Gary <3
Stunningly, weirdly, perhaps promisingly, Gary Hart now has a blog. So far it looks like cut n’ pasted bits from the ol’ stump speech - if you start a paragraph with a sentence like ‘Another young person asked me “why are you a Democrat?”‘ you’re not exactly Keeping It Real. Not that I expect Hart to start dishing about his celebrity crushes and publishing his Amazon Wish List, but if he lets us into the process just a little bit more, this could turn into something very good.
#FFFF33 Journalism
I’d thought that the blogosphere was going to be a great place to keep track of the war and follow the debate over its coverage, a place where the actual events in Iraq would be dissected for their political and tactical ramifications. Unfortunately, it looks like the Hour of the Blog has passed, with its finest hour (the fall of Trent Lott) now a footnote.
The problem is that many of the so-called “warblogs” simply won’t come to the table. Even the flagships of the genre, like Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan’s site seem to be laboring under the weird delusion that the real war is being fought right here in America. They spend their days constructing bizarre longhaired straw men and knocking ‘em down with a level of high-handed rhetorical smugness not seen since the Clinton impeachment hearings.
This would be a great service to our country if their cowardly and irrational foes actually existed, or existed as anything larger than a handful of left-fringe freaks. To the warbloggers, the entire anti-war movement is under the misapprehensions that Saddam isn’t such a bad guy, that appeasement was the only answer, and (most bizarrely) that America is not going to win this war. Taking easy potshots at these caricatures is their daily focus, fulminating against these phantom anti-American forces, gloating that they’ll get what’s a-comin’ to ‘em.
The mainstream right simply refuses to engage in any sort of dialog with the mainstream left, so you’ll see little rational discussion of diplomacy’s failure, the consequences of over-selling America’s military might, the strategy and timetable for war, or the risks inherent in presenting the Islamist world with a single, easily-identifiable target. Perhaps the taxing requirements of daily writing makes fighting cartoon foes the easiest strategy, but the internet’s conservatives seem to have alarmingly little interest in the reality of a pro-American left. And only passing interest in the war itself.
For an antidote to this and a look at how blogging on the war ought to be done, drop by Atrios’ worthy Eschaton. Note the prevalence of entries about the war and analyses of mass media’s coverage thereof. If the pro-unilateralist right could muster up a few guys to deal in this arena, it’d be a boon to all of us. But I suppose that reading and analyzing just isn’t as easy and fun as sneering.
The Little Three
CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are (of course) locked in a struggle for the hearts and minds of concerned Americans, and their daily contortions to find the precise combination of reportage and bias that’ll bring in the Nielsens is a glory to behold. The most horrifyingly amusing bloodsport is the hourly race to find the most telegenic relative of an American POW and see if they can moved to tears before the other networks get there. Here’s your handy Viewers’ Guide:
CNN - “Do you like victims? So do we! Wounded folks on both sides of the battle lines, the families of the dead, the grim tolling of the bell that signifies the awful costs of war… we got ‘em right here! Weep along with ever-slower and ever-sadder Aaron Brown (why, sometimes he’s too Deeply Affected to even speak!) every night, and keep your clicker on the network that brought you Gulf War I. CNN - We Know War.”
Fox News - “Smirk if you got ‘em, boys! The technology of 2003 plus the zeitgeist of 1956 equals battlefield boffo! Watch Real American Brit Hume make the simple even simpler for you, and thrill as our men stick it to those Rooskis - er - Iraqis. Don’t miss our nightly serious, fair, balanced debate forum, “Screaming at Faggy Eggheads.” Fox News - We Report, You Tie ‘Em Up and Drag ‘Em Behind Your Truck.”
MSNBC - “What chance do our primitive foes have against our technical superiority and highly-trained elite forces? We’re talking, of course, about CNN and Fox - they don’t stand a chance! If you want to hear all about how we’re covering the war better than those guys, you’ve come to the right place! We provide 24 hours a day of the the best, most balanced coverage of our great coverage. How did we get an HDTV feed with Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound onto the front of an American tank outside Basra? Find out! MSNBC - the REAL winner of the second Gulf War.”





