Inside, a NY editorial titled 'Nuts!' begins with a little historical lesson explaining the cover line.
"It may be the most famous one-word sentence in American military history, and it's time to dust it off after yesterday's pronouncement from Osama bin Laden: 'Nuts!' That's how Brigadier Gen. Anthony McAuliffe responded to the Nazis when asked to surrender the town of Bastogne on December 19, 1944. Outnumbered and surrounded by Panzer tanks, McAuliffe gave his one word response to a courier."
Did you see the problem with this Victor Davis Hanson-ing? The United States isn't surrounded by superior forces, we're the world's military superpower, the one with the tanks and the "imperial grunts," and Bin Laden is a single individual holed up somewhere along the outlaw border, yet the NY Sun would have us believe we're the scrappy underdog with the never-say-die attitude.
The Editors quote George Orwell:
One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. The P.S.U.C. militiamen whom I knew in the line, the Communists from the International Brigade whom I met from time to time, never called me a Trotskyist or a traitor; they left that kind of thing to the journalists in the rear. The people who wrote pamphlets against us and vilified us in the newspapers all remained safe at home, or at worst in the newspaper offices of Valencia, hundreds of miles from the bullets and the mud. And apart from the libels of the inter-party feud, all the usual war-stuff, the tub-thumping, the heroics, the vilification of the enemyâall these were done, as usual, by people who were not fighting and who in many cases would have run a hundred miles sooner than fight. […] Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him.
I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It's about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.
- Log in to post comments
Who would she vote for, in the current Democrat lineup? Can't see anyone myself (although the point is moot as I cannot vote). PZ should have plenty of choice, though, as he loves Invertebrates...
While I don't advocate shaking his hand and giving Bin Laden a pat on the back, does anyone else think it might be worthwhile to go back and review why we are hated so much. It primarily extends to our support of corrupt and apostate regimes in the Arab world such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Oh and that pesky Israeli occupation.
With energy alternatives (new generation of breeder reactors as an example), we can finally take the feeding tube from these two bit dictatorships and watch them wither on the vine. Of course there will be problems, but remember it is quite a bit of our own making. Remember Saddam!
Mrs. Clinton is such a disappointment. I think those of us who voted for her expected her to be more like the mister, who really was a leader. I don't know where she got the idea that "demure" is a quality people like in their elected officials.
One of Bill Clinton's strongest talents was the ability to identify a nationwide consensus. (1) Hilary can only see the consensus in the Beltway, where the GOP mythology reigns. That isn't an unusual failing--much of the Washington-based Democratic party and the Washington press corps have the same problem.
But we need these people to start fighting the good fight--and they've got this crippling misconception that the whole country is in agreement with whatever crapola comes out of the RNC-- torture is okay, tax cuts are more important than anything, most people's view of sex is about what you'd expect from an especially hysterical pre-adolescent, etc.
(1) Seriously, what's Bush's? It's sure not his charm.
Almost as funny as "Nuts" were General Patton's words when he heard the message: "A man that eloquent deserves to be saved."
Problem Doran is that Osama's allies are *precisely* the sort of corrupt and apostate governments that they complain we keep supporting. Somehow I don't think Osama's solution to helping rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq after the US pulls out is to create a free press and have a more *fair* democratic election. Nope, first step will be to kill the elected, then reimpose religious fanatics as the leadership, then follow that by helping Iran attack Isreal. It might be our own making, but those with the power to complain are as bad or worse than anything we created.
Still, its amazing when you review a more detailed version of Osama's speech how he hit every single talking point of the far left verbatum... One has to wonder if he is planning terror attacks or running to be leader of the DNC. Nope, all the complaining can't possibly be helping the enemy... lol Yes, resisting the stupidity of ones leaders is reasonable, but doing so in a way that makes you look or act even stupider than they are is counter productive. All it does is let your enemies use your own arguments as ammunition to make things even worse.
As for Clinton... So, we are **should** act immediately to deal with a loud mouth country like Iran which we assume is going to build weapons, because its reasonable to fear they may do so, if given a chance, and have been known to use weapons on their neighbors.
