Another person notices the problem (and minimizes the damage done by the present administration), but fails to offer even the slightest suggestion on how to address it.

People like Chalmers Johnson have devoted whole books to how our society has become too militarized, but also come up short on remedies.

Let's take it as given, the military is too big, it controls too many congress people, the military contractors have too much influence, and too many people earn a living from this system.

Now what?

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

We do need to revive the separation of powers. We need a Congress that fulfills its constitutional responsibilties. But the corruption, fecklessness, and deference that we see in the present Congress did not come out of nowhere. The problem is a long time brewing. Democrats are no less at fault than Republicans.

How, exactly, are Democrats to blame, even in part for the rubber stamp Republicans who control the Congress? I'm sorry but this is just nonsensical.

I would also challenge your contention that this administration has no priciples. If you say it about Bush, fine; woolly-minded religiose delusions combined with an almost pathological sense of entitltement are not a principle. But those around him--Cheney and Rove especially--do have strict principles: The Imperial Presidency, strong Presidency, Unitary Executive, call it what you will, for Cheney, and a permanent (or at least generational) one party majority--which makes the Unitary Executive 'safe' in their fevered minds--for Rove. One feeds into the other, and makes that rubberstamp congress a necessity for both of those fascist thugs (both terms used advisedly).

Also, Clinton may have been too quick to fire rockets and guns, but it doesn't even begin to compare with Bush's obsession--and most of the GOP's from what I can see--with militarism, including playing dress up (which must poll really badly, cause you know he'd love to pull another USS Lincoln if Rove thought he could get away with it). Bush's militarism, in turn, would pale in comparison to a President McCain's fantasies about a simplistic (reductio ad absurdum, is the phrase?) Teddy Rooseveltish foreign policy. I think a McCain presidency would be an unmitigated, possibly irreperaable, disaster for this country and the whole world.

I agree in principle. The problem is there will be no checks and balances until the Republicans lose thier monopoly on federal power. Both sides have supported militarism and indulged in corruption, but we now have a one-party machine that operates without effective oversight. This wasn't true of the Clinton Administration. Democrats have to get their foot in the door for things to change. That's why it makes sense, for now, to focus on the sins of Bush and his cronies.

Well, Reagan wallowed in blood. Before him, Nixon in Vietnam and Indonesia, before that Johnson, before that Kennedy, etc.

In the last half century I think only Ford declined to use military force overseas. After him, Carter held out, but went for it at the end.

Re; Well, Reagan wallowed in blood.

Ronald Reagan indulged himself in some trivial little police action in Grenada and, of course, put our Marines in harms; way in Lebanon. Thats' hardly "wallowing in blood". Reagan loved to rattle sabers, but he was mostly talk and bluster with no action. And compared to King Bush II, Reagan was a foreign policy genius. Heck, even Jimmy Carter looks inspired.

Reagan wallowed in blood in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq and Angola. I suspect also in Peru and Mozambique. A disgusting man but yes, a genius compared to GWB.

I like your rhetoric, but let's step back and give Bacevich the benefit of the doubt -- for a moment, only.

Suppose instead of assuming he's arguing "Clinton did it too," we assume he's arguing that a military-corporatist political culture necessarily (by some internal political logic) leads to the exercise of its war making capabilities.  And that while this militaristic culture and the Republican party are symbiotic, that culture "infects" the Democratic Party, as well.

If true, the tendency of many members of this forum to become all aroused picturing those sweaty, bronzed-bodied manly warriors and to vigorously defend them and their militaristic values may not be in the country's ultimate best interest.

El Salvador, 75,000 dead. Nicaragua 150,000 dead. Guatemala, 250,000 dead. Honduras, 40,000 dead. Nuns raped, corpses violated, entire villages wiped out, teachers and journalists slaughtered, archbishops assassinated in churches. An endless, endless bloodbath, 95% of it inflicted not by rebels but by Reagan's well funded latin american death squads. Reagan cheering these fuckers on and calling them 'founding fathers.' Well, none of the American founding fathers ever put on a black hood and eviscerated a pregnant mother in front of her children, none of them ever picked up a baby by the leg so they could splash its head open like a watermelon against a brick wall.

Or for that matter playing footsies with Saddam Hussein, giving cover for chemical weapons attacks, and later on playing both sides in the nastiest war in the middle east since 1914. Oh yeah, other men tried to be peacemakers, but here was a guy who delighted in throwing gasoline on that fire. Did he do the right thing? Well there's 800,000 corpses to say 'thank you for your meddling Mr. Reagan, maybe half of us would have been alive if you'd minded your own business or tried to do something decent.

Let's ignore Columbia, Lebanon, Libya, the rest of Latin America.

Reagan wallowed in blood.

None of which involved US forces, only unpleasant indigenous civil wars*, so I stand by my assertion that the only US actions under Reagan's presidency were minor tussles.
But I guess facts, as usual, do not matter to True Believers of either the Left or Right.

* No one blames France and England for cheering on the slaveocrats of the CSA in 1861-65, so why blame the US for cheerng for the "wrong" side in these conflicts?