36 comments
Linkmeister
March 30, 2003 at 5:07 pm
1Here. Have another pro-America liberal warblog, although it started out to be an election blog. Proprietor is an Army infantry vet, and the commenters are knowledgeable.
Raya
March 30, 2003 at 7:47 pm
2Re: the pro-war/right-wing crowd refusing to engage in dialogue, I thought this Onion article summed it up nicely.
My experience has been this:
The Anti-War Side: “[Searching questions! Facts and figures from documented sources!]”
The Pro-War Side: “Just shut up, willya? You suck. Bugger off. And also, shut up.”
John Isbell
March 30, 2003 at 7:49 pm
3“Fox News - We Report, You Tie ‘Em Up and Drag ‘Em Behind Your Truck.”
Savage, just savage. I’ve also heard “Fox News - When America Attacks.” But I think I prefer yours.
Tacitus might be a decent warblogger. His comments are usually pretty reasonable.
Sara
March 30, 2003 at 8:41 pm
4Did you see when Aaron Brown interviewed the Washington correspondent for Al-Jazeera about showing gruesome footage? He broke down into shouting and petty bitching in the face of that man’s stolid reasonableness. Poor Aaron. Whereas, has anyone seen Wolf Blitzer SLEEP? Man’s a robot, yo.
These and more vital war-related musings brought to you by…
craig
March 30, 2003 at 9:34 pm
5The local NPR station here has become the local BBC World Service station. I’m not complaining. What seems to me to be the major difference between American media coverage of the war (excuse me, “conflict”) and the BBC coverage is that the BBC seems to spend more time covering the political aspects of the conflict while the Americans are more interested in the score (how many dead/injured/missing on either side) and the “human interest” stories of the lives of American soldiers and their families(like you point out).
For those in the New York metro area, Batchelor and Alexander on WABC late nights are great entertainment in the field of conspiracy theorists. In general, WABC is the Fox News of radio.
Sara J
March 31, 2003 at 2:58 am
6I don’t have cable, so I get my CNN, etc. vicariously through blogs like the Daily Howler–trust me, it’s much nicer (and funnier) that way.
Tonight I watched the first 15 minutes of the local news. On each of the three channels of Seattle-based newscasts, I was treated to the same memorial service for a local Marine, interviews with the same recently-called-up reservist, and the same two families who have bonded over their sons being in the military. Does anyone think they’re NOT being spoon-fed the stories to cover? Does anyone think the national cable networks are any different?
Blogs (especially this one) are a breath of fresh air, a joy to read, and the intellectual antidote to mindless overproduced mass-marketed drivel. Never leave us, Adam!
Glenn
March 31, 2003 at 5:49 am
7The hour of the blog is over? HA! It’s barely even begun. Check our agonist.org for what is absolutly the best war blog out there. Not much opinion..only the news.
Are most right wing blogs irrelevent? Yes, they are. They spend most of their time whining and sniviling..mainly because the nature of the beast gets their asses checked in real-time..something most conservative arguments can not live up to. However, look on the left and the center, and there is an awful lot of gold. I think that like how talk radio is dominated by the right, this media is destined to be dominated by the left.
InMarin
March 31, 2003 at 6:46 am
8I just adore the logic of the right: shut up, or move to a country that doesn’t allow dissent!
aaron
March 31, 2003 at 10:11 am
9The problem here is due to one of the most fundamental aspects of conservatism; the concept of absolutism. Black and White, Right and Wrong, Pro-American and Anti-American. The idea that EVERYTHING can be quickly and easily categorized as one extreme or the other seems (to me, at least) to be the backbone of the ultra-conservative movement. When one introduces logical discourse - and therefore grey area - into the arena, this concept is thrown out the window.
Naturally, those running the conservative side of things want to take all steps necessary to ensure that their fragile world view is not shattered by things like facts, differing moral codes, or the possibility that maybe - just MAYBE - the opinion of someone who does not entirely agree with them may actually be somewhat valid.
Unfortunately, this means choosing easy targets - even if they’re not the most accurate or threatening. Hell, it’s what our “President” is doing right now!