What happens if we do the same thing there and find it they really did only want to build a power plant? After all, we have no *proof*, just speculation. I can't help but see a lot of irony in someone insisting that Iraq, where we had a lot of guesses, no actual proof, but a lot of past acts to go on is "bad", but the same situation with Iran is "good" if we do something? Huh?!?
Seriously, I do think Iran appears to be a greater problem and there is signs of real threat, but its a fine line and they have made quite clear in recent months that given the same sanctioning, or even war, as happened with Iraq, Iran figures we won't do anything effective again and they can just wait to blow everyone up later. Iran is what Iraq would have been if Saddam had build secret weapons facilities, instead of going totally bonkers and building dozens of palaces. A far more dangerous sort of unstable. So, I can sort of understand the sudden shift, but another what if, "Knowing that these people are not nuts like Saddam and do have a long term plan if we stop, but don't remove them entirely, just like with Saddam, what happens if/when they prove better than him at hiding what they are doing from inspectors?" Do we really want the whole stupid mess like Iraq all over, with Iran, only to, when the time comes to do something, have everyone say, "It is just like Iraq, lets not make the same mistake and invade this time!"?
Because if we take Iran as unseriously as Iraq and leave anyone in power in there, and this seems ***very*** likely.... We need solutions. The UN doesn't have any, the Democrats can't agree on any, when they do have them, and the Reublicans don't understand any solution that doesn't involve shooting at something. Sadly, the later often works better than everything else, not because it *is* better, but simply because dead people have a harder time screwing up what ever other solution your trying to implement. Frustrates the hell out of me.
Two thoughts on this statement:
1. It can be used to justify any sort of violence, including terrorism. If the 9/11 bombers had managed to hit the White House while GWB was there, he wouldn't be making any more trouble for him, now would he?
2. It assumes that only a relatively few, specific people are "screwing up" your solution and that killing them will not alientate any of the rest of the population. Both are dubious postulates: people have friends and relatives. Even if you* killed every person who is a member of al Qaeda today, their friends and relatives, and the friends and relatives of the innocent bystanders you kill along the way, might very well build new terrorist organizations that would be as bad or worse.
Ultimately, the only solution that is going to work is to convince the majority of people that we are reasonable human beings who they can work with in a mutually profitable way. At that point, those who still insist on using violence will be alientated from the majority and can be jailed or, if worse comes to worst, killed with relatively few negative consequences. But just going out and killing, even if it is relatively targeted killing, isn't going to convince anyone that we are good, right, or even sane.
*Meant to be the generic "you", not implying that you personally are going to go Rambo all over the Middle East...
"those who still insist on using violence will be alientated from the majority and can be jailed or, if worse comes to worst, killed with relatively few negative consequences"
You are still assuming too much. You assume violence means murder, and you assume state endorsed and/or practised murder is seen as good, right, or even sane, by the group that originated the violence and by society at large.
But at least you are pointing in the right direction.
Still, its amazing when you review a more detailed version of Osama's speech how he hit every single talking point of the far left verbatum.
Given the amount of propoganda circulating I'd not take the "words" of UBL without a tablespoon or even a pound of salt. It's not like any of us have spoken to the man directly. Besides, with a correllation like that, it's probably intentional.
Clinton is going to be crushed by Virginia's former Governor Mark Warner in 2007/2008. Or, at least I hope so. He's the only guy I think can take her and win the general. In Virginia, he sold Blue State policies (good governance, investment in the state, tax increases are necessary to pay for important infastructure needs) to a Red State... and they loved him for it. He's a centrist, not a bomb-thrower to be sure, but he's even-keeled and resolute and someone I can see pushing through the meat and potatoes issues that liberals need to return to (#1 being fixing our frightful healthcare system and moving towards some sort of universal coverage, however concieved)
Who would she vote for, in the current Democrat lineup? Can't see anyone myself (although the point is moot as I cannot vote). PZ should have plenty of choice, though, as he loves Invertebrates...
Feingold.
Still, its amazing when you review a more detailed version of Osama's speech how he hit every single talking point of the far left verbatum... One has to wonder if he is planning terror attacks or running to be leader of the DNC.
