Ah, I see. Your "critics" can only be named pundits who have been published in Washington DC insider magazines. The 61 extremely cogent criticisms from actual TPMCafe customers in your first post can be ignored.

Another drive-by spanking from a deeply serious insider. Thanks. Let us know who you are supporting in the 2008 election so I can be sure to vote against that candidate.

sPh

Read some of the comments on Kevin Drum's Post

and see why this argument drives me just a little nuts;  The comment is taken word for word.  The emphasis is mine:

It's not an argument that the United States, as a matter of general policy, should eschew the use of preventive war against a regime that it feels threatened by.

Kevin, I don't understand your point here. Both liberals like yourself and conservatives like myself and Bush don't believe we should always declare war on other countries. Yet we also believe preemptive wars like the War in Iraq (and a possible one in Iran) are not a option we should take off the table. So what's your problem with this? I think we share more similarities on this belief than differences.

I also believe that Bush, as Commander in Chief, holds more classified information on Iran than any of us ordinary Joes do so we should trust his judment on if and when we should declare war on Iran. I don't know if you agree with me but I hope you do.

The third paragraph here is the best reason I can think of why not to put preventative war "on the table".  Some people are just so willing to dumb themselves down and trust the Office even if the man in that office is thoroughly untrustworthy. 

aMike

I certainly wouldn't hold any Internet writer

responsible for the comment of his/her "weird trolls".  Lordy! If that was the case at TPM Café nobody would dare type anything.  If I expressed myself clumsily I apologize.  My point was more in this nature:

• Even today, polls suggest that something in the nature of 30% of the electorate think like your weird troll. In the spring of 2003, well over half of the electorate were in the weird troll category vis a vis Iraq, and weird trollishness seemed viral in Congress...the majority backed the President and his "superior knowledge".  The Washington Pundit class had a bout of weird trollishness, too...not you, I hasten to add.  But numbers of them are in recovery to this day.  In some cases it seems that the after effects of weird trollishness include a loss of memory that one ever had been a weird troll. 

Until I have faith that the common sense of the fourth estate, the congress, and the electorate has developed an immune response to the weird troll virus, I think I want to take anything which might blow the face of the world right off the earth "off the table".

Thanks, and bring back cat blogging.

aMike

Perhaps if we took it off the table, they would take it off the table.

I might also add that there is no such thing as "preventive war" - if you're going to war to prevent it, you're still going to war, you're not preventing it.

And when was the right to threaten people made a constitutional amendment? Americans have no more right to threaten people than they have the right to threaten us. Do you think this might be why they "hate America?" Our total lack of respect, our lack of consulting them as equal partners, our notion that they don't care if they get blown up?

Thanks for having my back, Kevin.

I was trying to make the exact same narrow point in Matthew's comment section, and was being met with uncomprehending stares and slack jaws.

Ken the following is a post on the topic I made to Max. It probably should have been made to you.

Max

Erza says: "Ken Baer has an overwrought post up attacking me for suggesting that Democrats should publicly state "that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons will not trigger a military response".

I am not an expert on the Middle East but I believe I know enough to conclude that an attack on Iran would idiotic (for numerous reason). However, it is not self-evident to me that Democrats should make a public statement "that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons will not trigger a military response".

In the first place, what purpose would such a statement serve?

"Would it be a "feel good" gesture towards Iran? It might make Iran "feel good", but would that be "a good thing" in itself. A case might be made (a good case) that making Iran feel uncomfortable is a good thing. Iran (its leaders) might be more motivated to "come to the table" Of course, there is the problem with Bush -- he does't seem to have any desire to go to a table where Iran is seated.

Again, I am not an expert in these matters but I think that if the Democrats want to leverage the Bush adminstration to go the table with Iran, they need to (a) attack his faied "gun boat" doctrine (shoot first, ask questions later), (b)seek public support for that attack, (c)enroll concerned Republicans (like Hagel) in that attack. Secondly, they should continue to public proclaim that the Presidency is not imperial (this is not Rome) and that congress must consent before any and every little hairbrain adventure that comes into the Bush mind. Moreover, Democrats in congress (with any Republicans who would join in) should begin engaging back-door behind-the-scenes "discuions" with the White House informing Bush in no uncertain terms that impeachment hearings will move forward swiftly and forcably if he engages in any unilateral military actions the resemble the slightess an act of war. If the aim is to get the U.S and Iran to the table, the Democrats should use the political pressure they have.

I don't how a public statement "that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons will not trigger a military response" will leverage much. Max, where the fulcrum. And what is leveraged.

One other note, I notice a certain tone of "righteousness" in some of the discussion regarding policy in the Middle-East and this concern me. We have a mess (on many levels); things could get worse, and there seem to be no good options. We know what has not work and have a very good idea what will not work, but it is hard to see any good way out because we are in a kind of "sand storm" where any action may lead to unforseen negative consequences. There are some today who are quite righteous in demanding "immidate withdrawl" (which is not a policy).

Back in the Vietnam time period I went to an SDS meeting at the University of Minnesota were the convener acted like an authoritarian brat who had conern on political wisdom. He was quite righteous. When I questioned his behavior -- in a civil manner -- he suggested it would be better if I left the meeting. He was really quite intolerant of dissent; for him everything was self-evident. (I might mention that I was a verteran who was against the war.) Today, I sometimes sense that same kind of highminded, rigtheous moralism within the blogsphere that cuts off dissent. It bothers me. (PS: I enjoy your blog because you are something of a dissenter who is willing to argue your position)
Stephen from Minneapolis

Having access to classified material does not mean one has the ability to read it and interpret it, with objectivity. In addition, Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) is increasingly a tool of the intelligence community; why can't it be used to get crosschecks.

I agree not everyone can and should have access to CCO, TK, HCS and other compartments. Even TK-indoctrinated people don't get automatic B access or assorted MASINT. If the preceding sentences are not immediate obvious to the poster speaking of "ordinary Joes", I suggest said poster is not really qualified to judge the utility and use of intelligence information. Nothing I just wrote is classified, but it takes a fair bit of study to put it in perspective.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Howard, the entire North/South construct came about because the US snubbed the 1954 Geneva agreement. Ike forbade the 1956 election as he mentioned in "Waging Peace" because Ho clearly would have won the election. It is in that context that I speak.

I agree that Truman should have supported Ho.

Tom

Mr. Baer, How about naming some of your major clients so we know whose interests you represent?

J. McCutchen

It's not an argument that the United States, as a matter of general policy, should eschew the use of preventive war against regimes that it feels threatened by.

Preventive war? Feels threatened by?

Beat the Drum until it breaks

... but Ho had been denied the opportunity to run the country because of the electoral sabotage. Therefore it wasn't the North (separate country) invading the South (separate country) the way Dean Rusk, LBJ, and others presented it to the American public. It was Ho and his supporters (north and south) fighting Diem and his supporters (Vietnames and non-Vietnamese). That was a far different, more complex situatiuon than our government portrayed it.

That misanalysis of Vietnamese reality led to our misadventure in Vietnam, just as Bush's misanalysis of Iraqi (and world) reality led to our misadventure in Iraq (and maybe soon in Iran).

Tom

Interesting Article

Thanks very much for linking to it.  I'm sending it on to my friends. 

aMike