Norm Jenson
March 31, 2003 at 10:20 am
10The best of CNN was Daniel Ellsberg teaching Aaron Brown about straw men and such. Brown was stammering by the time it was over.
LAW
March 31, 2003 at 10:26 am
11Another vote for agonist.org - the amount of coverage Sean-Paul Kelley has managed on his own is truly impressive.
mary
March 31, 2003 at 10:27 am
12Are ‘diplomacy’s failure, the consequences of over-selling America’s military might, the strategy and timetable for war, or the risks inherent in presenting the Islamist world with a single, easily-identifiable target’ really the issues of the mainstream left?
If those are the issues of the mainstream left, then why have our elected, Democratic representatives supported the war? Why do polls show that more than 70% of all Americans support it?
Many people, moderates included, question the strategy and the timetable for war –reasonable people know that the course of any war is unpredictable.
What exactly are the ‘risks inherent in presenting the Islamist world with a single, easily-identifiable target’? What do you consider to be the ‘single, easily-identifiable’ target – America or our troops in Iraq? America has been a target of the Islamist world for awhile – remember 9/11? That attack happened during peacetime.
Terrorism isn’t an act of desperation inspired by a desire for revenge – it’s a military tactic inspired by large sums of cash. Islamist terrorists (al Qaeda, Hamas) are supported by generous sponsors in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
I read the Onion article – so the war in Iraq will create a million more bin Ladens? Is that supposed to be a reasonable argument? Hopefully, it’s all part of the joke. They were saying that the war in Afghanistan would create a million bin Ladens – terrorists and terrorist wannabes traveled for miles to help the Taliban fight the US – we turned them into daisy cutter fodder. Now, more terrorist wannabes are traveling to Iraq to fight our military. History repeats itself.
The extremists, the ‘activists’ who plan attacks on air force bases and shoot policemen to spread their anti-war, anti-capitalist message are not cartoons. Like the right-wing extremists (fundamentalist Christians who pray for end times, racist isolationists like Pat Buchanan) they are real people who are causing real problems. The mainstream should not ignore these extremists.
Z
March 31, 2003 at 11:07 am
13This characterizes the debate quite well:
http://www.onion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html
Ras_Nesta
March 31, 2003 at 12:19 pm
14My Limbaugh-lovin Freeper friend and I had some good arguments this weekend. It gives me a window into their ugly, paranoid world. He kept trying to get me to agree that “This war is the right thing to do, and will make us secure from terrorism.” OK, I said, if there’s another terrorist attack here can I hold you that. Of course not, because the basis of Limbaugh-think is “Heads I win, tails you lose.” They are NEVER wrong.
He also used the term “Armchair Generals” to describe highly-decorated retired soldiers like Wesley Clark who dare to criticize Dummy Rummy’s Thinly-stretched Cakewalk o’ Blood. Our soldiers are only getting 1 meal a day in some spots, and Ass-pimple Limbaugh has the gall to blame it on men who gave their whole careers to our military.
The rightwing is freaked and striking out at any target they can reach because the average moron-american Bush voter is looking up from “American Idol” and asking Bush, “Didn’t you promise that this thing would be over by now?” Hence all the revisionist “We always knew this would be a long and hard battle.” chatter.
Brian Newhouse
March 31, 2003 at 1:10 pm
15“Are most right wing blogs irrelevent? Yes, they are. They spend most of their time whining and snivelling..mainly because”…right-wing bloggers are interested not so much in politics as in the passions they excite (to paraphrase Edmund Burke) They don’t cover much in the way of news because they don’t give a damn about what finding out what the world beyond their TV sets is actually like. Instead, they consume news because it makes them feel real good and forget their troubles, and it’s so much manlier and more patriotic than showbiz-diva-worship, so much more respectable than pro wrestling, and so much less exhausting than random promiscuity. To them everything is punditry. Right wing warblogs long ago became as monotonous and indistinguishable as academic-postmodernist-feminist cultural criticism.
John Isbell
March 31, 2003 at 1:11 pm
16“The extremists, the ‘activists’ who plan attacks on air force bases and shoot policemen to spread their anti-war, anti-capitalist message are not cartoons.”
