How about:

"And we all agree that terrorism can be a threat...."

Who knows if the next happening might be an SLA, Red Brigade, Timothy McVie, or some leftwing South American group.

This obsession with Islam rather than with the terrorism has led to poor analysis, wrong-headed proscriptions, and unbalanced security.

I think Digby understands the nature of the current situation in America, politically and comprehensively. That, at what was basically a "coming out" party, she didn't pull a Joan of Arc and sound the call to arms is not surprising and shouldn't be considered a matter of cast in stone or pudding policy.

Digby, as much as anyone, understands that we are in a war to save America. A war we've been losing without a fight for almost 30 years. A war that we're so far pressed in that even if we win all the battles for the next 20 years we'll still be in a downward slide. I've read Digby enough times to know that she has a firm and clear understanding of the context and history involved and the blood, real and metaphorical, spilled and to be spilled.

This post of yours reminds me of a caller to the old Morning Sedition on Air America complaining about the humor that was a part of the broadcast. Marc Maron often used it as a repeated sound bite. I don't remember the exact line. This was the closest I could find - "Why aren't we talking about the issues? We're fighting for our lives here!"

I'll start with my favorite quote for a change:

Pogo - "We have met the enemy and he is us."

All the holier than thou types who inhabit the left blogosphere while driving their SUV's and living in McMansions need to look in the mirror.

Our government does what we want it to do, not what we say we want it to do. What we want it to do is to ensure that we still get our cheap raw materials and finished goods from abroad. What we want is for our wasteful lifestyle to continue unimpeded. One of the popular bloggers on dailyKos is a Frenchmen who goes by the handle Jerome a Paris. In real life he is a banker who works on providing financing for wind farm projects. Every time he proposes raising the cost of gasoline or forcing improved fuel standards or other similar steps he gets shot down by the "liberals" on the site.

Unlike the EU, the US does not have a viable green movement even though it likes to pretend it does. It is only when the doors of the sausage making factory blow open (as in Iraq) that people start to have moral qualms. Before that it is selfishness full speed ahead.

Please refrain from telling me that you are one of the virtuous ones, I'm sure you are. I'm sure you are also one of the 90% of drivers who think they are better than average.

Long term solutions require adopting a new view of the goals of society. These have to focus more on the quality of life and less on the quantity of stuff one consumes. Let me know when a politician is willing to use the word sacrifice.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

As far as my über goes, we all have room for improvement.

The Iran bit is not a principle, only a contemporary addendum. As for Iran's dangerousness to the U.S., that depends to a neglected extent on what the U.S. has done and will do.

As for the blood of innocents, U.S. policies (with some exceptions) have entailed little good and thus are dominated by tragedy (for others in particular). The same might be said for most wars, but the point still follows. It would be nice to make war less popular as a general matter. War bad.

Max Sawicky is my favorite part of this blog. While we are continually inundated by the claims of supposedly 'progressive' bloggers, he is a man of principle. Too often, bloggers use buzz words like 'progressive' to espuse politics and feelings that are anything but.

Many of thes same folks, 'progressives' as they like to be called, were tacitly supportive of the iraq war and other excercises in american imperialism until they came to be debacles. The problem was not just the poor plan and execution of the war, but the fundamental principle of the matter.

The idea that occupying a Arab Muslim country, a venture that would obviously result in many deaths, would advance our safety and theirs, is sheer fantasy. Our one sided support of Israel and barbaric sanctions program (it resulted in death, malnourishment and the wounding of their economy) does not give us much credence in their eyes to act as universally benificent 'liberators.'

Thus, Max is correct that a little intellectual honesty and historical depth on behalf of many liberal bloggers and commentaters would be nice. We need to acknowledge that excersises like the Iraq War are not totally conducted out of the blue. They are part of a larger narrative of American action derived less from humanitarian concern than strategic economic interest, in which many more than just Bush and Co. have been complicit. Acknowledging this will go a long way in helping Americans realize that our securty interest are invariably connected to our actions and the resultant effects they have on others' security.

All the holier than thou types who inhabit the left blogosphere while driving their SUV's and living in McMansions need to look in the mirror.

Names, please, or are you just recycling Rushbo talking points?

"Let me know when a politician is willing to use the word sacrifice."

You bet, then after his 4 years are up he can join Jimmy Carter, the last President to call for sacrifice for the general good. I'm sure Jimmy can use the help.

Jack

"War bad"? War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. Max Sawicky -- soulless economist.

I bend over backwards to make clear I blame bad policy on elites and all you can take from what I say is that "we suck"?

That is very discouraging.

Max, do you have another photo of yourself, the one you use looks like an 1862 Matthew Brady glass plate where a rod and clamp were used to (uncomfortably) hold the head still.