You mean George "El Presidente" Bush and his junta?  They could put any Central American military dictator to shame in terms of abusing their power.  Since 1980 we have only had 8 years of non-republican appointees to the federal bench.  I don't know if we haven't already passed the point of no return.  The dems seem to favor the rights of the people more then a more authoritarian republican party which seems to prefer expanding the police powers and diminishing the average American's civil liberties.  And once police powers usurps civil liberties, our government ceases to be accountable to the people and it ceases to be our government.

So safe to say I fully support the dems...I hope they can get the reins of power back and return some sanity to our government.  We need to get the power abusing republican dictatorship removed as soon as possible.

Anti-war conservative? Why don't you just say that you won't support Israel and get it over with, you Jew hating creep?

Indonesia and Azerbajan, bitches!

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003

This needs a line-by-line response to make clear how profoundly I disagree with some of your arguments: 

1. Genuine radicalism implies a commitment to principles.

[The 2002 National Security Strategy represented radicalism in spades. It was a Neocon wetdream, written by self-described revolutionaries - Richard Perle's description.]

The members of the Bush administration have few.

[They might not all have the same principles - and George Bush is singularly unable to manage the competing influences - but they do have them, and they find their way into some of the most insidious policy documents ever to see the light of day. Think John Yoo and his torture manifesto.]

Better to describe administration policies as reckless, incompetent, and cynical rather than radical.

[No. The unmanaged radicalism of the Neocons, the religious fundamentalists, the military-industrialists, and the Norquist faction has resulted in a frankenstein administration, that is reckless and cynical, but above all else, dangerous.]

Evidence of recklessness and incompetence exists in abundance -- no need to rehearse that.

[Yes.]

From a conservative's perspective, the cynicism is equally disturbing. On issues ostensibly central to the conservative worldview -- for example, those related to the culture war or to the capacity of government to affect change -- this administration has shamelessly manipulated its supporters without producing meaningful results.

[Come on. Politicians... Cynical? Manipulative? Who'd have thought it.]

Regardless of where one stands on questions like abortion or gay marriage, these are matters of profound importance that deserve thoughtful debate and consideration. The administration has behaved in ways that are the polar opposite of thoughtful. It has postured and whipped up opinion for partisan advantage. That's not radicalism. It's merely cheap and tawdry politics.

[I agree cheap politicking isn't new, but the Rovian variety centers on a type of religious populism. So your argument really depends on whether you think the Christian fundamentalist agenda is radical.]

2. Although certain specific actions by this administration may seem uniquely reprehensible -- the Iraq War and the doctrine of preventive war spring to mind -- we should not overlook the extent to which the Bushies are merely building on precedents set by prior administrations.

[This is imprecise language. I hope it isn't deliberate. The issue is not "preventive war"; it is "pre-emptive war". There is a massive - and massively important - distinction between the two concepts. The former has long been a tenet of American foreign policy; the latter arrived in the 2002 National Security Strategy. The latter significantly lowered the bar for going to war, and it set the most terrible precedent.]

The over-emphasis on military force provides one example. For my money, the record of the Clinton administration in that regard is only slightly better. The enforcement of the no-fly zones over Iraq -- which saw the US launching a couple of thousand air strikes between Dec 1998 and Jan 2001 -- may well be the most pointless operation in the annals of US military history.

[Shorter Bacevich: the effective containment of Saddam Hussein was basically pointless. Shorter me: Holy cow.]

And let's not forget the storied attack in the pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum or the botched effort to take out Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Clinton used force frequently and imprudently.

["Frequently"? - By what measure? "Imprudently"? - As in ineffectively? Well I'd beg to differ. On balance, when you look at the times Clinton did use military force, the results were generally quite favorable.]

The point: if US policy today is overmilitarized -- as it surely is -- you can't blame the problem entirely on the Republicans. The problem -- alas -- is a bipartisan one.

[Here, I would initially agree. Both parties grant the Pentagon an outsized budget to avoid the accusation of being weak on defense. But I would argue the litmus test for the President is how the military is used, rather than how it is funded.]

3. Something similar can be said about the resurgence of the "imperial presidency." Somehow it's always the party out of power that complains about this problem -- once they're back in charge such concerns seem to vanish.

[Up to a point. The Nixon alumni in the Bush administration should surely give you pause to think about how much more serious the "imperial" charge is these days.]

We do need to revive the separation of powers. We need a Congress that fulfills its constitutional responsibilties. But the corruption, fecklessness, and deference that we see in the present Congress did not come out of nowhere. The problem is a long time brewing. Democrats are no less at fault than Republicans.

[To a point. I would agree that there are too many "foxhole Democrats", too few who have been willing to stand up to the President. But there is a world of difference between ineffectively opposing Bush, and actively enabling him.]

I'm happy to throw stones at the Bushies. But those who think that merely throwing the rascals out will remedy our problems are deluding themselves.

[Well clearly. But allow me to rework an old joke... Q: What would you call 100 Bush officials and appointees at the bottom of the the ocean? A: A good start.]

heh heh 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Bacevich's use of "preventive" war is square on. You have confused the definitions of "preemptive" and "preventive" war.

