Olbermann makes some interesting points. I suspect debate will follow.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/10/keiths_special.html#comments

Just cheap rhetoric there, I fail to see the fascination. However the support given to worldwide antiamericanism by the left is very real. Just see how Chavez backed himself up with Chomsky's wild ramblings. If I were Bin laden I would collect all leftist op/eds and handed it to my nutty jihadist boosting their morale. It would also serve as a much more powerful recruitment tool than the Irak war, since the perceived views of the intentions are much more relevant to that effect than the actions actually undertaken on the ground.

Bush is the terror in America.

Im sorry, but I dont think ten year olds judging the acts of our president is justified.

^ Hear hear.

Stan: I'm perplexed that someone who argued for a more nuanced view of religion/spirituality would trot out the ol' "comfort to our enemy" cliche.

This cliche is the device our current admin. And past admins. Have used to attempt to quell domestic criticism of wars and whatnot. Essentially what it argues, and what you are arguing is that it is unamerican to broadcast skeptical positions on our wars or foreign policy and that in times of war, it is important to present a unified front.

Such a policy would work out very nicely for those in power. They would never be pressured to examine/reexamine their specific policies or actions...and could just "stay the course..." indefinitely. This is how things work in a totalitarian state, I think.

For me, biting one's tongue and getting behind an administration's misadventures regardless of personal convictions, and regardless of how mistake prone the misadventures are seems patently unamerican. Seems like the kinda crap kim jung il or castro, or any other dictator would prescribe.

You mention the boon to recruitment "lefty" critique has become to our enemies. Intelligence on al qaeda indicates they prefer the Bush plan for iraq:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/102106Parry.shtml

Let's not use the administration's talking points to shill for totalitarianism, k?

Can you explain the "cheap rhetoric" comment, with examples? Try and keep your responses on-topic.

Last edited: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 9:43:25 AM

While at it, I'd like examples that demonstrate Chomsky "rambles wildly." he is a very distinquished professor from MIT, and his work in linguistics revolutionized that field. Whatever you may think of his politics, he is a very astute, methodical and meticulous researcher. His ideas may seem wild to you, but his methods definitely aren't.

I'm not defending his positions, just his methodology.

Be careful btw, damning authors because nefarious leaders associate themselves with them.

It is cheap rhetoric because there is no coherence in this apparently intelligent concept. It is nothing more than a play with words whipped up with a distorted equivalency. You can’t equate a real danger with the intent to raise awareness about the same danger. It is inadmissible. It only seems interesting here because raising the issue of terrorism increases concern, which could be construed as “terrorism”. Terrorism-terrorism, haha…nice play with words, but it’s gravely flawed.

Neither it is intellectually honest to blame someone for raising an issue of concern to him just because he could benefit from doing so. This is absurd. Aren’t the Dems stressing problems like health care and inequality in order to gain political advantage? This is the name of the game folks.

Now, the objection might be that the terrorism threat is unclear and should not be exaggerated for political gains. Again, each side will emphasize the problems that they know play well for them. To focus strictly on the level of threat terrorism poses to our societies, I think it is arguable. But hadn’t Scotland Yard been allowed to tap phone conversations and emails, we would have had 9 planes blown up over the Atlantic with close to 4000 deaths.

Comfort the enemy: Here’s where the “nuanced” views come into play. Is it enough to qualify an idea “cliché” to shoot it down. There’s a world of difference between a reasonable criticism and a crusade aimed at demonizing an entire group of people and whatever they do. One is legitimate when the other is disingenuous and many Democrats are deep into the latter field of play expressing themselves with a sort of left fundamentalism that loses all credibility with the rational mind.

Chomsky may have achieved a remarkable career in linguistics but it didn’t stop him from joining the ranks of the ultra-left, which in my opinion is not very different than joining religious fundamentalism. In both cases you begin to think differently on a particular subject than you do about anything else, only wanting to look at the things that support your preconceived ideas. Fundamentalism expresses itself by a biased selection of facts and interpretations that excludes everything that doesn’t fit the self-fulfilling notion of exclusivity.