You’re talking about current protesters, right? I heard about a sit-in in front of a base, I never heard about an attack. Maybe there was, or maybe you’ve seen they’re planning one in your crystal ball. Ditto, to reclaim that word from the loathsome Rush Limbaugh, for a protester shooting a policeman. I have a feeling THAT would have made the news.
Landis
March 31, 2003 at 2:41 pm
17I have to agree with John about this one. While it was only a cursory search on Google News, I wasn’t able to find any American protesters who shot any policemen.
But I think your point was that there are extremists on both sides. And in this you are definitely correct. Here in the SF Bay Area (motto: Protesting everything since before statehood) we’ve seen our share of hooligans that just like the excuse to go out and riot and destroy public and private property. But that small number of people doesn’t mean that the vast majority of protesters don’t have a point.
“so the war in Iraq will create a million more bin Ladens? Is that supposed to be a reasonable argument?”
I believe that this was intended to be a resonable argument. While there may have been some exaggeration in the exact numbers I think that it’s important to note that in many ways what we do ends up making things quite a bit worse. If your argument is that we did this in Afghanistan and we didn’t see these “bin Ladens” crop up, I just have to throw the time argument in there. Give it time. People say that 9/11 wasn’t Bush’s (43) fault and point to training that had gone on for five years. What about the original complaints by these terrorists (US troops on sacred soil) left over from Bush (41) and his campaign in the Persian Gulf.
I hear the argument over and over that “these people hate freedom, they hate our way of life.” Well, you’ll always be able to find wackos that believe anything. It’s been pointed out that there are extremists on both the political left and right here in the US. But Muslims who aren’t this slim minority don’t hate freedom and couldn’t care less about our way of life - until it affects them. THIS is where our battle lies. When we go into the entire world and decide that we know what is best for everyone we run the risk of marginalizing the general populations and helping these “bin Laden wackos” to recruit people who will do these horrible things. If we weren’t oppressing them with our foreign policies they wouldn’t care anything about us and we WOULDN’T be that big glowing target.
Ok, no more coffee for me.
mary
March 31, 2003 at 3:15 pm
18From a recent article in Salon:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/03/16/vandenberg/print.html
“March 16, 2003 | VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) — Security forces at Vandenberg Air Force Base are allowed to use “deadly force” in some cases if any anti-war demonstrators infiltrate the military complex, officials said.
Some anti-war activists have announced plans to trespass in hopes of disturbing Vandenberg’s mission and to vandalize sensitive equipment they believe helps the war effort.”
An anti-capitalist ‘activist’ shot a policeman in Red Bluff, CA. Afterwards, he posted information about the murder on sf.incymedia.org, a site frequented by anti-war activists & extremists of all sorts. Indymedia editors did not notify the police. Indymedia readers praised the murderer’s anti-capitalist ideals.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/1545326.php
These are a few of the extremists from the left.
I don’t know what Rush Limbaugh has to say about this because I never listen to him. I usually get my news from the NY Times, Salon, the Guardian. The only person I’ve ever read who has plenty of thoughtless dittoheads parroting his ideas is Noam Chomsky. Chomsky dittoheads are almost cultlike in their devotion.
If we ‘weren’t oppressing them with our foreign policies they wouldn’t care anything about us’.
Does that explain the anger that motivates Muslim fundamentalists? According to a recent article in the Times, about Sayed Qtub, the philosopher whose works motivated al Qaeda and the ‘modern’ muslim fundamentalist movement, they really do hate our freedoms – especially liberal values, like the separation between church and state.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/magazine/23GURU.html?pagewanted=2
The mainstream left is only beginning to learn about Muslim fundamentalism, their philosophies and their crimes. The fact that they still claim that America is the only target of the jihadis is proof that they just haven’t done their research. Islamic fundamentalists are responsible for millions of deaths around the world. They’ve murdered and enslaved millions in the Sudan, they’ve murdered hundreds of thousands in East Timor, they’ve killed thousands of Egyptians Copts. The jihadis didn’t murder those people because they disapproved of their foreign policy. They murdered them because they weren’t muslim, because they didn’t follow Sharia law.