The US had a policy of "preemptive" war during the Cold War and still does. If we learn that an enemy is initiating an attack upon us - fueling missiles, warming up tanks, having enemy troops assume assault jumpoff positions right on our border - then the US plan would be to respond before the enemy can actually physically attack. We had the same policy in place during the run-up to WW2 and would have attacked those Japanese carriers which attacked Pearl Harbor if they had been detected prior to their launch. They were in a no go zone and knew they were subject to attack.

A "preventive" war is one in which you attack a potential enemy because you fear they might attack you sometime in the future, even though you have no idea of when or how that attack might come. Dubya's launching the Iraq War was precisely that - he had no idea of when or how Saddam Hussein was supposed to attack us in the future. Preventive war is the preferred war of failing powers - think Germany in 1914 or a less benign Soviet leadership in 1989. It usually represents fear's ascendancy in the ruling elites of a nation or entity, because the resulting war typically costs far more than accepting the trend foreseen. Of course, the ruling elites don't pay the cost.

Although your analysis may well be valid in many cases, I would show the same respect to Karen Kwiatowski as I showed to Anthony Bacevich, if her authorship was to appear on this site, preferring not to give the bird to a bird.

We do need to revive the separation of powers. We need a Congress that fulfills its constitutional responsibilities. But the corruption, fecklessness, and deference that we see in the present Congress did not come out of nowhere. The problem is a long time brewing. Democrats are no less at fault than Republicans

It is true that the Democratic control of Congress for 40 years was problematic if not corrupt; however the recent Republican control, its corruption and the potential for another 40 years of this is more than troubling.

I am very concerned about the ideological approach exercised by the Republican party, its undisputed skill in the electoral process.  The plan as I understand it is to completely undo the New Deal, The Fair Deal,  The Nixon administration's "negative income tax", The War on Poverty and so forth.

Congress passes laws they do not read, do not understand, with out public discussions in most cases, by omnibus or stealth bills and in accordance with their respective party whips exhortations. 

My eyes glaze over when I contemplate the issue of statewide electoral statutes that are at the root of the Congressional one-party dominance.  State parties generate laws to benefit themselves not the voter.  Reform has to start there.

Militarism.

In every case, from Carter to Clinton, and especially for the "peace-tainted" liberals such as Carter and Clinton, the use of military force was a sop to the red-meat faction of the public who insist on seeing blood and dead enemies as a sign of national strength. Even now, or perhaps especially now, conservatives goad liberals for being weak on terror, anti-war cut and runners, castrated wimps. This resonates with voters, and even more importantly, it resonates with liberal candidates. Every single one of them is trying to figure out how to appear strong to voters, calibrating how much red meat is enough.

But this public embrace of war and military strength, the public blood lust, while all too human (and that's what makes it so easy for Republicans to exploit and whip up), is a terrible mistake as well as an admission of weakness. If we were truly strong as a society, we would hold violence as a very last resort, used judiciously and only in defense, not as punishment. And if we looked beyond our bloody needs, we'd see that war is bad diplomacy, a really bad way to get people to do what you want.

As for what's happening in Iraq, my most fervent wish is that America finally sees how war, aside from its moral and economic damages, just doesn't work as a means to achieving some kind of political or diplomatic end. Iraq is a perfect example of the utter depravity of militarism.

There is a better way, and it has to do with supporting the good in people rather than always seeking to eradicate, obliterate, the bad.
Smart bombs are dumb!

Ted Bucklin

It is a more general phenomenon than militarism, as it can be seen in the support of the death penalty and one of the highest incarceration rate anywhere, public unconcern about appaling conditions in prison or the quality of defence of indigenous defendant. Someone was guilty so someone would better be senteced seems to be the reasoning, or at least the indigent tend to be guilty of something else -- wasn't it similar to the case against Saddam?

My impression is that even in liberal states the public would agree with policies as harsh as in the conservative states (and sometimes they are nearly as harsh), except for a certain propensity to vote for candidates who sound civilized.

Now that public seems to be weaned from the war fever, I wonder if it would generalize to a wider change of outlook.

a defence of anti-war conservatism: when you compare them with the more ordinary variety, it is a bit like Shia and Sunni -- two rather distinct and mutually hostile populations. Shia are epmphatically not in power in Saudi Arabia, and Sunni are emphatically not in power in Iran. Anti-war conservatives are emphatically not in power here.

There is a certain group of conservatives who shifted alliegance over the years, and the differences were perhaps not as stark, but in general, "anti-war" conservatives cannot be implicated in saddling us with excessively free trade, overly broad worldwide military presence, too many illegal immigrants etc. It is a separate question who is the "true conservative", and it reminds me divisions, in a different time and place, between "true socialism" and "real socialism". Ordinarily, when the folks are in power they do not have to call themselves "the true ones".

Uzbekispin-never.

Izfornospinwar!

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003

I can get along with making love, not war, most of the time.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I agree Somalia was complex. Still, there were errors both at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels in OPERATION GOTHIC SERPENT, the specific operation associated with Blackhawk Down, which is highly regarded by every professional soldier I've known who has read it. Mission creep had come in from the UN side, in what the UN termed UNISOM II.