Last edited: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 3:33:27 PM

I have seldom been so puzzled.

'In a free nation, it often does not matter that individuals reason well or poorly: it is enough that they reason; from there comes liberty, which protects from the consequences of those very reasonings.'
- Montesquieu

@Stink

I am in no way advocating a self-censorship from criticizing administration policies, but I think many should be more thoughtful concerning international issues. I wish the critique of American foreign policies stemming from the West were somewhat more carefully expressed. It is OK to be against the Irak war and there are many reasons to believe it was a mistake, but I am not pleased to have so many westerners name Bush or the US the No1 threat to World peace, far above Putin who flattens Grosny and murders journalists or China rolling tanks over young students and target practicing on trekking Tibetans.

Far from being an outdated cliché, the "blame America first" is still alive and well and there's no question that it still serves the demonizing of America and the West. In light of the fact that a large fringe of the Muslim World despises the West and is quick to adhere to the wildest conspiracy theories or diabolical intentions, I see no point in providing support to their hatred by condemning ourselves too for all the wrong reasons.

In short, it's OK to express criticism, it is even encouraged but keeping in mind the concept of proportionality would be a good improvement.

I am allowing stan to wash over me.

Stan: point taken. Hyperbolic critique can cross over into cartoonish absurdity.
With regard to damaging America's image abroad, our actions in terms of foreign military adventures, speak louder than the words of the extreme left. When westerners say that Bush is a bigger threat than Putin (though Putin is arguably the more sinister character) I doubt they are taking chomsky at his word. I doubt many of them have even read him. More likely they've drawn this conclusion based on the daily saturation of the incessant news & imagery of america at war in iraq, afganistan, and blustering at iran, and blustering at korea, as well as goading on the israelis now and then.
Putin is a rotten bastard. But for the moment, he's russia's bastard...content to keep his hand around the neck of his own folks. I find it far more likely that our tarnished image has more to do with the now unjustifiable invasion of a sovereign country and associated bric a brac: abu grhaib, torture at git mo, secret cia prisons, flauting of Geneva Conventions, our failure to stabilize iraq, the demonization of the UN and our demonization of former allies (Germany, France) when they don't want to participate in an invasion of our chosing and so on.

They don't hate us because chomsky told them we were rotten bastards. They hate us because, from time to time we do things that rotten bastards do.

My own take on olberman is that he gets a bit bombastic at times. And he seems a tad smug. However, he's the only liberal in the supposedly liberal press who actually is a liberal. His is a lone voice on MSM. I suppose that would give a guy a chip for his shoulder. Currently, no one else is taking this administration to task. No one substantial anyway. Keith brings it.

Last edited: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 7:18:34 PM

Technically, there has been terrorism simnce the fisrt eco-extremists came around spiking trees. Eco terrorism: A new front.

^ good point there

Wrong, geek. Very wrong.

"Technically" more truer to the definition of Olbermann terrorism.

However, so is calling it sabotage, criminal mischief, reckless endangerment, assault, and conspiracy to commit criminal acts. We already have effective laws to deal with these. Categorizing all criminal behavior "terrorism" is shortchanging our criminal justice and educational systems. Further eroding of Constitutional protections weakens us all and puts EVERYONE who disagrees with policy in danger of being branded a terrorist without any protection of habeas corpus. No thanks.

A half interesting take in this threads context. I would ask you draw us up a list of all countries in the last 100 years to engage in a preemptive strike against against another country for a perceived threat. Should their leaders be admonished for their actions and brought before a world court?

Last edited: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 8:02:20 AM

I thought this thread was going in a different direction and currently I can't reach the linked website, so I'll just go on my tangent. :)

I helped put together a WMD training CD a few years back for First Responders. There were a few things in that course that I thought would be interesting to share here.

