Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 05-04-2007, 05:57 AM

the luttwak piece is really pretty funny---and it only makes sense as a satire. which makes sense: luttwak is an interesting cat---here's a reasonably well written blog-like piece on him and a few others, which is worth a read through:

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/lists_...es-l/2776.html

====================
in a manner of speaking, reconmike and powerclown above demonstrate the apparent a priori status of facile, one-dimensional critiques of the un in the context of the ever-diminishing space of conservativeland....i have long found it curious that such claims had any traction anywhere, given that they are little more than retreads of old school john birch society nonsense, the fear of a rootless cosmpolitanism destroying the authentic backwoods nationalism of righteous amuricans...the rabid and fundamentally anti-semitic anti-communism of the birchers was geared around the equation of the un with an international bolshevik conspiracy, with the protocols of the elders of zion actually functioning as a logical lynchpin. it is truly a glorious ideological legacy the right drew on for this particular element of its collage politics, reaching way into the lower depths of the jurassic park of reactionary ideology that is the united states. in the retread version, the historical ignorance of the conservative set is taken for granted, the facile appeal of blood-and-soil politics is taken on as a structuring trope and the attending paranoia deployed as a mobilizing tool.

this is ultimately about rightwing identity politics--the logic functions to link a vague image of a very large-scale phenomenon to imagined threats to blood and soil and the virtuous toil of the volk---er..."patriots"....within this schema, you see a marketing device for the neocon geopolitical phantasm that shaped the logic of the iraq debacle itself---you see the linkages between the ideology of conservativeland in its more respectable-seeming form and that of the black helicopter set----here as elsewhere, the logic is basically pavlovian--rooted in a sense of being-threatened by outside forces beyond comprehension or control (a classical feature of petit bourgeois fascism everywhere)----and so is rooted in class anxiety, in status anxiety----this johnbirchsociety schema does nothing but condense and rechannel, requiring no particular thought, only a reaction. a third element of this johnbichsociety idiocy emerges in the way the term "socialism" operates in conservativeland: which refers typically to some undefined and undefinable Evil, one that collapses a vague image of stalinism into the history of social-democratic politics into a fear of the state, which is in turn refigured as a correlate of the international conspiracy of rootless cosmoplitans that it is the duty of righteous volk/patriots to oppose.

it'd be funny, this bizarreo identity politics, if it hadnt been a considerable force in the states over the past few years, had it not been a central element in the fabrication of a sense of being-threatened by saddam hussein/al queada/pick your Villain----within such a schema, the Source of the Threat hardly matters: anyone or anything can be plugged into the position occupied by the un in johnbirchland and the effect is the same---
so it is that the retread version can drop the centrality of the protocols of the elders of zion and replace it with something else--it doesnt matter, really, the logic works with or without explicit reference to the ur-text---and
was a perfect devise for structuring and selling the "war on terror" hallucination, the "threatened by iraq" hallucination--all of it.

and it worked: in responses even in this thread from ace, for example, it is pretty clear that the problem--the root problem--is that this is less about the validity of claims made to market the neocon's war than about maintaining a space for a conservative identity, which is a visceral construct, not a logical one. threats to the ideology or to the signifiers organized by it are ultimately threats to indentity that have to be swatted away. the motivation is psychological, but the arguments are routed through the discourse of politics.

the effects of conservative identity politics linger still, like the smell of some nasty flower. the ideological context has changed around them, and they cannot deal with this simple fact. as the context changes, the choice it presents simplifies: denial or vertigo. so it goes.

loquitur · 05-04-2007, 06:05 AM

<157> Host, I used the word "arguably" for a reason. This isn't cut and dry. And I never said it was 1441 that might have authorized the invasion; what I was referring to was the argument that the original ceasefire resolutions from 1991 could (note the word "could", not "must" - this is not stuff that is clear) be read to authorize resumption of hostilities upon breach by Iraq. Bear in mind that people's conceptions of the UN and its role (and the role of the US) will bear heavily on how they come out on this legal issue - it certainly affects yours, doesn't it?

It's dangerous to get yourself too invested in the legalisms on this issue, as if there is a single determinable right or wrong legal answer - this is foreign policy and power politics, and legalities tend to be invoked to justify whatever position someone wants to take. In my day to day life that's done, too, but there is a judge to decide who was right. In this context there isn't one, so invoking legalities is of limited usefulness other than to set the boundaries of the disagreement. That's useful, but it won't give you definitive answers in a particular case.

