Hardly seems fair to say it’s only the left- we DO have some rather angry shouting heads on our side, let’s not forget. And hey, we might be angrier if WE weren’t the ones running the country and kickin’ tail in every election!

I’d be pissed too if all I had to drink was "nonalcoholic beer".

What a pointless piece. Was it written by an intern at The Limbaugh Institute/Heritage Foundation/American Entetrprise Institute, etc.?? So, I guess the Washington Post isn’t 100% liberal-biased... Huh, wow, so there are angry liberals out there with blogs, eh? You don’t say??!! Considering that there are only about, what, a jillion political blogs in existence, this doesn’t strike me as big news. There’s plenty of anger to be found at Power Line, Little Green Footballs, Hugh Hewitt, NRO, etc., and beyond the blogosphere, let’s not forget the masters of right-wing fury, like Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and basically the entire on-air line-up at FoxNews. An incredibly pointless article - but yes, the photo was amusing.

I have a question. Are lefties like her allowed to smoke in the house with kids around? I mean, I can’t smoke in a freak’n bar in most places lefties run. Can’t we cut out her cigarettes "for the children?"

Craig, you can’t compare the lady featured in the WaPo article and most of the folks you mentioned.

Now, Michael Savage, that might be a good comparison, but he is one of the few who rages for the right.

For you not to see the difference is astounding, but not surprising.

The problem is that the rage on the left has only rage and that is all.

wm - whatever thousand words of lame insults you found in your thesaurus based on that picture and the hit-piece "article" do not really apply. MaryScott O’Connor, even at her worst moment, is still 100 times hotter - and more thoughtful - than Ann Coulter (the deeply disturbed anorexic with only a right wing). Check out the photos here - scroll down for all of them. She’s one gorgeous redhead!

http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7483

As a follow up to comment 6: Mr. Moser himself is a regular listener of Rush Limbaugh and various other demogogues. Indeed, Limbaugh was chosen "Statesman Of The Year" by Ashbrook a few years ago.

Anyone who has never listened to Limbaugh, Beck, Turner, et. al. owes it to themselves to tune in and hear just how sick and dysfunctional right wing extremists can be.

Mr. Moser himself is a regular listener of Rush Limbaugh and various other demogogues.

I would appreciate your not making assumptions about what "demogogues" I may or may not listen to. And the Ashbrook Center has no "Statesman of the Year" honor--you’re thinking of the Claremont Institute.

JJV:

Not sure if your not smoking in the house comment due to children was serious or not. I do know that in some Virginia courts, domestic judges use whether a potential custodial parent smokes as a factor to consider who should be given custody. I know this created a big dispute and I am pretty sure this factor is not settled law, but some judges no doubt do consider it.

Also, I am fairly certain that Arkansas is about to pass a bill that would make smoking in your car with children present a crime. It may not have been Arkansas, maybe it was New Jersey, but I think it was Arkansas. It would be the first ban of its kind. One has to wonder at what point will privacy rights trump health concerns, or perhaps they won’t. Smoking will merely take the place of various other sins the public liked to regulate.

I think you guys underestimate the amount of visceral rage that people feel about the Bush regime, both in the US and outside it.


I count myself among the Bush haters. He is the only public figure I have ever actually hated in the heartfelt sense of the word.


I can honestly say I have never, ever felt this way about anyone else.


I make a regular and concious effort to separate Bush from Americans in general. I talk online to Americans on the left and the right regularly. Nonetheless my anger and frustration at the lunatic route that Bush has taken the world occasionally overwhelm me, and I find myself pandering to anti-americanism.


I often consider, that if I, a 41 year old, white english speaking male capitalist, feel this way, what must it be like for a muslim man in the middle east?

Those people who cannot stand being on the minority side just don’t understand the system. As a libertarian, I have never had a candidate to be for, but I understand that trashing the system will not help my positions.

"This is the enemy"???? A redheaded housewife who drinks non-alcoholic beer and smokes while she blogs is your nemesis? And here I thought it was Al Qaeda, you know, the 9/11 people. As for her compulsive personality, it’s not like she’s threatening her maid for more Oxycontins... Reassess, people, reassess!!

I count myself among the Bush haters. He is the only public figure I have ever actually hated in the heartfelt sense of the word.