Were those millions of deaths caused by a slim minority? If so, that slim minority was pretty busy.
We didn’t create them. We are trying to stop them. If you have any reasonable suggestions about how to do this, it would be nice to hear them. But it would be nice if you had some facts to back your opinions up.
aaron
March 31, 2003 at 3:56 pm
19If you want to stop people who hate you from hurting you, first you must stop them from hating you.
And I wish that everyone could understand that anti-war is NOT the same as Anti-American, Pro-Terrorist, or Pro-Saddam. Just like Pro-choice is NOT the same as Anti-Baby, Anti-Death Penalty is not the same as Pro-Murder, etc.
The crimes of Muslim fundamentalism are no different than the crimes of Christian fundamentalism, Socialist fundamentalism, or Capitalist fundamentalism.
Any time a group of people believes in ANYTHING to the point where they refuse to accept that it is anything but 100% correct, 100% of the time, and that everyone who disagrees is dead wrong, you’re going to have problems. This goes for Muslim fundamentalists, this goes for protesters who take it too far, and this goes for those “Uhmur’knz” who really just want to see us “kick some Muslim ass.”
mary
March 31, 2003 at 5:31 pm
20“If you want to stop people who hate you from hurting you, first you must stop them from hating you”
The tactics & attitudes of the Muslim fundamentalists are pretty close to those used by the Japanese during WWII. Any suggestions about how we could have stopped them from hating & killing us and everyone else who wasn’t Japanese? Any suggestions backed up with facts?
I mean, I’m just another dumb Uhmur’kn, so what do I know.
Ras_Nesta
March 31, 2003 at 7:09 pm
21Mary, are you are a long-standing member of many humanitarian organizations?
Or are you another warmonger who just learned 3 months ago that Saddam “Gassed his own people” while Saint Reagan was in power and Saddam was our friend, and you will now latch on to humanitarianism for political cover. How much worry have you put into other humanitarian nightmares around the world?
The protester shooting policeman story is a complete fabrication. Do YOU have facts behind that story other than Indymedia? Funny, Google News doesn’t have anything about it.
As for ass-pimple draft-dodger Limbaugh, here he was on 3/19(http://rushtranscript.blogspot.com): “If you support the troops and Senator Daschle says he does- you don’t seek to undermine the commander in chief- by doing so to undermine the war effort, give aid and comfort to the enemy. You don’t do that if you really support the troops.”
Here’s another Lameballs gem: “But the left is so desperate for the socialist dream to come true that they’ll transpose all their beliefs, or transfer all their beliefs, to al Queda. Instead, the left warily admires al Queda, the Taliban, and militant Islam in general for doing battle with the United States. The left tries to overlook militant Islam’s slightly unsocialist practices, such as its’ imposing religious law, excluding women from the workplace, banning the payment of interest, encouraging private property, and persecuting atheists. They overlook all that.”
Palmer Haas
March 31, 2003 at 8:38 pm
22You are so on the money, Adam. I was thinking much along the same lines last night. 99% of the right wing warbloggers are holding public weblynching with news stories about left wing kooks while far more dangerous (because they have access to the people in charge) right wing kooks barely raise a flag and are then forgotten.
Fox News and every war blog could not get enough of the story about Nicholas De Genova, a Professor at Columbia who made the news by saying some anti American things I totally disagree. Tony Snow just could not let Sunday Morning pass without one pass at demonizing liberals everywhere, notifying all of America about this priceless nugget about De Genova; it gives their neanderthal viewing audience something to grind their teeth about, so they can gripe “The left is ruining America!!!!” How convienently, since it distracts them from the incredible accusations coming from INSIDE THE ARMY CONDUCTING THE WAR in regards to the phenominal success Rummy is having conducting the war. Not to mention truly the dumbfounding story about Richard Perle’s resignation under the sleaziest of circumstances, which barely touched the TV airwaves, and when it was mentioned it was a love fest - I heard that Lou Dobbs on CNN’s moneyline, effectively kissed his ass (didn’t see it myself, sorry). That’s not to even mention something like the story about Laurent Murawiec back in August, that came and went faster than you could say “shock and awe”.