So where I thought this thread was heading was the suggestion that our government is using some terrorist tactics of its own in order to bring about changes in our society that we "the people" would otherwise not allow. Are the constant reports from Iraq and other countries, real and predicted, just fueling our fears here at home and causing us to change our society in the hopes of gaining safety? I really don't think the measures we've put into place over the last few years are going to repealed any time soon and may in fact but just the tip of the iceberg.

That's why I think the next two elections are *very* important.

@flea

Before I waste my time on the assignment you generously handed to me, let's make sure it has any relevancy. I am not going to give you homework to do, but only ask you a question: How and since when did a preemptive strike become the pinnacle of barbarism?

Last edited: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 9:15:09 AM

I think since the advent of diplomacy. Call me crazy.
I wash in the glow of stan .

Last edited: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 1:27:22 PM

Pardon the digression...but: lets talk about the Orwellian naming that's occuring here stan:

For a strike to be preemptive...doesn't that means some event was preempted?

What event was that exactly?

If nothing was preempted, it follows the strike is misnamed. What do you call a non-preemptive strike on a country? An "attack." no? An "invasion?" for convenience sake, lacking rationale for the label "preemptive", polite people now call the war a "mistake." other less honest people try to revise the rationale...in keeping with the dishonesty, they continue to call the war "preemptive." seems less barbaric than attack, or invade. Doesn't change the fact that nothing was preemptive.

Is attacking a country (based on false premises) barbaric? Seems so to me. I think of airlines flying into the WTC as a barbaric attack. I'm sure that OBL could list his reasons for doing this, but none of us would find them compelling...we might even find them "false." just as in Iraq: I know Bush can list reasons (other than preemptive) for attacking Iraq, though I doubt they would be considered persuasive from the perspective of Iraqis.

Providing a rationale doesn't mean that one has demonstrated the inerrancy of the cause. Regardless of how one spins the "cause," the effects typically end up as quantifiable facts, and aren't so easily spun.

With regard to the invasion of iraq, it may well be a pinnacle of barbarism, especially once the dead are stacked and counted...into the tens of thousands and beyond (a pinnacle, not "the" pinnacle). When america withdraws...as it will either sooner or later, the effects of the invasion will last and will speak to the nature of our iraq endeavor. Barbarity or national security? It isn't merely a question of world view, perspective, relativism and so on, any more than the bombing of Cambodia 1969 - 1973 was.

Killing men, women, and children indiscriminately, and by the thousands...for no good reason, and for no good effect...if that isn't barbarity, I don't know what is.

The word is unprovoked . Our attack on Irak [sic] was that, if nothing else.

OK, Olbermann rocks!

_{I've GOT to get expanded cable!}

I hate to admit I'm a little slow on this thread. What exactly is the main thrust of it? It doesn't seem to have much to do with Olbermann's commentary, but some strange spin off of his intent.

Anyway, I think my first post was more on track than I realized, though my point may have been obscured as well. I think the Bush Administration is conducting a terror based campaign that takes the concept to new levels. I agree that they are using terrorism as a terror weapon against they're own people in order to achieve their goal of changing our society and staying in power. We need to question what they're doing and why. We also need to do whatever is necessary to put a stop to those things we disagree with and fast.

In a related topic, I was watching My Country, My Country last night on PBS. It was a documentary following a family's experiences leading up to the first Iraqi election. Very interesting and informative. The father, who is also a medical doctor and running for office, made an interesting observation. He felt that Bush had achieved his objective of taking the fight to the enemy's land and that American's don't really care now that its not their problem. There was something about that that really struck me. It was also very interesting to see how local, common people were reacting to what was going on around them. Definitely gave me a different view of the situation.

Her experience after the film was screened in Europe is also interesting and relevant.

Last edited: Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 9:05:48 AM

You will not find many examples of a preemptive war in the last 100 years.

