I'm sorry, but is this the way our congresspeople talk on the floor?

"Heal America's moral black eye?"

You know, there are writers waiting tables in America. Give one of them a six figure job so that I don't ever have to read about America's moral black eye ever again.

And you started with this gem: "The September 11th terrorist attacks posed a defining challenge for the United States. Our nation was savagely attacked; our peace and prosperity threatened. A swift and decisive response was necessary."

Argh! Stop it! I can't take the cliche anymore!

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

If political opportunism is what it takes to close Gitmo, then bring on the political opportunism.

I'll take all the political opportunism in the universe if it gets us positive results. Perhaps you're nostalgic for the good old days of 2002-2003?

The fact that the scales are dropping from the eyes of prominent Democrats is something to be celebrated, but I suppose we have another case of pretending we're powerless progressives again being steamrolled by the Administration and the chattering classes, reduced to complaining, as opposed to showing the magnanimity that can come from having more of Congress and popular opinion at our backs.

We ought to clear every concrete block, stick of wood, and piece of sheet metal off the place, plant a bunch of trees, and deed it back to its rightful owner, Cuba.

Sorry people, but I can only praise Rep. Harman on this one. No one else has put this on the political agenda, much less on the legislative one. I recall only Al Gore making the admniistration's consistent infringement of civil liberties into a speech. It's even a show of courage to visit the place and report back this honestly. And sure it's not a mindless of militarism to say that Bush's policy has made us less safe and polarized the world. Besides, she gets an early dig in at the Bush priorities in invading Iraq. Finally, she is back visiting us here, unlike the other one-shot politician appearances we have seen.

If we want to disagree with her strongly on something else, disagree with her strongly on something else. Bush has probably broken U.S. laws at Gitmo, although he could claim up until, oh, a couple of years ago that he had to be taken to court to learn that and although too many Americans are complicit. But he has certainly committed crimes against humanity, and let's take some pride in reasserting the idea that America is not supposed to do that.

Last, it's another reminder that politics does make a difference. I can't believe that a new Democratic president won't close the place down without much fanfare early in the next term. If you want more purity than that, vote for Nader, but don't blame me for the crimes.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

She's on the right side of this issue. Thank you Rep Harmon.

I believe in redemption. When she sees this effort through, she will get much praise from me. I will certainly read the legislation she have provided. Any chance she could add it to the TPM documents collection.

We may not always agree on every issue, but the restoration of Habeas and closing Gitmo are big big wins.

Thank you Rep Harman. Feel free to call on us to step up to the plate to support your efforts, if the President or other opposition tries to deny your efforts.

Ira Glass' This American Life had a program a couple of weeks ago about Habeas Corpus called "Habeas Schmabeas". It was about Gitmo.
A majority of the prisoners at Gitmo aren't the "worst of the worst" as Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush say they are. The CIA has those guys at undisclosed locations around the world. Some of the Gitmo guys are there because somebody sold them out for a few pieces of silver. Not scooped up on the battlefield (whatever that means) as Bush says.
After hearing these stories, it's hard not to make the comparison to Nazi or Soviet concentration camps. Dick Durbin had it right when he made the comparison. He had it wrong when he apologized for saying so.
Gitmo is the gulag of a rogue nation.

http://www.thisamericanlife.com/Radio_Archive.aspx

It's all OK with Rush Limbaugh, though. His website has a Club Gitmo section where shittohead fascist wingers can buy orange Club Gitmo gear.

Destor23, I just rated Allsburg's post a 5 to counteract your 0. You may obviously disagree about whether or not to be polite to Rep. Harman, but this is absolutely not a troll comment and your rating as such was completely inappropriate.

Withdrawn like a sullen teenager.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Anything that gets the whole Guantanamo operation closed down, including giving up the lease on the land, has my approval. For that I applaud Congresswoman Harman.

I do wish she could express herself on the subject without resorting to Bushisms though. Al Qaeda is a small threat to our country, along with other small groups of malcontents willing to kill themselves for their cause. There may well be some hardened criminals at GITMO, but I don't believe we have any reason to assume that there are. Just because the Bush administration says something, doesn't mean it is true, and the record shows the odds are that it is a lie.