You tell me who’s more dangerous - (A)An Ivy league professor demanding an attentavie audience of college students that they should forgoe the frozen yogurt machine because the swirl lever that mixes the choclate and vanilla that has been broken for the past two weeks proves just how racist America really still is, or (B)some guy giving a powerpoint presentations inside the Pentagon to the people who advise the President and control the largest military budget in the history of the world, advocating that we invade an additional two Middle Eastern Muslim countries that are supposed to be our allies?
Sadder still is that this kind of insight and info is coming from an entertainer (you hollywood kike commie bastard you!). Amazingly in this trend you are not alone. The one person that I heard mention on TV the highly questionable action of giving Halliburton (Dick Cheney’s old employer) the no bid government contracts to rebuild Iraq was of all people Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. No wonder the GOP hates the entertainment industry. We are doomed.
I know this is long, but for more info from mind numbing stupidity from right wing kooks, try to keep your temper while reading Seymour Hersh’s article about rift between Rummy and Pentagon
mary
March 31, 2003 at 9:18 pm
23Ras_Nesta-
You said: “The protester shooting policeman story is a complete fabrication. Do YOU have facts behind that story other than Indymedia? Funny, Google News doesn’t have anything about it.”
Does the mainstream left have a problem with using Google? Or with scrolling down a page and looking for links? About the story of the anti-capitalist activist who shot Officer Dave Mobilio and the Indymedia readers who cheered him, several local newspapers reported the crime:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/5372486p-6360638c.html
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/chico/2002-12-12/follow.asp
..and the Contra Costa Deputy Sheriff’s Association has information about the murder.
http://www.cocodsa.org/article.php?sid=183
Yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and I have donated to Oxfam & Amnesty International for many years.
You seem to know a lot about Limbaugh.
Jupiter
March 31, 2003 at 10:27 pm
24Mary:
Honey, what’s your point? Clearly your “anti-capitalist activist” is a murderous psychopath and Officer Mobilio’s family deserves our sympathy. No one here regards Mr. A-C. A. as a hero or a standard-bearer, regardless of his delusions.
What the hell does this have to do with that other murderous psychopath, Saddam Hussein?
adam
March 31, 2003 at 11:35 pm
25As mayor of this here site, I’m really liking the dialog here.
Though Mary, I think you might want to ratchet down the anger a bit. When you say, “The extremists, the ?activists? who plan attacks on air force bases and shoot policemen to spread their anti-war, anti-capitalist message are not cartoons,” you can’t really expect people to find that guy on a Google search - he was neither a protester nor an activist nor anti-war… He was just some anti-corporate nut, and trying to tie him to the anti-war protesters is, well, completely unfair.
Back to the Islamic fundamentalists… until the past few months, it would’ve been hard to find many of ‘em who had any great attachment to Iraq. Islamic militants have been clamoring for Saddam Hussein’s head for two decades now. Osama bin Laden’s latest message to his followers broke ground by calling on Islam to fight American action there, but in the same breath he utterly renounced Saddam’s regime.
That idea, right there, is what a lot of “anti-war” people have been saying in the days leading up to the war: “Don’t force these groups together, don’t fight this war without copious worldwide and, especially, Islamic support.” It could have been done. Instead, we’re forcing a whole corner of the world into an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” position.
Calling for better diplomacy is not necessarily a weak or pacifist stance. Diplomacy and how it’s done determines the shape of a war and its aftermath. From the most steely-eyed machiavellian to the most flower-powered pacifist you will often here the same opinion these days - we will win the war, but we lost the war before the war. We didn’t even try. And that’s gonna cost us.