The point is not defining a "preemptive strike" strike as barbaric. There's an important distinction that needs to be made between preemptive and preventative. Our current occupation of Iraq really cannot be put rationally into either categories IMHO. But it does slip into one category very easily: imperialism.

For those who look, you will find that people living in the middle east do not hate or vilify Americans. Polls conducted there show most like the American people, our values, our religious tolerance, and our economy. What they don't like are our policies.

Ever wondered why after winning WWII and the cold war we have maintained our military bases around the world? Why do we?

@flea

You're the one who linked "preemptive strikes" to barbarism in opposing this argument to my remarks, not me.
...........

It's called the Pax-Americana, and it's not all for the worst, unless you adhere to the "end of history" theory. But current events are fast disproving it. Anyway I guess you're not just anti-Bush or anti-Republican, but broadly anti-US foreign policy in a bi-partisan way, since your disatisfaction seems to go back awhile. Are you?

@Rabban
Not saying you have to agree with me, but do you ever build from what has been cleared up? You can't keep on rolling on the runway, you gotta take off at some point.

Last edited: Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 9:55:12 AM

@Stan - What?

For a primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

Stan brings 'Pax-Americana', which is indeed a real thing. It comes from Pax Britannica, and of course before that Pax Romana, the idea of an imperial superpower insuring a generally peaceful development of the countries under their wing, and to a degree insuring the stability of world affairs (

Indeed it's valid to ask if the world would de better with no Pax Americana; with several small players fighting it between themselves, with regional powers (China, Russia, India, Iran, Ethiopia, S. Africa, Brazil, etc.) vying for regional influence, turning independent states into vassals or client-states, etc. The 'what-if' scenarios of a different hegemony than America.

In that sense I would concur that America (USA) did an ok job in general. Pax Americana usually starts after WW2 (or WW1 if you will). I would compare the US with a policeman: like a cop in a a city, most of what they do is great and useful and invisible, except for once in a while there's the big mistake and PR nightmare... Like Iraq, Vietnam, etc. No one is gonna say 'Marshall Plan is crap'; but the principles upon which the MP was built come from a different place than what the current Neo-Cons administration is.

Often American are defensive when their country gets criticized, like if it was a wholesale critic of everything american; we don't criticize what's working and is nice and generous and useful about the States, but what is corrupt, was is deception; the US is so involved at all levels of world affair that whatever they do, good or bad. Is felt widely but just about all other countries.

What's peculiar this time is how Pax American was subverted by the New World Order thing, by a neo-con agenda. In a way this current administration is an anomaly from the past 150 years of your country.

@Hugo

I wish that were true, but I don't see this being a reality. I'm sure you have the brainz to apply discernement, but anti-americanism is a mind blowing thing that sweeps away all moderation in most people who harbor it. In most of Europe for a politician to declare himself pro-american would be tantamount to political suicide.
.......

Can you elaborate?

Last edited: Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 3:48:27 PM

I think he refers to peace v imperialism, but I'm just guessing.
this thread has the smell of conviction.
stan, you just made a generalization generalizing people who generalize. Fyi.

I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, and I just recently came to understand how money is used in our local urban renewal district, so I'm not going to pretend to be a Piled Higher Deeper in foreign policy.

But be it someone who's Dem, Rep, Green, left, right, or just high, I'm definitely anti-stupid and anti-ignorant. If someone can concisely and simply describe what Bush's policies, both domestic and foreign, are, and correlate them with what he says what he actually does, please enlighten me.

Better yet, someone answer Helen Thomas's question to Bush, "Why did you really want to go to war?"

That would be a most recent development. And possible one that should be encouraged given that every American man, woman, and child contributes $1,400 yearly for military spending. Let's all go dutch :)

Last edited: Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 4:35:39 PM

Hey Stan, I will try.

The current slice of mandarins running the White House are often labeled 'Neo-Cons(ervative)' - you must have read this term before. That's what I mean by 'neo-con agenda'. I did not make this up, it's written black on white in the Project for the New American Century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

This is not a word the Liberals invented to demonize the Right; the NeoCon agenda was public... So to speak. (Just thinking... Like Mein Kampf was public).