Let's reverse the situation for a second. There are some reformers in the Islamic world who support secularism, feminism, and human rights. Now, a religious conservative in Iran, where more or less everyone hates the US, might say, "It's amazing how Bush's rhetoric hits every single talking point of the decadent liberals."
In both cases, the bad person the reformers are compared to uses rhetoric he thinks will work. Bush can't say, "I want to invade Iran because it's geopolitically anti-American, and I want to make sure my Shah will last longer than the previous one." He needs the support of Congress and the American people, so he lies and says he favors human rights and civil liberties. Similarly, Bin Laden can't say, "I want to restore the Caliphate in order to make sure all the money flows to my pockets and everyone who doesn't like me get killed," because most Muslims aren't big on being robbed by totalitarian governments in the first place, even if they don't mind draconian censorship, fundamentalism, and wanton sexism, and there's no way he'll ever take over a country if the people therein realize he'll starve them.
(#1 being fixing our frightful healthcare system and moving towards some sort of universal coverage, however concieved)
"However conceived" is overly broad, considering that there are the solutions that will give the US a good health care system costing $6,000/person/year (the expanded coverage systems most American liberals promote), and solutions that will give it an equally good system costing $2,500/person/year (copying the French system). I find it saddening to see that no American who promotes public health care has talked about the fact that done properly, it saves the taxpayers $800 billion dollars per year.
I would vote for Hillary, or for almost any other democrat, over another W-style republican. The direction the country has been going the last 5 years needs to be changed.
In the primaries, no, she's not my candidate of choice.
I think the next conservative Republican is going to run on this platform:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
So will Hillary, with her "This war is a bad idea, so I'm voting for it." Kerry looks principled next to her.
The state of the Democratic Party scares the hell out of me. The current administration has provided more political opportunity than the American Revolution, yet my party still fails to provide a leader.
The Democratic Party has been so paralyzed by the opposition that it seems incapable of mounting (forget an attack), a reasonable response to the crimes of the current administration.
My Senators, Clinton and Schumer, should have raised their voices loud and clear when Bush decided to attack Iraq. So paralyzed they were, in fear of being labeled "Anti-American" or worse, "Leftists". I can forgive the pre-war vote giving the President war powers. I cannot condone the silence that followed.
I am not nearly as liberal, left-wing, whatever you want to label it, as many who comment here, but I am a firm believer that less government leads to more personal freedoms. (Bush has proven over and over, that I am right.)
I do know the simple facts: the terrorists who destroyed a part of the city I grew up in, were not supported by Saddam. They were not even permitted into his country. I cheered when we went into Afgahnastan. I vomited when we went into Iraq, (and am still flabbergasted by those who fail to see the difference) ....and still, my Senators stand mute.
Alon:
I think Feingold is an interesting choice, but I mistakenly read it as "Feinstein". Did I read what I wanted to see?
I think Feingold is an interesting choice, but I mistakenly read it as "Feinstein". Did I read what I wanted to see?
You're not the only one. My dad kept harping about how Feinstein was the lone nay vote on some important bill, till I explained to him she was a Republicrat and he was thinking of Feingold and the Patriot Act.
"You assume violence means murder, and you assume state endorsed and/or practised murder is seen as good, right, or even sane, by the group that originated the violence and by society at large"
Actually, it's worse than that. What I was really doing was trying to placate the right wingers who like to accuse liberals of wanting to treat terrorists to tea or therapy or giving them what they want instead of "fighting terrorism". Actually, if an effective therapy for violence existed, I'd be all for it as an alternative to state violence or coersion. Lacking such, though, and given that people will behave badly, I'm afraid that I still favor the existence of such things as prisons. I also acknowledge that it can happen that people will fight to the death rather than allowing themselves to be arrested. In such a situation, I see violence by the police in self-defense as allowable. I don't accept state supported violence as necessary in any other situation besides self-defense, though. So I don't support either of the recent invasions by the US, although I find the Afghanistan invasion slightly less egregious than the Iraqi one.