I am also glad to see Rep. Harman come to her senses about the fake GWOT - she has done that hasn't she?

Hoppy in Sacramento

Al Qaeda is a small threat to our country, along with other small groups of malcontents willing to kill themselves for their cause. There may well be some hardened criminals at GITMO, but I don't believe we have any reason to assume that there are.

I agree with you - I think that anyone paying attention to Gitmo (and there has been a lot of information to pay attention to - it's a legal black hole, but not so much a news black hole) would realize that there are few high value detainees there, or at least there weren't until recently.  And the individual risk imposed by Al Qaeda is rather small, at least compared to everything else that might do me in on my morning walk.

But I'm not sure, even though I don't like it, that Rep. Harman's rhetoric isn't politically sensible.  I doubt that most Americans would instantly agree with you and I.  Given that, framing the argument in a way that appeals to me ads an extra step to the fight: convincing everyone else that the risks are overblown, and that Gitmo is, er, the San Francisco of the Fog of War (sleep deprivation has hit me hard of late). 

To the extent that the bill accomplishes what you or I might want it to accomplish, then I say use the rhetoric that will be most palatable to most voters.  To the extent that the rhetoric might warp the outcome, of course, well, then I think you choose between bad courses of action (longer debate, likely defeat and more time in Gitmo for the detainees vs., say, continued unjust imprisonment of some in a post-Gitmo world).

Another case of false dilemma. Harman is a political opportunist as most politicians are. We wish politicians were NOT opportunists, but it does not follow that Harman's calling for the closing of Gitmo --which we support-- implies that we are also supporting her political opportunism, which we don't.

Allsburg, I've rated the above comment a 5 to counteract your 0 rating. As I defended your comment below, I am tracking back to defend Destor's here.

Troll ratings are for people who are being completely unproductive, not people who you disagree with. Do not abuse the rating system.

I think what helps politicians focus is the expression of power, which in a democracy is, in part, manifest by the public's righteous indignation. Personally I think this is better than a situation like we have with Bush who does not bend to the will of the people because of some scruple about personal "prerogative".

Ultimately, in a democracy, the fate of the country rests in the hands of the people. We hope and pray that in the long run the American people will do the right thing. Systems that depend on the judgement of the political class alone, or on the judgement of one individual alone--history has shown--eventually fail. Let's just hope we don't fail.

The Restoring the Constitution Act, introduced by Chris Dodd in the House, largely repeals the MCA.  

I do hope that we get an answer to your question: is the Harman Bill complementary to the Dodd Bill, or does it include it (and possibly go even further, by repealing rather than just gutting the MCA)? 

But I'm not sure, even though I don't like it, that Rep. Harman's rhetoric isn't politically sensible.

I'm not so sure that calling Al Qaeda our "biggest problem" helps either the Gitmo situation or the Democrats. Al Qaeda = Terrorism = 9/11. Bush's poll numbers are low, but the one area in which he consistently garners fairly high approval ratings is for his handling of terrorism. From Gallup on Wednesday:

Forty-seven percent of Americans say they approve of the way Bush is handling terrorism. Bush receives 39% approval on the economy, 35% on foreign affairs, and 30% on Iraq.

Why hand him this issue when (a) it is not true, and (b) it is not needed to close Gitmo, which has real reasons like legitimacy, moral black eyes(?), etc.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Nietzsche

I think there is a key difference with Harmon -- this is not a case of "the scales falling from her eyes" --- she has been well aware of everything that has been going on. Nor is it a case of her being responsive to her constituency; her district was not demanding a "bush rubber stamp" at any point and then suddenly switched their positions.

Instead, its a case of someone jumping on a bandwagon....then trying to run to the front of the parade as if she was a leader.

My primary point is that while Harmon is doing the right thing now, she is simply not to be trusted. She is motivated by fear of losing her seat, and the minute she feels comfortable again she is likely to return to form -- just as Lieberman temporarily changed his stripes in order to get re-elected, then returned to form once he had gotten back into the Senate.