In your lifetime the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, the Mengitsu regime in Ethiopia, the Amin regime in Uganda, and another dozen loathsome tyrannies have gone their way, most recently the Baath one in Iraq.

At present, Kim Jong Il is starving North Korea, the Chinese governments are arresting baptist ministers because Christianity is an "evil cult," the Iranians are calling for the Islamic Middle East to finish Hitler’s incomplete work, and the Saudi monarchy greases the slicks back to the ninth century for the entire region.

...and the only public figure you can recall ever hating is George Bush.

wow.

wm,

Hey, what do you expect from folks who think America should shut up, pay up, and stop being ... well ... America?

...and the only public figure you can recall ever hating is George Bush.


Yes absolutely. I abhor and despise those others you mention. Because they are what they are.


However GWB is the elected president, of the most powerful democracy in the world. He should know better. Yet to the objective observer his actions and their outcomes are almost indistinguishable from these other tyrants you mention, even the scales of atrocity after 3 years of horribly botched occupation, are beginning to blur.


He has by his actions undercut and eroded faith in democracy. His actions have endangered the world. Other than Hitler, few elected leaders have ever dealt democracy such a dreadful blow.

Brian, you’re allowing yourself to get sucked into a silly game of Hitler comparisons, wherein as long as Bush (and anyone in his administration) isn’t the mastermind of a wholesale holocaust, then whatever he’s doing must be just fine. Don’t play that game! Isn’t it obvious that leaders can be really awful, and dangerous, and even perpetrate evil deeds long before they commit acts on that scale? Leave the reckless and frivolous fascist comparisons to meatheads like Lucianne’s little boy, Jonah (sure to be an Ashbrook Book of the Week).

wm - You did a nice, brief rundown on some loathsome regimes, past and present. The current regimes that you list mesh nicely with the stated foreign policy aims of the Bush administration in spreading freedom and democracy around the world, or at least the prodding of the neo-con right for further military interventions. One regime that you left out is the one of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo ("Obiang") in Equatorial Guinea. Here’s what Freedom House has to say about the situation there:

It is "one of the world’s most tightly closed and repressive societies."

"The four main opposition challengers withdrew from the December 2002 presidential election, citing irregularities. The candidates said soldiers, police, and electoral officials were present at polling stations and were opening ballot envelopes after votes were cast. Obiang was declared the winner of his third 7-year term with 99.5 percent of the vote." Doesn’t really sound like democracy, does it?

"Equatorial Guinea’s citizens are unable to change their government through peaceful, democratic means. The 1999 and 2004 parliamentary and 1996 and 2002 presidential elections have not been credible."

And here’s what the CIA World Factbook says: ""The president exerts almost total control over the political system and has discouraged political opposition."

And here’s a depressing list of the world’s 10 worst dictators in Parade magazine (??) - admittedly not a well-known authority on international affairs, but they do compile their list from human rights and democracy experts, like Freedom House - which should have some credibility to you, as it does include the tyrants ruling over Iran, N. Korea and Saudi Arabia. Anyway, Equatorial Guineas’s Obiang made the cut, as he’s at #10 (steady from last year!).

So, ok, because they have deeply held, principled beliefs on these matters, we should expect Bush and his foreign policy crew to start rattling their sabers and issuing stern warnings to implement democratic reforms, right? Right? Hmmm...

Just a few days ago, Secy. of State Condolleeza Rice hosted this dictator in Washington, and publicly referred to America’s "bilateral relationship" with this fellow, and to Obiang she said "thank you very much for your presence here. You are a good friend and we welcome you."

Also, Bush has hosted Obiang at the White House, previously. Oh, here’s a couple of things from Freedom House that I forgot to mention:

"The judiciary is not independent, and laws on search and seizure - as well as detention - are routinely ignored by security forces, which act with impunity. Unlawful arrests remain commonplace, and government security forces routinely use torture..." and

"Publications that irk the government are banned from the newsstands without explanation." (Well, even that sounds ’better’ than the other account, that "there are no bookstores or newsstands," but either way, a dark picture, eh?...)

But here’s the twist for the NLT gang:

"The coastal country is believed to have about 4 billion barrels of oil reserves; U.S.-based ChevronTexaco is the main foreign player, but ExxonMobil and Triton are also deeply involved, making the United States the biggest investor in Equatorial Guinea."