Leslie
March 31, 2003 at 11:48 pm
26Mary, you sound to me like a fairly moderate Republican trying, at least at some level, to figure out what our issues are as liberals. I don’t pretend to speak for all of liberal America, but personally, I agree that Saddam Hussein is a monster. He has perpetrated horrific crimes on his own people, and I believe the world would be a better place without him. I don’t even necessarily disagree with going to war to remove him from power - but I do disagree with the way we have entered this war. My concern is the manner in which the US is using its power. According to a Newsweek article I read recently, (”The Arrogant Empire” March 24, 2003) George Bush backed out of five international treaties in his first year, in addition to refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Now, after courting the approval of the UN for the use of force in Iraq, he has denied its authority and attacked anyway. It is easy to understand that the people of the world are now worried about a superpower that has no international “check and balance” system. There is no other superpower, and Bush has indicated in no uncertain terms that his sole concern is the interests of the US. The world has gotten too small for that mentality. Our interests SHOULD come first to our President, but the concerns of other nations affect our concerns.
I already hear the argument coming that we are showing our concern for other countries by fighting to free the Iraqis. Hopefully, that will be a side-effect of this war, but that is not the purpose. There are many, many other tyrannical regimes, but we will not go to war to topple them. (Let’s be honest, we couldn’t afford to fight them all.) We are fighting this regime because of terrorist concerns and because of oil. Again, my argument is not with the purpose, but with the unilateral disregard for other nations.
Neither the left wing nor the right wing has a corner on the market for wild-eyed radical nut cases. There are websites promoting each side that don’t demonstrate enough intelligence to power an eye-blink. If you truly want to find out why mainstream liberals take the stands they do, stay away from the radical left wing websites and keep an eye on Fanatical Apathy for a while.
Susie
April 1, 2003 at 9:07 am
27I’d lay off Mary. So she’s “angry” in a direction opposed to everyone else here.
It’s not easy being the one person not preaching to the converted. Anger towards the right allowed, towards the left not allowed?
Also dismissing the right completely while giving them heck for being dismissive… well that’s a nice little party.
Oh no I didn’t! Woo!
wuv,
me
mary
April 1, 2003 at 10:48 am
28Sorry if I sounded angry – I just tend to adopt the general attitude of the discussion – as Susie mentioned, it seemed somewhat dismissive. So I figured it was appropriate to be dismissive in response.
The story of Officer Dave Mobilio and the Indymedia response is just one example of the fact that these “cowardly and irrational foes” do exist. Some people, like Limbaugh, tend to lump all leftists together. If the mainstreamers spoke out against the extremists, they might not be so vulnerable to criticism.
Until Sept. 11th, I was a million-mom-march Gore voting liberal. The Democrats’ first response to the attacks seemed to be panic and confusion. Republicans, like Giuliani and occasionally Bush, seemed to have a clearer sense of purpose. When faced with an enemy that gets it’s kicks from slaughtering people by the thousands, slogans like “It’ll be a great day when the schools have money and the army has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber” start to sound pretty lame.
I used to say that all the time. The Islamist movement is about as racist, intolerant and destructive as the Japanese were during WWII. They’re supported by money from Saudi Arabia and Iraq (and others). Bush & company haven’t done a very good job of selling this point to the rest of the world. They haven’t done a very good job of running the country. But right now, he’s the only President we’ve got. What are the alternatives?
What workable alternatives has the left come up with to fight the Islamist threat? If there was a democratic candidate who openly admitted that the Saudis were not our allies, who could manage to convince the world that fighting the Islamists & the countries that support them was in their own self-interest, and who was willing to pour lots of money & effort into alternative energy research, I’d vote for them. So far, all I hear is a lot of anti-Bush, anti-right rhetoric.
It is probably a good idea, as Leslie said, not to focus too much on the extremists. This is a nice site and an interesting discussion.
Georgette
April 1, 2003 at 11:08 am
29Utterly confused and saddened by this war, but one thing I do know.
I know what raises my hackles.
Hey!
>>>Honey, what’s your point?<<<
“Honey”?
if anyone dared to call ME ‘honey’ in a poitical arguement he/she would be at risk, is all I can say.
(Don’t get me started on “Baby” just don’t.)
Leslie
April 1, 2003 at 12:25 pm
30I really don’t think of this as an Islamist threat. I don’t believe Islam is, in and of itself, a violent religion. Some violent, fundamentalist members of the religion have twisted the Koran to make it say what they want it to say, as have fundamentalists of every religion since time began. Making it a holy war seems very, very dangerous to me. It is a war against terrorism.