Glad to hear there's an effort to close Gitmo. Please, while you're at it, don't forget to close the other secret prisons the US is maintaining overseas. It's time for us to seriously begin looking at the whole legal foundation for detention and interrogation outside the criminal justice system. Within the criminal justice system, we have a wide range of clearly defined checks and balances that protect the rights of the detained. Outside the criminal justice system rules are much less clear. The administration has been able to exploit this ambiguity, claiming on one hand that it can detain certain people under its military powers but on the other hand, insisting that the normal military rules don't apply. We need to create a much clearer body of law that specifies exactly under what situations the government can detain and interrogate people and that disallows detentions and interrogations outside this clearly defined legal framework. The law also needs to specify due process for protecting the rights of the detained and interrogated if they are held outside the ordinary criminal justice system.

The classic exposition on this dilemma was written by Edmund Burke, English Parliamentarian, back in 1774.  The shorter version:  Do we elect a politician for his/her brain or his/her mouth?  The longer Version can be found at The Speech to the Electors of Bristol. 

aMike

Haven't we already released plenty of prisoners because we had nothing on them?

Many of these guys we locked up were basically just lists of names we were given, names which we paid for...

That's the problem. We don't have "terrorists" locked up. We don't even know who we have locked up.

And the more we call this a "war," the more we keep missing the real target. 

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

Agreed, but my point isn't what kind of characteristics a leader should have, but what kinds of quirks we representees have.  When they follow the will of the people (if that's what polls capture), we judge them.  When they stand on a principle in defiance of our will, we judge them.

I suppose that is all right and good - maybe we should hold our leaders to absurdly high standards, and surely we should be ever skeptical.  But it makes it kind of a crappy job (being on the take, though, mitigates that for some, I guess).

Although I follow your logic, your approach is going to lead the Democrats down the path of failure at the ballot box.

This talk of closing Gitmo because the war is "lost" is certain to cause serious damage to the Democrats, like Viet Nam did.

Besides, the United States doesn't "lose" wars.

We always destroy our enemies. All they can do is blow themselves up.

Harry Reid believes it is some kind of a victory when one of these vermin in a dirty night shirt blows himself up close enough to kill a soldier.

A really major victory is achieved, I guess, when one of these madmen kill himself near a market or a hospital or mosque.

Normal people don't call such events victories for the enemies and a "loss" for us.

I can't see how it will help the Democrats to be seen as eager to release terrorists from Gitmo.

Hope they don't transfer them to my neighborhood. Do you want them in yours?

I applaud your intent to restore habeas corpus rights to the detainees, but am troubled by your reasoning. Nowhere do you state that the right to habeas corpus is a natural right possessed by all humans, pre-existent and pre-eminent to the powers of the state. It was an illegitimate act for the president to have stripped the right of habeas corpus away from the detainees, and it was an illegitimate act for Congress to have enacted an ex post facto Law justifying this unconstitutional action by Mr. Bush.

Congress was only given the authority to suspend habeas corpus, and then only in the very limited circumstances "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it". The President has not the authority to rescind the right of habeas corpus, nor were either of these exceptions in effect when Congress legitimised it last year.

Senator Arlen Specter articulated this very well on The Senate Floor, March 7, 2007, and it is printed on Pages S2749, S2750 of The Congressional Daily record:

Amendment No. 286

Madam President, I have sought recognition to debate amendment No. 286, which would reverse the provision in the Military Tribunal Act which has limited the jurisdiction of the Federal courts in habeas corpus proceedings.

The essential question at issue is whether the combatant status review tribunals are adequate and effective to test the legality of a person's detention.

What we are dealing with here is an examination of the issue as to whether the procedures are fundamentally fair. Congress should repeal the provisions of the Military Commissions Act which limit Federal court jurisdiction on habeas corpus.