(from the Parade summary of Obiang): "Since major oil reserves were discovered in Equatorial Guinea in 1995, Obiang has deposited more than $700 million into special accounts in U.S. banks. Meanwhile, most of his people live on less than $1 a day."

Yet, (from the CIA) "Growth remained strong in 2005, led by oil. Equatorial Guinea now has the second highest per capita income in the world, after Luxembourg."

Further, (from the FH profile) "Equatorial Guinea is the continent’s third-largest oil producer and boasts one of the highest figures for per capita gross domestic product in Africa. The expanding oil sector has led to more jobs, but the lives of most people have yet to change. U.S. oil companies have invested at least $5 billion in Equatorial Guinea since the mid-1990s. Although Obiang has declared the disposition of the country’s oil revenues a "state secret," a U.S. Senate investigation found in July 2004 that at least $35 million has been siphoned from accounts in a Washington, D.C., bank by Obiang, his family, and senior officials of his regime."

and "Thanks to surging oil revenues, Equatorial Guinea currently has the world’s fastest expanding economy, and the IMF predicts further growth of 45.1 percent in 2005. However, few benefits have trickled down to the population."

Now call me an unhinged fascist for saying so, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if American oil companies didn’t already have a strong foothold in Equatorial Guinea, the Bush administration would be taking a much stronger stand (or rather, A stand) against Obiang’s/E. Guinea’s appalling record in freedom, democracy, and human rights, perhaps even tossing out some yellowcake accusations to bump up the urgency justifying a pre-emptive defensive invasion. So, I’ll save Uzbekistan for another day. This isn’t a cry of "hypocrisy!" folks, it’s a cry of "bullsh__!!" regarding the alleged concerns of the Bush administration.

"Yet to the objective observer his actions and their outcomes are almost indistinguishable from these other tyrants you mention"

While I agree with a fair amount of what you say (at least that which I read - I can’t say I read much more than half of it), I can’t agree with that. But that just goes back to the point I was driving in the first paragraph of my marathon post above.

I think Craig is right in regards to Obiang and the "hypocrisy." And it is never satisfying or estimable to engage in politics with tyrants. They are not deserving of its benefits.


However, politics, especially in a growing global economy, require strategy. Note, this is not a justification, but it seems to be a reasonable and pratcial move. The United States has interests...and it has bad-guy enemies and bad-guy freinds as a result.


P.S. Obiang is not a national or global threat like Ahmadinejad, and I would object to Brian’s point about them either being indistinguishable from Bush or eachother to the objective observer. Objectivity has requirements in regards to actions and motives of actions, so has responsibility in coming to a conclusion about distinction. The indifferent observer, which is probably what was meant, I think would/should still be able to make a distinction.

The indifferent observer, which is probably what was meant, I think would/should still be able to make a distinction.


I stand by my comments.


I was talking about the engaged and objective. An analysis of outcomes isloated from alleged motivations, leaves very little light between Bush and the B league tyrants/terrorists/lunatics of the 20th century.


In all cases, you have a heap of dead and maimed civilians.


The worst that European terror has served up to date, the IRA and the Basque seperatists, are left well in the shade by the Bush body count:-( Be it 5, 10 or 100 thousand.


Generally there are attempts made to close by the gap by "ends justify the means", or "look how bad we aren’t" arguments. These are nonsense in my view. The IRA thought the ends also justified the means, and we don’t let them get away with it, so why should we let Bush off the hook?

P.S. Obiang is not a national or global threat like Ahmadinejad


How exactly is he a global threat? Or indeed any less of a global threat than for example Pakistan, North Korea, India, France, Britian, Russia or anyone else with nuclear weapons?


There was a reformist president in place for years and he got exactly nothing past the mullahs. Why expect this guy to do any better?


Basically it boils down to this.


The US will invade/bomb/use tactical nukes on anyone who scares them. What a bunch of babies. We lived with the threat of nuclear annihilation for a generation and kept our heads, now Bush and his band of incompetents want to start world war 3, putting untold millions at risk, because someone
might get nuclear weapons in the indeterminate future?

Interesting to see the morally and intellectually bankrupt lunatic left rage like this absolute dingbat and her closet case readers.