Still, SecDef Aspin turned down the support asked (AC-130 gunships and a small armored unit) for by the commander on the scene. Just as I disapproved of Reagan sticking Marines as sitting ducks in Beirut, with 241 dead, I disapproved of problems up and down the chain of command in Mogadishu, with 18 dead. To me, it's very simple. If you commit Americans to combat, you support the troops, which isn't the same as supporting the policy. If you don't have the resources to give the people involved, and the survival of the US is not involved, you don't accept the mission.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

As far as I can reconstruct the dinosaur from the toe bones alone, there is a certain bi-partisan sense of American national interest that says that we must be able to issue credible ultimatums, and to make it so, the disobeying parties must be driven out of power etc.

1. US aims:

70%--To avoid a humiliating US defeat (to our reputation as a guarantor).

20%--To keep SVN (and then adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.

10%--To permit the people of SVN to enjoy a better, freer way of life. Also-To emerge from crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used. Not--To "help a friend," although it would be hard to stay if asked out.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The plan as I understand it is to completely undo the New Deal, The Fair Deal, The Nixon administration's "negative income tax", The War on Poverty and so forth.

That's right and about f*cking time. The US began its slow slide into Third Worldism when it intitiated those programs because they created an ever growing dependency class that will NEVER stand on its own two feet.

You lib pricks that think they should be kept are not altruists. All you are concerned with is maintaining a voting bloc of helpless individuals.

Workerbee, you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud. You keep making references to your great parenting skills but you feed your daughter fried pork for breakfast, by your own admission.

You're a joke.

You really are becoming quite the bore, Freddy--lighten up, son.

Why not let go of all that fear & hatred you constantly carry around with you?

You just might be pleasantly surprised, Freddy. For starters, you'll find that you don't repel nearly as many people as you do now...and as they won't be avoiding you like the plague, you'll have an opportunity to practice things like common courtesy & basic civility.

A win/win situation, Fred!

:-)

Maybe it's not that he's a Muslim, workerbee...instead, maybe it's cuz he cringes at the thought of eating his own (cannibalism).

Hee hee hee...

/;-)

(that was justa joke, Freddy--calm down)

Doesn't your daughter also take her meds before school, workerbee? Anyone with half a brain knows you shouldn't take meds on an empty stomach--

And btw--you're a true diplomat, workerbee--I don't see how he can possibly "squeal" about sausage--

LOL!

/;-)

I am a realist, sweetie. What a shame that the bitter realities of life elude your view.

Actually, we do. You certainly have a point, Freddie old chap. A good (or mad) hatter should be able to fix that problem.

`Really, now you ask me,' said Alice, Fred, very much confused, `I don't think--' `

Then you shouldn't talk,' said the Hatter.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Andrew Bacevich:

Thanks for your perspective as an anti-war conservative.

Like you I am an outsider here, but in my case a pro-war radical leftist.

Here's some quick notes on your perspective.

First, one point of substantial agreement:

From a conservative's perspective, the cynicism is equally disturbing. On issues ostensibly central to the conservative worldview -- for example, those related to the culture war or to the capacity of government to affect change -- this administration has shamelessly manipulated its supporters without producing meaningful results.

Regardless of where one stands on questions like abortion or gay marriage, these are matters of profound importance that deserve thoughtful debate and consideration. The administration has behaved in ways that are the polar opposite of thoughtful. It has postured and whipped up opinion for partisan advantage. That's not radicalism. It's merely cheap and tawdry politics.

From my perspective it is part of the job description of politicians to manipulate their own supporters without producing meaningful results.

I agree that Bush has done that to the conservative Republican base, pandering to their worldview with posturing about a "culture war", abortion and gays etc for purely cynical reasons, denouncing "Big Government" while in fact expanding the role of government faster than any overt liberal could and so on.

What's interesting about Bush's cynicism is that he has been quite successful in manipulating his opponents as well as supporters.

A typical liberal President like Clinton or Kennedy would be despised by conservatives while successfully giving their own supporters a warm inner glow that they are really trying to deliver and that it is obstruction by their opponents that prevents them actually delivering much of what their supporters want.

Most of the liberals posting at this site seem to be genuinely outraged about Bush's conservative posturing. The extravagent hyperbole about a Christian fundamentalist/fascist regime that would make abortions and gay sex illegal, introduce clericalism instead of a secular state abolish social welfare etc, often sounds like just a "nutty fringe" but I think it actually reflects, a quite successful con job that really has been convincing to liberals.

The main function of that seems to be that by mobilizing liberals to a passionate frenzy of denunciation it convinces conservatives that Bush really must be doing something for them, despite all evidence to the contrary.

This cheap and tawdry politics is certainly cynicism rather than either conservativism or radicalism.

The result has been that conservatives have been effectively demobilized, by their own confusion. This is naturally more problematic for you as a conservative than it is for me.

Your other two points about excessive use of force and an imperial presidency emphasise continuity between the Bush administration and its predecessors.

From my perspective the continuity is in the conservative backlash against policies that are the necessary result of the decline of the US as the "last superpower".

Conservatives have historically been happy to support imperialist overt and covert wars waged by an imperial presidency against national liberation movements in the third world. They accepted such wars as part of the cost of maintaining "stability" - a principle dear to conservatives.