What's interesting is to read on the historical development of this so-called NeoCon gang - where they come from, what's their program, etc.

Once this has been identified, you realize that the guys in the White House are there... Not necessarily to serve their country 'à la Kennedy', but to further a stated agenda. And indeed they reached the highest power (presidency of the USA), they initiated their agenda, etc.

The group fractured over disagreement, the implosion of their policies, and the Failure of Iraq, etc.

For example I never heard of Francis Fukuyama, an old-schol neo-con, until he published this book: After the Neo Cons: Where the Right went Wrong. Profile Books, 2006 In it he traces the history of the Neo-Cons, their pitfall in Iraq, etc. Now he's distanced himself from the Bush/NeoCons - in his views they rely too much on unilateral action backed by military might, etc. (He also wrote America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy ), etc.

So what I'm saying is this: these guys (Republicans, they could have been Democrats for all I know) came in with a program, and followed it, or rather imposed it to the rest of us; for them it wasn't about International Laws, about respecting the American Constitution, the Geneva Convention or the innefficient UN process: it was about imposing their vision in the 8 years window of the GWB presidency. It is written black on white,. It was about making sure, at pretty much all cost, that America's supremacy would continue well into the XX1st century - and military muscle was the best tool to impose it.

In comparison, I think history shows that politicians often stumble along in power, and reacts to events, more than they impose an ideological agenda. The Marshall Plan was not ideological: it was practical, etc.

"Ideological' here means: you have an idea, you go throught it at all cost, even in a state of denial, even against the interest of your country, citizens, etc.

Anyway it can be better worded and researched...

Everything gets clearer with time. In 20 years we'll see what history will retain of the first decade of the XXIst century. Right now we're all in the swamp.

I don’t think it is honest to describe the Irak war as a simple “unprovoked invasion”, for it conveys the idea of a harmless country being gobbled up by a wicked Empire, like the Chinese invasion of Tibet. Let’s be realistic, Saddam is no Dalai lama and the US never intended to make Irak it’s 51st state.

I don't think the following is news to anyone, but it tends to be forgotten. Saddam never complied with the UN chapter 7 resolutions that were imposed on him and had kicked out UNSCOM inspectors in 1998, a move that greatly worried the US administration of the time. In fact the way the Clinton’s administration described the threat posed by Saddam’s Irak wasn’t any different than Bush’s. If Bush lied, Clinton lied too, Gore lied… they all lied. It is more likely than no one lied and that everybody was deeply convinced that Irak still had WMD’s unaccounted for since the inspectors departure.

« In Sacramento, November 15, Clinton painted a bleak future if nations did not cooperate against "organized forces of destruction," telling the audience that only a small amount of "nuclear cake put in a bomb would do ten times as much damage as the Oklahoma City bomb did." Effectively dealing with proliferation and not letting weapons "fall into the wrong hands" is "fundamentally what is stake in the stand off we're having in Iraq today."

Sandy Berger: "For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is clear. Saddam's history of aggression, and his recent record of deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them."

Al Gore: There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/809168.stm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

Removing a brutal dictator from power, liberating millions of people from oppression and trying to help in building a successful country are rather noble goals that don’t exactly exemplify barbarism, but it goes further. It also represents a 180° turn from the past collusion with tyrants in the region for the greedy purpose of securing oil reserves. This past policy of the US (and Europe) is one of the proclaimed reasons for the Arabs distrust of US policy, denouncing the praising of democracy while dealing and supporting dictators abroad for its own selfish interests. In effect the Bush and neocon doctrine goes against that perceived hypocrisy and it could have shown the Arab street that the West is no longer bent on keeping them in misery while profiting from their resources. Well that hasn’t happened yet, but the analysis retains some validity I think.