Everytime I read anything by these people I am so very glad they are not on our side. If people like Maryscott and Kos are on your side, you are most certainly going to lose and not only that, you deserve to lose for associating with such people.

If the woman were 30 or under, I might perhaps understand how someone could be so incredibly stupid and naive.

Unfortunately, living in Hollywood seems to have arrested her development. Also notice that like her Hollywood heroes, she mouths off about caring for the poor but doesn’t seem to spend a whole lot of time actually doing it.

From Comment 1: " Dr. Charles Krauthammer named this angry, compulsive, irrational, and reckless behavior Bush Derangement Syndrome."

to comment 24:

"Interesting to see the morally and intellectually bankrupt lunatic left rage like this absolute dingbat and her closet case readers."

I am reminded of an old pathology that is no longer included in the DSM-IV, but was rampant in the 18th and 19th centuries: "Drapetomania" was described by Samuel Cartwright as an irrestrainable propensity to run away. Apparently, it was found exclusively among slaves, and could be treated by removal of the toes.

I am working on a report of a study regarding a new pathology: "Unipartyphobthesia." It is characterized by (1)an inability or unwillingness to confront the realities that result when (2) human beings with a history of democracy and an ideal of equality, are suddenly confronted with (3) a one-part system overseen by arrogant, self-serving, authoritarians who divide the world into "them" and "us," in order to claim as much of the world for "us" as possible before resources are completely depleted.

that is, (3) a one-party system...

Brian


Obviously you and I are beginning from different premises, as always. If the war is illegitimate (not according to global standards, but based on the republican form of government justified by the Declaration of Independence and according to the U.S. Constitution), then the objective observer may come to your conclusion because the deaths would be the result of an arbitrary practice of power. But its not, so...


In regards to Ahmadinejad, I don’t think you’re serious. I don’t believe for a second that you can think he is not trying to incite a war to force the entire Middle East and Europe to pick sides and go to war. His actions over the last two years have been systematic in those regards. It would be a sham to say "we have nukes too so what’s the difference?" I don’t like nukes just like I’m sure you don’t, but it is completely disingenuous to act like there isn’t a difference between Iran holding them and Britain holding them.


FMG, nice.

Brian


The problem with your defenition of objectivity is that taking "alleged motivations" (what I like to call purpose) out of the fray makes any act of government arbitrary. A result-oriented view of the world would be proper if men were angels, but, well, you’ve lived in the world and you’ve read the Federalist Papers.

Brian Coughlan:

You seem to have a poor sense of history if you long for the cold war--the nuclear standoff between the US and USSR.

The cold war was not really that cold. It is true that no one was nuked, but America fought it out with Russian agents in Korea and Vietnam. Furthermore, things about reached the breaking point when the USSR attempted to install nuclear missles in Cuba. If Russia had not backed down I have no doubt nuclear war would have happened.

Furthermore, Europe was turned into an armed camp. The US built missle silos all over our part of the continent, while the USSR did the same.

The US expended vast sums of money on spying and surveilance so we could build as many missles as the USSR so our deterrence would be credible. We had to spend lots of money on staffing bunkers in the Rockies, keeping planes flying, etc. Deterrence was/is expensive and I doubt if anyone has the stomach for such costs today.

Iran is crazy, but it is not surprising people rationalize to try to find a reason to avoid war. I do wish you’d be honest with history though.

Coughlan wants to avoid war at ANY cost.

That is the surest way to have a war, ironically.

TexasDude - what exactly is that supposed to mean? Wouldn’t the surest way to have a war be to actually attack another country? Really, your little "zinger" comments are getting pretty tiresome.

Funny Michael Moore Groupie (Fung). Drapetomania didn’t make any of the DSM Editions. None, nada, zip. Neither will Unipartyphobthesia. One is a discredted diagnosis and the other is a mere figment of an overactive imagination.

The American Health Association based in Florida was offering Kerry Supporters counseling for "post-election selection trauma," or PEST, which include: feelings of withdrawal, feelings of isolation, emotional anger and bitterness, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, nightmares, pervasive moodiness including endless sulking, and being excessively worried about the direction of the country.

I’m sure that Florida would be a lot nicer place to get counseling than NLT, but if you’d like Uncle Guido has some openings or we could call in Dr. Krauthammer.