On the other hand conservatives were far more inclined towards isolationism in the period leading up to the war against fascism and are likewise, and equally naturally, hostile to waging a revolutionary war for democracy in the Middle East.

Today, since Vietnam, the US simply doesn't have the capability to intervene decisively against national liberation movements. The lesson conservatives draw from Vietnam is that attempts to maintain the empire by force are dangerous and likely to fail.

Bush pandered to conservatives by presenting the invasion of Iraq as a preventative measure necessary to defend against potential WMD threats.

If instead he had explained that the intention was to reverse the results of six decades of upholding "stability" to delay progress in the Middle East there would have been no possibility of conservative support and the war would have been blocked by Congress.

Many conservatives saw through the lies and opposed the war from the start, and consequently opposed the "imperial presidency" that launched it by lying to Congress and the public, in much the same way that they opposed FDR's policy committing the US to eventual war with Japan while pretending to comply with the Neutrality Acts.

Now more and more conservatives are seeing through the lies and naturally opposing a war which is totally alien to the principles that governed conservative US foreign policy for decades. They are outraged about having been cynically lied to by an imperial presidency.

Liberals who are still conned by Bush's pandering to conservatives are even more outraged so there is pretty broad hostility to neocon policies, including opposition from the overwhelming majority of the US foreign policy establishment - not just self-described conservatives such as yourself, but the large majority of other members of such bodies as the Council on Foreign Relations.

The problem that conservatives face is fairly similar to the problem faced by liberals posting here. You are simply irrelevant because the world has changed.

The conservative and liberal policies of previous administrations led to a disasterously stagnant swamp in the Middle East breeding terrorists.

Very different policies are required to deal with that.

Such changes are indeed radical - as radical as Lincoln issuing the emancipation proclamation when he was supposed to be just restoring the old status quo of the Union with slavery still intact in the South.

That radical change in direction was opposed by most of the Congress, Supreme Court etc. The US never came closer to outright dictatorship than under Lincoln (though some of the hype about FDR was similarly extravagent).

The fundamental mistake conservatives are making lies in thinking that the old status quo was sustainable. The problems and difficulties arising from the collapse of that status quo are being blamed on the radical changes in policy rather than understanding that the collapse in the old status quo is what required radical changes in policy.

Both Liberals and Conservatives actually imagine the US was widely respected for its benevolence throughout the world until Bush brought the US into disrepute. The difficulties now being faced are consequently blamed on Bush rather than recognizing that the policies you complacently supported before were in fact disasterous and blew up in your faces with 9/11.

The Carter and Reagan administrations actually financed Al Queda to the tune of a billion dollars and encouraged the Saudis to fork out another billion. But Bush is crazy and incompetent for spending trillions to undo the damage!

Anti-war liberals allied with anti-war conservatives are making a closely related mistake. They simply cannot imagine that the old policies are being reversed, so not establishing a puppet pro-US regime from intervening in Iraq is seen as a disasterous failure rather than the only possible outcome of a necessary decision to destabilize the region.

Conservatives and liberals are able to agree on how uniquely reprehensible, reckless and incompetent it was for the Bush administration to try to rule Iraq because they simply haven't grasped that this never was, and indeed never could be, what it is trying to do.

The US began its slow slide into Third Worldism when it intitiated those programs because they created an ever growing dependency class that will NEVER stand on its own two feet.

And we all saw the GOP vision of self dependency in NOLA didn't we?  What you speak of is conservative racist speak for "let the poor dark skinned people die". 

So taking you at your word (which is giving you credit you probably in no way deserve), how would you propose that people who have been disenfranchised and have very little stand on their own two feet?  And if they can't, then what...they deserve to die? 

Hey sweet cheeks....

Honey... Honey... I have your creep hanging over here...

Arthur Dent:

Thank you for that exhaustive (and exhausting) post. While there are in it some things I agree with and some things I don't necessarily disagree with, there are a few points, that as a misguided liberal, I would take issue with.

The extravagent hyperbole about a Christian fundamentalist/fascist regime that would make abortions and gay sex illegal, introduce clericalism instead of a secular state abolish social welfare etc, often sounds like just a "nutty fringe" but I think it actually reflects, a quite successful con job that really has been convincing to liberals.

Now, pardon my penchant for extravagent hyperbole but I was always brought up to believe that when good men stay silent, evil is allowed to flourish

On the other hand conservatives were far more inclined towards isolationism in the period leading up to the war against fascism and are likewise, and equally naturally, hostile to waging a revolutionary war for democracy in the Middle East.

Again, pardon my genetically pre-disposed predeliction for pettness. but I seem to remember prominent conservatives like Bill Kristol and William Safire, sitting in round table discussions, talking so supportively and excitedly about this coming transformation in the Middle East that they might as well have been giving each other hand jobs under the table.

The conservative and liberal policies of previous administrations led to a disasterously stagnant swamp in the Middle East breeding terrorists.

Granted, but since I cut my adolescent political teeth on the Reagan Administration; as a teenager, I don't ever remember conservatives complaining about the liberal 'realpolitik' policies that were propping up despotic regimes all over the Middle East

Both Liberals and Conservatives actually imagine the US was widely respected for its benevolence throughout the world until Bush brought the US into disrepute.