The decision by the court of appeals, I submit, will be overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States because of Circuit Court's ruling that the Rasul case dealt only with the statutory provisions on habeas corpus. The Circuit Court ignored the binding language of Rasul, which said that the habeas corpus rights were grounded in common law in effect in 1789 and were, in fact, part of the Constitution. Where habeas corpus is a right in the Constitution, and it is such a right because the Constitution expressly states that habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion--and no one contends that there is either invasion or rebellion at issue-- Congress cannot legislate a derogation of that constitutional right. Any act of Congress is obviously trumped by a constitutional provision. Where you have habeas corpus in effect in 1789 and the constitutional provision prohibiting its suspension, the legislation passed in the Military Commission Act I think ultimately will be determined by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, pretty clearly on the face of the opinion of the Court articulated by Justice Stevens.

I support your effort wholeheartedly; Guantanamo Bay is not just a black eye, it is an obscenity to The Rights of Humans. I would less doubt regarding the rectitude of your intent were there a statement of its unconstitutionality. I can find nothing in what you stated here, which offers protection to the right of habeas corpus from future Presidential or Congressional overreaches. Liberty remains threatened by our political leaders.

Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.

--James Madison letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 13, 1798

My liberty is not negotiable, and my liberty is intrinsically tied to the inherent natural rights that all humans possess, even the enemies of The United States of America. Tyranny cannot be bounded by citizenry. If allowed to exist, it will swallow us all.

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Thomas Paine, "Dissertations on First Principles of Government", 1795, published online by the School of Cooperative Individualism

Careful, OGD. Some 14-week-wonder like Allsburg will accuse you of "being rude and angry" -- and to the loud approval of the historically challenged drop-ins hanging out, here.

Ultimately, restoration of habeas rights is the most important thing here.  The bill itself will be defeated or else vetoed; finding a way to let detainees defend themselves is the closest thing to hope that we can provide.  (Pretty far from hope, though, when you consider that these cases have bounced up and down from district court through to the SCOTUS for more than five years.)

Rep. Harman, is there a way to push through habeas even if the closure plan is defeated?

Harry Reid believes it is some kind of a victory when one of these vermin in a dirty night shirt blows himself up close enough to kill a soldier.

Your post indicates that you've not yet faced the reality: that Nixon betrayed of South Vietnam, aided by Henry Kissinger, and they did it simply because they had "much more important business".

And therefore, we believe that the war must now be ended for everybody's sake. If the war continues, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam will surely lose more than it can possibly gain. Its military offensive has stopped; its domestic situation is difficult; and we are forced to do things to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam that go beyond anything that is commensurate with our objective. We don't want them to be weak. And I see no prospect for them to reverse the situation. And we want to end the war because it requires now an effort out of proportion to the objectives and because it involves us in discussions with countries with whom we have much more important business.

[. . .]

So we should find a way to end the war, to stop it from being an international situation, and then permit a situation to develop in which the future of Indochina can be returned to the Indochinese people. And I can assure you that this is the only object we have in Indochina, and I do not believe this can be so different from yours. We want nothing for ourselves there. And while we cannot bring a communist government to power, if, as a result of historical evolution it should happen over a period of time, if we can live with a communist government in China, we ought to be able to accept it in Indochina.

The Prime Minister caught me on a particularly loquacious day. (Laughter)

Henry Kissinger to Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-lai, June 20, 1972

Your belief in a lie spun by the right to obfuscate its complicity in the fall of South Vietnam for over three decades does not make it fact. Instead it strongly implies that you are a gullible fool. Your slanderous charges regarding Senator Reid's intents, spewed without citation, offer compelling evidence of your ignorance. Are you naught but a simpleton rube being used as a tool?

Are you naught but a simpleton rube being used as a tool?

All of those and a plagiarist, to boot. You can check them out here, here and here. (These are the ones I know about.)

Not a very smart one, either.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Nietzsche

Yes sir! Sarge...

~OGD~

OK ... Sarge...

~OGD~

The Viet Nam war was not a military loss.

Like I said, you need to alert the military, because that's where I found the information.

The American military won every large engagement and most of the small ones.

Allow me to be the first to enlighten you on the concept of winning the battles, but losing the war.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Nietzsche

'Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the People, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers.'
John Adams II President of the USA

then again here is another point

'What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?'
Mahatma Gandhi

Given the British kept impressing sailors after the treaty, the War of 1812 wasn't any shining example. Oh, well. The White House needed redecorating anyway.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) said last week that the "War is lost."