It is always very easy to criticize anything equipped with the wisdom of hindsight but the options against Irak in 2003 were very limited and the perceived danger very real. It took 100 000 troops anchored in the Gulf to persuade Saddam to allow inspectors back in, only to play cat and mouse with them. Sanctions weren’t working and were about to be lifted, allowing Irak to earn billions in oil revenues and fulfill all his delusional aspirations.

“Hans Blix went on to state the Iraqi government may have been hoping to restart production once sanctions were lifted and inspectors left the country, as speculated by senior Iraqi officials and a prominent defector, Gen. Hussein Kamel” (wikipedia)

Truth is, had Irak been on the road to prosperity today, very few would still find immoral the military removal of Saddam’s regime. Bush’s fault is mostly not having succeeded so far.

This is not the end of History and we are facing threats of a different nature today. A significant number of fanatics are currently doing their best to overdo 9/11 and since deterring terrorism is off the table, it means their possession of WMD’s equals use.

Preemption will always be a matter of debate since it is impossible to know for certain that the event would have taken place if it hadn’t been prevented. Elected leaders are however facing a situation where waiting to act decisively magnifies the risk. The closer we get to the “imminent use” the more the action becomes justifiable but the harder to deal with. On the contrary the farther away we are to the imminent danger the less political support and acceptability can be gathered even though the chances of operational success are greater.

These issues are not so trivial. There is enormous responsibility and very difficult decisions to make.

This is insulting.

^ Tally your longest post in this thread has 3 lines. ;) Stan deserves more.

@ Stan: Indeed the original idea was to collude less with dictators and to accelerate democratic developments in the Mid-East. But it seems it failed. Lesson of the story: you cannot really accelerate a nation's development by bombing it and occupying it. Hope we can all agree for the rest of the 21st Century; that would be at least that much accomplished.

About WMD: I was also surprised when they did not find any in Iraq - and that the CIA did not even try to plant false evidence. I still think of Powell at the UN. I hope he sleeps at night.

Also for the world security we shouldn't feel threatened about Nation-States having strategic missiles: it essentially is a diplomatic weapon. WHat we must fear is those nukes blowing up unannounced, with no one revendicating the act. BOOM like that. Anywhere. Anytime. For no reason. A bit like 9-11; excuse my stupidity here., but did the thing called the 'Taliban' revendicated 911?
--
I work at a public market and we trive on tourism; I often think of the consequence of a major terrorist event in Seattle: that would mean Brainz's screwed - and 5 millions more.
--
Eventually World Peace will be declared; Iran and the US will re-establish diplomatic relations, Palestine will be peaceful, the UN will be reformed. The world will be integrated like never before, and all borders will be porous. The world will need 5 nukes to get there, and 20 years; the Y2K Generation is coming, and they were raised on the internet.

@Tally

Nah, ^^ this is insulting
.......

Yeah, that's how a normal brain works, it discerns patterns. Try it someday, but don't forget to keep the "most" and never replace it with "all". Just like I do.

Last edited: Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 5:54:11 PM

Brains, replying to his posts would require inching perilously close to repeating myself to death . Ça suffit.
As for the rest of it, I sorta hope you're right.

^ Better an honest arrogance than an hypocritical humility

I hear you about the 'to death'. To write here is exhausting, yet stimulating.

I learned a lot on the daleks today.

Apparently some of you dudes missed that left turn awhile back. Dudes, this is about empire building and those who prosper from it, and those who resent and fight it. Are you so naive to think that we're just out there to build democracies and spread good cheer to all?

Hell, do you really think that in our own country we cannot provide health care to all, protect our security without invading countries, reward domestic producers of goods, provide retirement security and living wage jobs, and successfully change from black energy economy to a green one?

Abraham Lincoln really coined it about fooling people.

You're asking too much in this dark age of terror, where shadowy menaces lurks at every corner, and when your borders are under repeated assault from Canadian tourist and Mexican workers. First we must blow up something... Some shock and awe to spice up the scenery. Then eventually you have democracy. Simple.