Umm...I travelled all around Latin America in the twilight years of the same Reagan Administration. I took to telling people I was Canadian because I was alarmed at the hostility directed towards me when I introduced myself as American. I think that's when that whole 'American in disguise' trend started.

The difficulties now being faced are consequently blamed on Bush rather than recognizing that the policies you complacently supported before were in fact disasterous and blew up in your faces with 9/11.

Now this I would agree with except that I would argue that most people were just plain 'complacent' and not explicitly 'complacently supporting' these policies.

The Carter and Reagan administrations actually financed Al Queda to the tune of a billion dollars and encouraged the Saudis to fork out another billion.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, and others here have pointed this out much more extensively than I'm prepared to (due to 'time compression'; shout out to 'workerbee') but as far as I know, Al Qaida was not spawned as an entity until the '90's.

Sorry, but that statement makes about as much sense as claiming that the Wilson and Coolidge Administrations funded the Nazi Party.

Such changes are indeed radical - as radical as Lincoln issuing the emancipation proclamation when he was supposed to be just restoring the old status quo of the Union with slavery still intact in the South. That radical change in direction was opposed by most of the Congress, Supreme Court etc. The US never came closer to outright dictatorship than under Lincoln (though some of the hype about FDR was similarly extravagent).

Yes, and on a more minor point, I remember reading that when Lincoln suspended writ of habius corpus when Congress was out of session, right after Congress re-convened, he went humbly to ask them to approve what he had done and received that approval.

And I'm sorry if my commentary was a bit sarcastic Mr. Dent, but with a 'pro-war radical leftist' like you advocating our cause, who needs enemies?

In the US I'd have to do research which you could do yourself to make a list but some I can without much effort include Pat Buchanan, Owen Harries, Scott Ritter, US Catholic Bishops statement, Robert Novak, Lew Rockwell, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Scott McConnell, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, Jude Wanniski, Eric Margolis, and Taki Theodoracopulos.

yes, and they're all all anti-Israeli Jew hating scum. especially the Catholic bishops.

BTW, any Jews on the list, such as Eric Margolis, are self-haters. There are PLENTY of self-hating leftist Jews in the world.

Did you say that you were a specialist in scum? Here's a load of scum for ya'...

Ooh, did somebody learn all about the html bold tag tonight?

Demonising persons who hold differing political views as a means of advancing ad hominem attacks offers direct evidence of your own irrelevance.

Care should always be taken categorising things. When the labelling choices have been simplified down to a black and white binary, its validity should be questioned. Especially in times of extreme flux as the present.

I noticed that Arthur Dent categorised Raimondo as conservative, when he has for several years now self-identified as libertarian, and since that time his published work has evolved to its present-day manifestation of this. He expresses positions many would consider to be left-sided if they had to be coded either left or right. Theodoracopulos was also noted, but he has now publicly renounced his conservatism, and would probably consider the label to be defamatory.

18,000 Lebanese lost their lives when Israel attacked that miserable country in 1982, but Americans wonder why there are so many people who would spend six years building tunnels or sending suicide bombers. “We do not talk with terrorists” is the Bush mantra. He keeps repeating it like those mechanical monkeys who say “Howdy” one buys for children at a zoo. The collective punishment dealt out by Israel against innocents in Lebanon is bound to have repercussions. Netanyahu was and always will be a thug. The neocons ditto. The global loathing for the United States and Britain has helped corrupt the minds of a generation of young Muslims. Nightly scenes of slaughter and devastation on their television screens rouse them to blind bitterness against those they hold responsible—Uncle Sam and Israel. Is there no one to knock some sense into the morons who have turned us all into pariahs? This is America’s nadir.

Ask Larry Johnson if he self-identifies as a 'liberal' sometime. Let me know his answer if you do, as I am curious.

I would be amazed if Scott Ritter called himself a 'conservative' after the public flogging he endured for possessing the temerity to stand and speak about the pre Iraq war deceptions of the Bush Admin.

Chirac's political party is considered to be right-center in France. How many Americans who call themselves conservative do you think even are aware of this?

US Catholic Bishops are now labelled 'conservative'? That's news to many pundits in America. It amuses me, since they have tended to express views about immigration reforms many members in their own parishes define as too liberal. They also have often opposed steep curtailments of government funded social programs.

The revisionary categorisation of Novak as 'antiwar' did not originate with Dent, but is an extreme stretch of reality. We're talking about the guy who rolled the Ambassador's wife, and who has often dismissed Bush dissenters out of hand as Bush haters. Novak should be labelled as a situationalist watching for which way the wind blows.

I am aware of a few non_trolling active members of TPM who would not accept the liberal classification. I suspect there are several more. For the record, I refuse to accept either label, they are much too context laden, and imply political positions across the whole spectrum. Why would i willingly choose to play tug of war in the filthy mud of the flatworlders' reality? This narrow view is responsible for the two-party stranglehold on the American Government. Cycle after cycle Americans are forced to make an electoral decision that boils down to which is not as evil as s/he. We have watched while this process has led to the strip-mining of our collective soul, by a government well-defined as a slatternly mediocrisy, and we have acquiesced. Recently, we simply accepted the impropriety of the very same committees which were responsible for the oversight of our intelligence agencies being in charge of the investigations into the source of intelligence failures. This is absurd. I can't recall many members who were honest enough to look into the mirror and admit they had come face to face with the cause. Tjhe committee should be renamed "The Joint Committee of Selective Intelligence", and we should be asking just how big are the spliffs that our politicians have been smoking?