He was talking about Iraq. Iraq has nothing to do with the threat of terrorism.

It's a civil war.

Interning terrorists found on the battlefield for an indefinite period of time, is just fine with me.

But we don't inter terrorists found on the battlefield. We pay warlords to simply hand over random people, and then have to let them go when we realize they're not terrorists.

You really should start reading a newspaper or something. 

At ease, Corporal.

cscs, like seashell, you are still struggling with a rebuttal to substance.

Why do we even do this, I wonder.

Nothing we say or write will make a difference in any of the matters we discuss.

Bush is going to do what he believes is right and Congress will respond with its perceived proper course of action.

We really sholdn't take ourselves so seriously.

Nonetheless, don't you at least agree that in Iraq, the U.S. military could win if the Democrats stopped trying to subvert the war effort and allowed the troops and their commanders in the field to just fight?

And the TPM Cafe Loaded Question Award goes to...

drum roll...

Kiwi!!!

And since the feel-good-about-Iraq blog was quoted in a speech by George W. Bush, I hardly give it any credence.

al-Qaeda is just a small part of what's going on in Iraq, to claim that what we're doing there has anything to with "winning" and "terrorism" is delusional.

Since I don't want to make this comment all negative, I will give you props for putting quotes around those words, instead of claiming them as your own.

No plagiarism in this post. Nicely done. 

Mrs. Harman,
Are you as upset about Israel's torture of Palestinian prisoners as you are about Gitmo. If not, why not? If so, why are you one of Aipac's "yes" people in Congress. You have no problem criticizing your own government. Why do you never criticize ANYTHING the Israelis do?
Just asking.

Didn't mean to abuse the rating system, but I do believe that there are more or less appropriate mechanisms to express dissent, and wouldn't want TPM to devolve into a shouting match. Points made all around and civil consensus reached, I hereby withdraw my "Troll" rating.

OK, Howard. I am persuaded.

America has "lost" the Iraq war. Our military has been defeated by the Islamic forces. You win.

May we, at least, wish our country the best in her defense?

Again the same false allegations that the right has fed us for over thirty years, topped with an unsubstantiated attack upon Senator Reid. Doesn't your nose get sore with that ring in it getting yanked with such fervency?

Oval Office Conversation #760-6 Transcript
August 3, 1972: 8:28am - 8:57am
Location: Oval Office

President Richard M. Nixon: Let’s be perfectly cold-blooded about it. If you look at it from the standpoint of our game with the Soviets and the Chinese, from the standpoint of running this country, I think we could take, in my view, almost anything, frankly, that we can force on [South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van] Thieu. Almost anything. I just come down to that. You know what I mean? Because I have a feeling we would not be doing, like I feel about the Israeli, I feel that in the long run we’re probably not doing them an in—uh, a disfavor due to the fact that I feel that the North Vietnamese are so badly hurt that the South Vietnamese are probably gonna do fairly well [unclear—overlapping voices]. Also due to the fact—because I look at the tide of history out there, South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway. I’m just being perfectly candid—I—

Henry A. Kissinger: In the pull-out area—

President Nixon: [Unclear—overlapping voices] got to [unclear—overlapping voices] that we can get certain guarantees so that they aren’t, uh, as you know, looking at the foreign policy process, though, I mean, you’ve got to be—we also have to realize, Henry, that winning an election is terribly important. It’s terribly important this year, but can we have a viable foreign policy if a year from now or two years from now, North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam. That’s the real question.

Kissinger: If a year or two years from now North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam, we can have a viable foreign policy if it looks as if it’s the result of South Vietnamese incompetence. If we now sell out in such a way that, say, within a three - to four - month period, we have pushed President Thieu over the brink—we ourselves—I think, there is going to be—even the Chinese won’t like that. I mean, they’ll pay verbal—verbally, they’ll like it—

President Nixon: But it’ll worry them.

Kissinger: But it will worry everybody. And domestically in the long run it won’t help us all that much because our opponents will say we should’ve done it three years ago.

President Nixon: I know.

Kissinger: So we’ve got to find some formula that holds the thing together a year or two, after which—after a year, Mr. President, Vietnam will be a backwater. If we settle it, say, this October, by January ’74 no one will give a damn.