What's with all the Über talk, you sound like you know who (Nietzsche aka Übermensch) . Regardless of who 'saw the writing on the wall', and what they read about the Bush administrtation and his Iraq fiasco, it is water unter the bridge.

The main concern now is how to end the current war, not the next one.

Agree with your comment! Thanks for the reply. As a son of a Holocaust survivor I don't treat Irans lightly; it's way too dangerous. I still agree with the whole comment.

He does -- and it's a great photo -- a tee shirted Max contemplating the out-of-frame bust of Danny the Red -- très, très soixante-huit. :-)

i was thinking about no. 6 more than about no. 1 when i wrote my response.

Choosing elites is what representative democracy allows for and entails. It is, however, greatly diminished by the weakness of our political parties, specifically, by a system of bi-partisan concession-tending which elevates government concession-holders' interests over those of real property-owners (the rentier-class) and real merchants or capitalists (now displaced by brand-managers).

Our present system first emerged as "Jim Crow" after the contested Florida election of 1876. It still has a cornpone, even "red-neck" public face. Later, it became an snooty anglophile consensus on defense and foreign policy that lasted through the Great, World, and Cold Wars.

Since 1994, we have had a national projection of "Southron" politics engineered, jointly, by Bill CLINTON and Newt GINGRICH.

Both those individuals are off-stage right now. And, those on-stage are foundering -- both the crazy-quilt GOP coalition of Darbyites, Trotskyites, and Libertarians as well as the decrepit Democratic patronage-chain with (a) very little actual patronage and (b) lawyers only at the top rung.

Missing in all of this is the republican and democratic principle of responsible, two-party government. That is evident in (a) both parties' now frantic interest in "deals", as well as (b) the House Majority's failure to exercise its unique constitutional power of the purse to end funding not of "the war" or for "the troops" -- not actual authorization or appropriation titles -- but, well, not anything!

Serious competition, rather than collaboration, between parties would better test our elites and elevate more than just lawyers (D) and actors (R) -- agents and fronts for two factions of one, Anglo-American, overclass with clever perps like the NeoCons and the DLC playing both ends against the middle.

There really is no deliberation within or between parties but, rather, (a) competition for concession-tending fees and (b) diffusion of responsibility.

Add to this gerrymandering and one has a system of politics which favors perks over principle and marginalizes moderate, patriotic voters.

This ::JRBehrman

I call it "welcome to the 21st century", and more than islamists, I'm afraid of 'oops'. As the pro-growth advocates try to balance a larger and larger population on fewer and fewer resources, there will come a global game of musical chairs, and a more extreme situation of haves vs. have-nots, as in 'haven't eaten for 3 weeks' kind of have-nots, meanwhile some fat slob in a suit is chowing down on caviar etc.
Population forecasts call for some 9 billion people by 2050, somewhere between 9 and 12, they aren't sure, but the question is what hypothetical baby 12 billion might be eating. Ants? Bugs? Other people? Lots of questions, no easy answers, and the future moving faster than probably a lot of people are really quite comfortable with, that is, the ones with the curiousity to actually look at stuff and ask questions. We live, as the chinese might say, in 'interesting times', and what'll be really interesting to see is how much of the United States will be left after legions of politicians get done promising it away to people in other countries etc.

As far as Iraq goes, I think it's a bald-faced resource war, with a B.S. overlay, largely being fought by mercenaries etc., and the sooner we declare it over and done with and go open some textbooks and figure out how to get along without all that oil, the better off we'll be. Oil dependency got us into this mess, getting energy-independent just might be the only thing that'll really get us back out.

You can count yourself independent, democrat, republican, chicken soft-taco pizza, whatever your preference, but the science behind this entire mess stays pretty constant, and though various and sundry political parties and associated august bodies might choose to try to throw their well-crafted hyperbole at the situation in order to encourage desired outcomes, the truth remains that they haven't yet figured out how to run your Lexus on hot air, of which there is no apparent shortage. Nuff said.

Iran has more jews than any other country in the middle east, a jewish member of parliament (on the energy commitee) and at last count 6 kosher butcher shops in Tehran alone.

Do a little research and you'll worry about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan much, much, more.

We've had this fight enough on this site, enough is enough.
Iran is the only country in the area where the authorities are under more pressure from reformers than from reactionaries.
60% of the university student population is female.
I post the same links over and over again.

As I say more and more around here: ignorance is bliss.
enjoy yourself.

Re: Iran is the only country in the area where the authorities are under more pressure from reformers than from reactionaries.
60% of the university student population is female.

Well, yes. That's because the authorities are the reactionaries. As to whether they will ultimately mellow out or be overthrown from within, that's hard to say. Some regimes have astonishing staying power no matter what their people think of them.