The US expended vast sums of money on spying and surveilance so we could build as many missles as the USSR so our deterrence would be credible. We had to spend lots of money on staffing bunkers in the Rockies, keeping planes flying, etc. Deterrence was/is expensive and I doubt if anyone has the stomach for such costs today.

Iran is crazy, but it is not surprising people rationalize to try to find a reason to avoid war. I do wish you’d be honest with history though.


Sure, all of that is clear to me. I was just making the point that although the threat of absolute and complete destruction was so much worse, the US did not use nuclear weapons.


Now you could argue that the US did not use nuclear weapons because if they did, the russians would have used them. That not using them on anyone, was not a moral choice, but dictacted by circumstances. However, that leaves the choice to nuke Iran as a matter of convenience, and that doesn’t look much better to me.


As regards Iran, Iran is not "crazy", the current figurehead is a loose cannon, sure. Invading/bombing/Nuking Iran out for fear of what might happen because of one nominally in charge right winger, is far liklier to touch of the conflagration.

I count myself among the Bush haters. He is the only public figure I have ever actually hated in the heartfelt sense of the word. Comment 13 by Brian Coughlan

Yes absolutely. I abhor and despise those others you mention. Because they are what they are. Comment 18 by Brian Coughlan

Aren’t these 2 comments inconsistent, Brian?

However GWB is the elected president, of the most powerful democracy in the world. He should know better.Comment 18 by Brian Coughlan

Bingo. There’s the lesser standard to which you hold everyone else. The other guy is only Osama bin Laden. He doesn’t know any better. The other guy is only Saddam Hussein. He doesn’t know any better. The other guy is Ahmadinijad. He doesn’t know any better....Strike that last one, he really doesn’t know any better...but there must be a mullah or 2 who know(s) better.

I’m sorry you hate President Bush. I’m sorry so many other Europeans hate President Bush. I’m sorry so many Americans, because they are out of power, hate Republicans in general and President Bush in particular. But to hate him because he chose to go to war against Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein is misplaced. You just can’t talk sense to a madman and the alternative is agression, increasing in intensity and frequency. That means dead bodies. And yes, Saddam was a threat. http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp?pg=2 http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013438.php#013438 http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm http://www.powerlineblog.com/

"I would appreciate your not making assumptions about what "demogogues" I may or may not listen to." No assumptions were used, John. My statement was based on the words you’ve posted on this site.

Bingo. There’s the lesser standard to which you hold everyone else. The other guy is only Osama bin Laden ...


You say this like its news? Sheesh were have you been?


Democracies don’t ride roughshod over people. They at least pay lip service to the idea of respect and rights and the rule of law, and they should be held to account when they don’t live up to their own lip service.


Sure I hold Americans to a different standard than the "bad guys" ... YOUR OWN.

As regards the "madness" of these people, let me pinch an excerpt from this blogger I read a few days ago.


To be sure, Saddam Hussein was a brutal thug who murdered and oppressed his citizens with virtually no limits, etc. etc., but the notion that he was ever in a league with Adolph Hitler in terms of the threats he posed, the capabilities he possessed, or even the ambitions he harbored, was always transparent myth. This equivalence is even more fictitious with regard to Iran, which -- although saddled with a highly unpopular president who is clearly malignant and who uses nationalistic rhetoric to boost the morale of his base- is a country that is, in fact, ruled by a council of mullahs which has exhibited nothing but rationality and appears to be guided by nothing other than self-interest.


We were led into invading Iraq by a group of people who are as bloodthirsty as they are historically ignorant. They are stuck in a childish and stunted mental prison where every event, every conflict, every choice is to be seen exclusively through the prism of a single historical event, an event which-for a variety of reasons, some intellectual, some cultural, some psychological-is the only one that has any resonance for them. Even as we are still mired in their last failed war, they are attempting to impose these stunted historical distortions to lead us into a new one.


http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/04/16/fightingAllTheHitlers.html

We were led into invading Iraq by a group of people who are as bloodthirsty as they are historically ignorant. They are stuck in a childish and stunted mental prison where every event, every conflict, every choice is to be seen exclusively through the prism of a single historical event, an event which-for a variety of reasons, some intellectual, some cultural, some psychological-is the only one that has any resonance for them. Even as we are still mired in their last failed war, they are attempting to impose these stunted historical distortions to lead us into a new one.