'Cause I'm cell locked
in the doctrines of the Right
Enslaved by dogma,
you talk about my birthrights?
...So let the guilty hang
In the year of the boomerang"
* * *
"Year of the Boomerang"
Rage Against the Machine
Evil Empire (1996)

my impatience tripled a post, sorry

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

I've read this over and over again. I keep seeing "all men," not "some men." I keep seeing the phrases "unalienable Rights" and "endowed by their Creator." I do not see "endowed by George W. Bush." I do not see "endowed by the Pentagon." I see "endowed by their Creator."

Rep. Harmon talked about the "worst of the worst" down in Gitmo. Really? Upon what premises was this assessment based? Was it a hunch? The way they were dressed?

And since when did we began taking the word of politicians concerning the guilt or innocence of a defendant? What happened to due process of law in establishing the guilt of a defendant in a transparent manner -- a manner that convinces our conscience of the guilt of the defendant?

These captives were not arrested in the United States of America. They were essentially kidnapped abroad. We know they are not prisoners of war, Bush told us so.

How convenient to obscure the definition of a person's status in order to commit injustice, to commit perjury against our own conscience. And lastly, to strike down the very principle that distinguishes us from those we are purporting to resist or fight.

The war was won in 2003. Declare that victory and end the occupation. Iraq will have their civil wars as did we and every other country on the globe. Allow them to rule over their own house, which was one of the original reasons Bush used to justify invasion -- delivering Iraqis from Saddam.

For the overly erudite who will accuse me of oversimplification, my answer: If we cannot rely upon the plain words and meanings of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, if we cannot understand this great social contract that we hold with one another, then quit sending soldiers to die for that which can never be properly understood or embraced. Stop killing people in the flower of their lives for the impossible dreams of dead people.

OK, I must confess.

Of all the names I am regularly called in response to conservative argument, I like "poop-butt" the best.

Kiwi, please do not misrepresent yourself as the "conservative" voice. There is nothing conservative about nation-building or unending military occupation of a foreign country, using our soldiers as a global police force.

In the 2000 presidential debates, Bush said he would never do these things. That was back when he was pretending to be conservative, I suppose.

They are only roaming about displaced, looking for US troops that they can greet as liberators.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Kiwi has treated us to another piece of unattributed lifting from a recent column by Victor Davis Hanson, with "Harmon" substituted for "Congressional Democrats". Here are the relevant parts of that May 10 Hanson column:

When both congressional Democrats and Republicans cast their votes to go along with President Bush, they even crafted 23 formal causes for war. So far only the writ concerning the fear of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has in hindsight proven false. But we no longer hear much about these various reasons why the Democrats understandably supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, they now most often plead they were hoodwinked by sneaky warmongering neocons or sexed-up partisan intelligence reports. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind, especially in matters as serious as war -- but the public at least deserves a sincere explanation for this radical about-face.

....

Democrats need to admit the truth: that removing a dangerous Saddam Hussein and promoting democracy in his place seemed a good idea to them in 2003-4 when the cost appeared tolerable.

Kiwi, you need help. It's not just the plagiarism - it's the repeated, compulsive plagiarism from the same source, after you have been caught many times. You appear to have some sort of literary kleptomania, along with an unnatural fixation on Victor Davis Hanson. Is this a cry for help? What is your major malfunction?

You win. Sorry to have bothered you.

You may now resume preaching to your choir, without fear of rebuttal.

It takes no time at all Kiwi. The Hanson columns are ridiculously easy to find.

On some previous occasions I have thought, "well maybe Kiwi is just some backwoods rube from a place where they haven't discovered either indoor plumbing or quotation marks, and he just doesn't know any better." But in this case, one can see that you changed a few words here and there to disguise your source, so it is clear that the plagiarism is intentional.