How do we fight the terrorist threat? Well, at this point we’re committed to war. As you say, Bush is the only President we’ve got, and impeachment isn’t likely with a Republican-controlled Congress. By going to war without garnering Arab support we have alienated even the more moderate Arab nations, as Adam said in his response, so we don’t have many alternatives right now. I’m watching with a sinking heart as other Arab nations move to stand with Iraq, not because they like Saddam, but because sheep may fight among themselves, but they’re united against the wolf.
Now what? Good question. As you said, Mary, the majority of Democrats in Congress (including most of the Presidential candidates) support this war. Sounds to me as if, should the war continue until they are elected, they would continue trying to topple Saddam’s regime. Once that’s done, I hope that a Democratic President would allow the UN to take a major role in rebuilding Iraq. I also hope that our next President will be more focused on foreign policy and will start trying to repair the considerable damage done to the image of the US worldwide. We need to step back into the world-wide community.
What about the rest of the nations with terrorist cells? I want to see a candidate who will work with other nations, as the Bush administration has worked with Pakistan, to encourage them to help us and the rest of the nations of the world by dealing with the terrorists themselves. We can help, but I don’t want to see us at war with every nation in the world that harbors terrorists. And if the nations are uncooperative? I believe diplomatic pressure can be very effective, especially if there is room for give and take…not just give.
mary
April 1, 2003 at 9:06 pm
31Leslie – Islamist is the label given to the extremists, to differentiate them from moderate Islam. While we don’t really want to make it a holy war, the Islamists do.
It would be nice if we could have gotten support from moderate Arab nations – (I’m not sure which Arab nations are moderate – Bahrain?), but since very few of these dictatorships want to see democracy come to the region, we would have been waiting for a very long time.
Yes, we should try to work more closely with other nations. While our military is the best, I get the feeling that their intelligence and police forces are better than our FBI/CIA. And diplomatic/economic pressure would probably be effective against countries like Saudi Arabia.
lugnut
April 2, 2003 at 11:47 am
32Genuine journalist Peter Arnett mistakenly lets himself be interviewed, and says things that are on the front pages of every newspaper, and he gets fired by MSNBC.
Blatantly “pro-war” FOX News employee Geraldo Rivera REVEALS US TROOP MOVEMENTS ON LIVE TV, and FOX doesn’t fire his $7-million-a-year ass, but just sends him home?
So giving away troop movements is just fine so long as you work for an arm of, and support, the Republican Party?
ELIZABETH
April 3, 2003 at 9:28 am
33Mary,
Because several middle eastern countries support terrorism, are you advocating that we go to war against these countries? There are many arabs who view Isreal and America as terrorists and invaders. Have you heard of Jenin? Or is that you are only capable of feeling pain for Americans? Heard of Hilla, the new Mai lai Massacre?
Raymond
April 7, 2003 at 9:54 am
34I LOVE this post and your blog, Adam!!! Discovered you from “Wait Wait—Don’t Tell Me!” on NPR. You are an oasis. You are such a breath of fresh, gleeful air in the midst of the deadly serious, right-wing, shrill war environment.
I’m promoting you on my blog and quoting this post. Thank you for what you are doing!
PLEASE BOYCOTT ALL FRENCH PRODUCTS!
May 17, 2003 at 2:10 am
35PLEASE BOYCOTT ALL FRENCH PRODUCTS!
Please refrain from purchasing any French products:
We ask that you assist in spreading this message to all your friends and
family, this action may seem extreme at first, however as this month
unfolds, a boycott of all French products will seem to be more of an
American duty then an outlandish attack.
Thank you for your time,
-The Anti-France Campaign
ODB
June 29, 2003 at 9:32 pm
36Re: sissy “Aaron” on conservative black ‘n white attitudes. Liberals have every thought, move, whim or whimsey tied up in their way of being. The tiniest dissent or threat to their psychological structure, derived from some amorphous source, threatens ego death. That’s why it is liberals, not conservatives, who are a millimeter away from fascism at all times. You girlish, goofy, pathetic excuses for males cannot even buy a car without consulting your peers. It is you, not conservatives, who cannot tolerate the tiniest objection to your outlook.