Wow Brian, I expect more from you than that. I realize this is not your own post, but it is one of the most overstated, simplistic, and psuedo-intellectual comments you’ve ever pulled from one of your other blogs.


Imagine, a country so "stunted" that the historical events directly concerning them have "exclusive" (I’d say particular) resonance with (their) govt. How strange? How detached? How perfectly normal and reasonable.


Even as we are still mired in their last failed war


Is this blogger from Vietnam? Was he there? How is he still "mired" in its failure? Is is because the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union ended, and Communism is largely dead? (Not that Vietnam accomplished this, but the ideolgical war and the Cold War had these results...some failure). Or perhaps his is talking about the Gulf War. What a disgraceful loss,...tell that to the Kuwaitees, freed from Saddam’s invasion and genocide. Only they can rightly criticize the U.S. for leaving before we got rid of the tyrant.


Also, Brian, the entire statement reeks of a continentalism or (perhaps?) a nationalism that would be ideologically oppossed by nature to the type of free global community with world law and world government you discuss...unless of course the world is suppossed to bow down to the oh-so intellectual European elitists who would run it (they would have to, the U.S. is so stupid and stunted, as are the rest of the barbarians outised of our sacred EU borders, that no other choice is available). Right Brian? Ohhhh, tell us more!!!

Fred, Read the whole thing.
It’s an excellent summation of the heart of neocon foreign policy.


which distilled even further is basically :
Any head of state we don’t like is Hitler and a treat to global security (code for US interests).


Anyone not willing to make the hard decisions (code for invading/bombing/miscellanous killing) is an appeaser ala 1939.


It’s all over hyped nonsense, and it looks like the US public is finally waking up to it.

Brian, you are full of it.

Sorry to be so blunt.

Iraq was on the verge of getting the sanctions lifted, which I am going to assume you would approve of.

Iraq was already breaking the very international law that you hold so dear, even to the point of making under the table deals with the Oil for Food program.

Iraq was clearly trying to reconstitute its WMD programs.

Iraq was a full supporter of international terrorism with links to Al Qaeda, which is becoming ever more clear.

But, hey, at least he wasn’t sending people to the ovens ... right? Gassing, yes, ovens no?

Cured and Thinking: "Funny Michael Moore Groupie (Fung). Drapetomania didn’t make any of the DSM Editions. None, nada, zip. Neither will Unipartyphobthesia. One is a discredted diagnosis and the other is a mere figment of an overactive imagination."

I guess I was wrong.

Is there a gene that links conservativism to an inability to detect ironic humor?

And to further Dale’s point, economic sanctions put into place via international law violations (UN) worked great...to the effect of starving innocent people. Saddam had his money, and it was enough to satisfy his supporters, who were a minority. But let’s continue that trend and replace teeth with soft dentures.

Brian


hard for me to accept your "further distilled" foreign policy,:


Any head of state we don’t like is Hitler and a treat to global security (code for US interests).


when the title of the blog to which you point reads http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/04/16/fightingAllTheHitlers.html


Why accept one Hitler analogy over the other? I guess I’d have to look at context...hmm...alright, still not with you.


Furthermore, Brian, I believe in one of your earlier posts you expressed admiration for John Stuart Mill. I’m sure your aware of his view on culture and the possibility of a people not being ready for democracy. How would these such people fit into the global scheme? What do you do with people who reject the political foundations on which you hope to build a global government? If sanctions are the proper tool, why is it better to starve people (assuming Mill is right and the countries unprepared for democracy are largely third worlders) then to war with the tyrants who mercilessly oppress them (with no concept of equality, whatsoever, the necessary requirement for democracy).

Fred, I’ve been through all this before. I’ll try and summarise it concisely.


We need to target the individuals that are guilty of crimes against international law.


However to do
that we need international law that has real weight and substance.


To do that we need the US to take its place at the table to accept law bearing on everyone, US citizens included.


Indiscriminate killing of civilians is not the way to produce a just world. Agreed binding law is.

Fred - regarding comment 21:

"...it is never satisfying or estimable to engage in politics with tyrants. They are not deserving of its benefits.

However, politics, especially in a growing global economy, require strategy. Note, this is not a justification, but it seems to be a reasonable and pratcial move. The United States has interests...and it has bad-guy enemies and bad-guy freinds as a result."