I also used to think that maybe you were really an antiwar activist, who came here to play-act as an over-the-top war supporter and plagiarizing buffoon, in order to make the pro-war cause look bad. But I now don't think that explanation is plausible either.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Why do you do this? What in heaven's name are you trying to do? Stealing Hanson's words obviously brings discredit on your cause, since it only confirms for many that the war's supporters are a pack of brainless followers and stooges, who lack a capacity for reason and independent thinking, and are compelled fill in the spaces in their heads where their own thoughts ought to be with the words of other people.

As for the substance, there never was a time when I thought "that removing a dangerous Saddam Hussein and promoting democracy in his place" was a good idea. I didn't support the war, in large part because I didn't think Saddam was all that dangerous to begin with. I'll let other Democrats give their own accounts of how their thinking may or may not have changed since 2002, 2003 and 2004.

However, Hanson really seems to have answered his own question. Is it really suprising that former war supporters who have concluded that the costs of the war are much higher than they previously estimated, and that the benefits of the war are many fewer than they previously estimated, would conclude that it no longer makes sense to continue the war?

And the final event to himself (Mr. Burke) has been,
that, as he rose like a rocket,
he fell like the stick.

-Thomas Paine 

Thank you for your response. I believe, however, that you take this discourse way too seriously.

It is not a commercial enterprise or some writing for which one seeks credit. We are a bunch of political laymen arguing in a vacuum.

If I share VDH with you and it isn't properly footnoted or sourced, who cares?

You should be thankful to benefit from the wisdom of such an intelligent, well reasoned author.

Isn't this forum like conversation at a cocktail party? We'll never convince each other of anything. It is just idle chatter.

I don't mean to ridicule your passion or pride of authorship, but I fail to see the importance of this gossip venue.

I'm not going to let you get away with you're usual dodge. There are certain proprieties and courtesies one obeys regardless of the nature of the forum, or how important it is in the grand scheme of things - it doesn't matter whether you are writing for the NY Times, for your company newsletter or for someone's birthday card. Passing off someone else's words as your own is wrong, and shows disrespect for the people for whom you are writing.

You didn't "share" Hanson's words with us. You took them. If you want to share somebody's words, you say something like "I'd like to share with you something Victor Davis Hanson wrote today .. etc. etc."

This is not just one impulsive mistake. This is something you do over and over and over, even when it is pointed out to you. I honestly can't understand it. Don't you have any self-respect?

Count me as more of a Platonist than I would have thought: I think that a place like this is one in which ideas fight it out; we are but the horses that horses that those jousters ride on.  Kiwi is just another nag for the idea to ride on.

Or something like that. 

Your metaphor does not go far enough. Remember also that the nag of the idea trails droppings that may be astute evaluations.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

In the 1930s, French cavalry officers resisted the evolution of motorized units, on the grounds that if they were to dispose of their horses, would they grow mushrooms for the mess on the gasoline exhaust?

Someday, they may obtain paying jobs in their chosen field....

I don't really mind Burke, but I do not appreciate his citation as Alpha in Conservative theory by far too many Contemporary Conservatives. My response was a counter-reactionary knee jerk.

After the  mob's usage of the guillotine, The French Revolution was a bit too much to swallow for many, and is a very good example illuminating why the limits on pure democratic methods, and protection of minority rights in The US Constitution were essential elements for a just government.

I'd add that repeating Republican talking points is not an argument or rebuttal either.

It might be, though, in some cases. Certainly, it can be the occasion for a good rebuttal. And, to the extent that arguments posted here, whether written or cut-and-pasted, spur good rebuttals, isn't that a good thing? Further, if the arguements are lifted, and the rebuttals turn out to be directed not just at other anonymous hois polloi like us, but pundits or political consultants with much larger audiences, isn't that potentially an even better thing?

In this particular case, it doesn''t seem that Kiwi is really interested in debating anything but just wants to throw up canned obfuscations. It is a twisted form of trolling.

On this you might be right. I see fine lines. On the one hand, I think there is value in thinking against all the bad ideas that come your way. On the other, there must be a limit to responding to canned obfuscations, I must agree.

Hard to swallow, but at least you don't hear them complaining about it.

Actually, it might get some supporters as a quick weight-loss therapy. Perhaps if the blade were aimed not at the neck, but a bit higher, would a Rush Limbaugh really miss the weight of a brain?

--
Howard