Arthur Dent has often differentiated between what he calls "real left" and other variants in TPM Cafe threads. Maybe this list of his would be better viewed as insight into his own motivations, rather than any real codification of anti-war conservatives.

If you don't like it, f*ck off. Don't read it if it doesn't comport to your snobby tea and scones approach of debating politics. I view debating politics like a street brawl. Either you or I are going to be knifed with invective and inhumanity.

But Fred, we aren't debating you. We are laughing at you, with your "view" coming across like a caricature of a Mel Brooks character. His "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" must make you nervous, as you give some evidence that you had an overzealous mohel.

Ummm...how shall I put this...do you really think anyone is afraid of you coming through the screen with a knife?

Incidentally, since you seem hesitant to use the epithet, f*ck actually stands for "fuck". To use the Army expression, a senior NCO would describe you as "the fucking fucker that's fucked up."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It is an act of cowardice to not hate?

It seems to me that the converse is a much more likely truism.

Liberals are often hand-wringers, liberals can be sickeningly syrupry with sympathy, but both of these traits imply thoughtful introspection, and an inherent desire to do the right thing, and this is eminently preferable to barking heads, which have been trained by pavlovian political hacks to reflectively gnash their teeth and salivate profusely whenever they hear preprogrammed stop words.

 Not one of your posts i have seen has represented anything vaguely resembling original thought or creativity.  It must be tough struggling though life mentally blinded, and dependent upon others' inner visions for you rown validation of personal worth.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, and others here have pointed this out much more extensively than I'm prepared to (due to 'time compression'; shout out to 'workerbee') but as far as I know, Al Qaida was not spawned as an entity until the '90's.

Half-Truth Refuted with Distortion of Truth

If al Qaeda's founding members were all at one time prior to the creation date of The Base:

1. Arab Afghan Freedom Fighters
2. Recipients of education from the Pakistnai Military's Intelligence (ISI) which had been covertly funded with US money
3. Users of American made or provided weaponry in the fight against the Soviet

is the allegation or the denial more truthful?

Read this:

• Michael Moran, "Bin Laden comes home to roost: His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story", MSNBC News, Aug. 24, 1998

and when finished, could you possibly explain to me why Orrin Hatch is even allowed to be present on the Hill at the same time the Intelligence Committee meets? It's far worse, as he is a member of the committee.  It hard to believe he can even stand the ordeal of shaving in the morning with that rampant intelligence failure staring back at him in the mirror.

Then read this:

• Chalmers Johnson, "The Consequences Of Our Actions Abroad: Americans Feeling the Effects of 'Blowback'", Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2000 (Common Dreams hosted)

Note that both were published pre-911.

If you don't like it, f*ck off. Don't read it if it doesn't comport to your snobby tea and scones approach of debating politics. I view debating politics like a street brawl. Either you or I are going to be knifed with invective and inhumanity.

Fred!

:-)

Good morning, sunshine!

{hugs}

Don't get your play clothes all covered with blood & gore when you go out on your morning knife-fest, sweetie...

Maybe later you can tell us how many of the scary-thought people you had to disembowel.

Now run along and go play murder--but watch for cars!

:-)

But Fred, we aren't debating you. We are laughing at you,

Again, your complete inability to define a role for yourself that's independent of the other lib scumbags at TPM shows. I read a lot of "we" at this blog like you're members of some secret society. It's a joke.

Grow a pair and stand alone for a change. Tell some one you may disagree with to "fuck off" if they don't like what you have to say. Like Dennis Valdron has, tell them that their mother is a whore that fucks blacks and hispanics for a living and that semen drips out of her asshole.

After all, if Dennis Valdron can say it, it must be OK with everyone else, right?

Tell the truth, now.

I despise lib scumbags and enjoy bashing them over and over and over and over .....

But you're not, Fred--perhaps, in your own mind, that's how you perceive things, but we only see someone teetering on the edge, ranting & frothing like a rabid dog.

PseudoCyAnts,

I'm a little confused as to whether it's my remark our Mr. Dent's original comment you're taking issue with. I've been aware for years that Bin Laden was 'our guy' during the Russian/Afgan war period (kinda like Saddam Hussein was 'our guy' during that same period) I'm not sure I distorted the truth in my comment. I was taking the lead from some of 'workerbee's posts where she pointed the inherent problems with claims like the one Mr. Dent made far better than I could.

As Valdrom was merely trying to draw your fire after your utterly rude, off-topic and nonsensical posts directed at me, I think most here would see his posts as something approaching chivalry. It worked, too.

I think Valdron really got your goat and that's why you're still here. You wanted to be the baddest bad ass poster on the block, but Valdron took even that dubious honor away from you.

Awwwwwwwww....

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

artappraiser,

Thanks for the link. Good article. And absolutely, God knows what a saner, more peaceful world we'd be living in if women held the reigns of power. ("peut etre Madame Thatcher")

I don't need help defending myself against nonsense. No one does.