That’s a pretty big "however" isn’t it? Big enough to pretty much negate the high-sounding lip service of your first paragraph. The practice of embracing some "bad-guy freinds" (sic) while threatening, capturing, or assassinating the "bad-guy enemies" only lends itself to severely (or wholly) compromised claims of moral motivations (military humanism), corrupted and laughably inconsistent foreign policy, further tarnishing of the status and level of respect accorded to the presidential office, and a citizenry that loses confidence in and distrusts the claims of its president. In other words, the idea that Bush & Cheney really give a rat’s ass about people around the world who lack freedom and democracy is a worn-out joke. What they really care about, if anything beyond their own power and enrichment, are their particular interpretation of the strategic interests of the U.S.

Dale/TexasDude - regarding comment 41:

"Iraq was clearly trying to reconstitute its WMD programs.

Iraq was a full supporter of international terrorism with links to Al Qaeda, which is becoming ever more clear."

What are you talking about??!!?? Are you using Dain as your primary news source these days? Sorry to burst your weather balloon (couldn’t resist!), but there were no WMDs, just a couple of weather balloon trailers parked in the desert and a half dozen false claims and wishful thinking "big finds." Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda were about as substantial as, say, Germany’s.

Craig


The practice of embracing some "bad-guy freinds" (sic) while threatening, capturing, or assassinating the "bad-guy enemies" only lends itself to severely (or wholly) compromised claims of moral motivations (military humanism), corrupted and laughably inconsistent foreign policy,


I disagree. Why are moral motivations severely or wholly compromised within the poltical context when a government embraces some "bad-guy FRIENDS" (sorry for the misspelling) in order to oppose "bad-guy enemies." Like I said before, I think that on a personal level that "it is never satisfying or estimable to engage in politics with tyrants. They are not deserving of its benefits." More than merely paying lip service to your long comment, I was agreeing with you...


However, perhaps the moral responsibility of government, especially one holding the duty to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," is different. Perhaps their concerns about justice are slightly altered due of their position of leadership. Perhaps in judging what aspects require actions, they must dance with bad men to destroy worse men, and perhaps (just perhaps) to not do so when the opportunity presents itself, would in fact be immoral (according to their aforementioned responsibilities).

For Coughlan and his fellow travellers. I believe there is a quote by Karl Von Clauswitz which goes.........(it may not be exact)..

"Do not be hasty to beat your swords into plowshares; lest you obtain a new master". Now who could these new masters be in "Eurabia"?

Coughlan, how many Abduls in Sweden?How many Mamouds in Francois? How many Mohammeds in Belgium, The Netherlands, Germania, etc,etc? Get the point?

Are you prepared to do anything? Or are you at some point in the near future preparing to place your nose in the dirt while on your knees with your posterior wiggling on high and bowing in supplication to that "shining city" in Arabia? This is not really a clash of cultures; but a war of those wanting to be free and those who spit on freedom.

Jesse Fan, General Honore coined the phrase, "stuck on stupid" and that is where Coughlan and his fellow travellers intend to stay.

Iraq was clearly trying to reconstitute its WMD programs. Comment 41 by Dale Michaud

If anyone doesn’t know what Texas Dude is talking about, go here:

http://70.169.163.24/released/03-15-06/HOT/ISGQ-2003-M0004665_TRANS.doc

Scroll down to the last 2 full paragraphs of page 5 and continue onto page 6.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is not from some right wing blog. That’s from the horseys’ own mouths.

O.K. I admit, 49 was not from my father. It was from me.

We need to target the individuals that are guilty of crimes against international law. Comment 44 by Brian Coughlan

We’ve had this conversation before, Brian, but...well here goes:

So. Here we are in the world you imagine. It’s March, 2003. We have international law that has real weight because the U.S. abides by it. After 10 years of sanctions, Saddam Hussein is still guilty of atrocious violations of international law, so you have "targeted" him.

Now what?

I believe the last time I posed this hypothetical to you, you said "blow him up!" I just learned today, that I’m ironic humor impaired, so I don’t know whether you were kidding when you said that. If you were kidding, what’s your real answer?

Ok, here’s the latest installment regarding the Bush administration’s willingness to host dictators from corrupt, basically all-around-dodgy regimes. Read the whole thing.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8389