I merely pointed out what Valdron did and how it worked a treat. You still can't stop talking about him. I think people like you resent people that best them continuously. Look at how low you've fallen into the gutter and been reduced to spluttering petty ad hominems and contradicting yourself on a regular basis.

Everyone can google Valdron's words and see an idiot named Fred making an ass out of itself. That is quite amusing, actually.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

OGD,

Great link! Perfect! And like I keep telling others posters in here, "just keep telling it that it has to put the lotion on it's skin!"

I would be amazed if Scott Ritter called himself a 'conservative' after the public flogging he endured for possessing the temerity to stand and speak about the pre Iraq war deceptions of the Bush Admin.

I'd like to remind you that Scott Ritter solicited an underage girl on-line so he could meet with her in private and fuck her.

I'd prefer you made intelligent comments, but apparently that is beyond you.

Feeding my kid a hot breakfast, which includes bacon and sausage in moderation is hardly a crime. The majority of people in this country eat bacon and sausage and they won't stop doing it because some idiot thinks he's scoring some kind of point by calling it "fried pig flesh." I work on a computer for a living and popping in here to see what's going on in the country is one way that I fulfill my duties as a citizen.

I suppose I could spend time with her rather than voting, or paying bills, or working, aor cooking her breakfast as well. IOW, your criticism, isn't one. It's just another example of your mindless and bad-tempered idiocy.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Feeding my kid a hot breakfast, which includes bacon and sausage in moderation is hardly a crime.

It should be. The sign of a nutritious breakfast is not predicated on its temperature. Perhaps less of your precious time should be spent discussing inconsequential politics on-line with anonymous strangers and more spent on studying proper nutrition for children. Feeding your kid meat from animals that eat garbage that's processed in filthy bacteria laden factories and loaded with nitrites and other foul chemicals is not the sign of a smart person, even though you'd like to think so because you can blather about politics with a bunch of lib scumbags on the internet 24/7.

I don't recall any document by the Founding Fathers that declared you have to discuss politics with anyone to fulfill your duty as a citizen. You do it because you have a need to validate your opinions and views with total strangers who ordinary wouldn't give a flying fuck about you.

The activities you listed take only hours per month. What are you doing the rest of the time? Mentally masturbating on the net with strangers and trying to curry favor with them. And for what purpose? To fulfill your boring CSPAN fantasy to the detriment of your daughter. What a great mom you are. You should be ashamed. I hope your tubes are tied, sweetie, and that you never reproduce again. There are too many kids in America that are ignored by their selfish parents who sit forever at the computer on their big fat asses (like howie berkowitz) chatting with complete strangers about nothing.

Is a respondent only "allowed" to speak of his/her own individual opinion in order to be considered valid in your eye(s), Fred?

I can only truly appreciate people who give little regard for the thoughts and feelings of others when it comes to political discussion.

You belong to an inhumane mob who cling to each other for validation and support. You would rather withdraw from a debate rather than possibly offending another member of your accepted collective. Instead of tearing at each other's throats you kiss each other's asses like the pansies you are. The only means to accomplish anything is via some kind of bloody war. I learned that years ago.

More details are emerging on the arrest of former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The Delmar resident was arrested by Colonie police in June of 2001 on a misdemeanor charge. And Channel 6 News has learned that Ritter had been issued a warning after being caught by police once before. Colonie police will not confirm any of this, but Channel 6 News learned that Ritter was caught in a sex sting early in 2001. He was issued a warning then, but eventually arrested for the same thing three months later. Ritter, who has made national headlines for speaking out against going to war with Iraq is keeping silent on this issue. He has been unavailable for comment since details of his arrest were made public. In June of 2001, Ritter was accused of engaging in a sexual discussion, on the Internet with a person who he thought, was a 14 year old girl. It was actually an undercover investigator who agreed to meet with Ritter. When Ritter arrived at the location, expecting to meet the girl, police warned him that he had been set up. Three months later Ritter allegedly fell into the same trap, only this time he was arrested. The misdemeanor charge relating to child endangerment was eventually disposed of and sealed. Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser has since lost her job over the incident. Albany County DA Paul Clyne fired Preiser on Friday because he says she never informed him that the case against Ritter even existed. Prieser would not comment and Ritter has also been unavailable for comment. The case against Ritter was eventually sealed, preventing everyone from disclosing details about the case. In fact, Ritter can deny it ever happened since sealed cases essentially mean, it never happened. CNN tells Channel 6 News, Ritter is on his way to Baghdad, but will be in New York City tomorrow to shoot an anti war message.

It's my opinion he has an almost infantile need to be the focus of attention.

So Bambam, where did you earn your license to practice junk science .... oops, I mean psychiatry, the lib scumbag's pillar of high religious reverence?

Werd workerbee! The thing that it doesn't seem to understand is that if it was willing to respond from anywhere other than the remotest recesses of it's reptilian brain, we'd be willing to engage it

Obviously, tonto, if you *were* a parent and knew something of how to raise children, you'd know to block their access to websites like this. Their eyes shouldn't be permitted to read the seditious anti-American propaganda posted here.