Roachboy, the Luttwak piece is the foreign policy equivalent of Pat Moynihan's "benign neglect" advice. I was recommending reading it mainly because of his observation (which to my eyes appears historically accurate) that Arab societies don't react to politics and war the way other societies do, that neither making nice nor getting tough appears to alter behavior. No doubt there are deep cultural reasons for it (and that's way beyond my expertise), but it certainly appears to be true. Germany and Japan, for instance, did some soul searching as a result of their loss in WW2 and fundamentally changed their societies to the point that they are almost aggressively pacifist - this after centuries of militarism and expansionism. The countries of the Middle East have been battered by the past century's events, yet appear not to have adapted much - free inquiry, status of women, tolerance of dissent, all are frowned on. It's a pity, too: half a billion people living in social structures that are a thousand years old. I don't know what can be done to change it or if it even is susceptible to change; greater minds than mine are wrestling with it.

roachboy · 05-04-2007, 03:14 PM

loquitor: the subtext of the article is hegel's philosophy of history.
what that comes down to is that places you know something about change, but places that you dont know shit about dont seem to. it is not accurate, it is not interesting and if it isnt a joke intentionally, it nonetheless is one.

let's assume that the piece is in fact satirical, shall we?
that way, i can retain my veneer of being nice and you can too.

loquitur · 05-04-2007, 03:34 PM

ummmm............ not sure that's right, roachboy. Not to pull the old man shit here, but I do recall that for pretty much my entire life there has been intractable strife in that section of the world that that has been impervious to all efforts at resolution on any terms except 100% what the locals want. When that happens you tend to see violence. The sheer volume of Middle Eastern warfare has been staggering: in my lifetime alone (I'm 48), and leaving out the Israeli issue and leaving out Western country interventions, so that we have only locals fighting each other, there have been wars involving Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Somalia - and that's just off the top of my head. Some of those countries have been involved in more than one war and some more than two. Mix in the conflicts at the edges of the Muslim world, with non-Muslims, and the number increases by an order of magnitude.

No, it's not satire, sadly. His prescriptions might be fatuous but his identification of an intractably pathology-wracked region is spot on.

ratbastid · 05-05-2007, 04:14 AM

In other news, two cosponsors just signed Kucinich's impeachment bill. They are Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). Schakowsky is a deputy whip and senior member of the House congressional leadership.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05032007.html

roachboy · 05-05-2007, 07:31 AM

loquitor: you cant pull "old man shit" on me...well maybe by a matter of months if you were born before august...but those months can be crucial, i know.
the problem with luttwak's piece and your memory exercise is superficiality.
hegel at least tried to "prove" that history only happened to white people: egypt for example once had history: they "knew there was a riddle" but couldnt figure out how to say it, therefore pyramids. so you see that hegel was able to go from superficial understanding to major tourist attractions and back to superficiality with ease when it came to places he fundamentally knew nothing about. this is obviously not to say that hegel was stupid---which would itself be a ridiculous thing to say--more that his book the philosophy of history is absurd. strict application of dialectical thinking to a world composed entirely of signifiers.
luttwak relies on this philosophy of history to organize his superficiality--but there is not method to be applied with strictness, so there is nothing of any interest to be had from his particular exercise. the idea that his piece could be confused with anything like a history of the region is laughable.
that is why i prefer to think of it as a satire.
it's a way of saying that he cannot possible be serious.

on a related note, over the past week we have seen the following bushworld developments: a clampdown on military personnel blogging from iraq and a piece about new conflicts emerging at guantanomo between detainees and their lawyers. in the first, you see an outline of what the folk in bushworld imagine the problem with iraq to be: bad press. in the second, you see another: legal representation which results in bad press. and you see the response of the bush people to this: try to eliminate or undermine the information.

without information, folk like luttwak can almost seem compelling.
its just a lobotomy away.

Willravel · 05-05-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Not to pull the old man shit here...

You're way better than ageism. I'm only 23 years old, btw. I just happen to read a lot.

mixedmedia · 05-05-2007, 07:44 AM

Coming strictly from my own layman's perspective, the Luttwak piece seemed to paint the middle east, arabs, muslims, etc. (groups that cannot easily be "grouped") with broad strokes of 1st world arrogance and indifference. Something we are all very used to hearing among average folks here on the ground, but something I find very disturbing and dangerous coming from someone who supposedly has a better vantage point to make observations from than most of us.

dc_dux · 05-05-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

The sheer volume of Middle Eastern warfare has been staggering: in my lifetime alone (I'm 48), and leaving out the Israeli issue and leaving out Western country interventions, so that we have only locals fighting each other, there have been wars involving Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Somalia

Are you smarting than a 5th grader?

5th grade geography question: Which of these countries are in Africa and NOT in the Middle East? - Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Somalia

The_Jazz · 05-05-2007, 11:06 AM

Depends on how you define "Middle East". There are different answers based on that definition. For instance, oil producing states would exclude Somalia and Ethiopia/Eritrea and possible Chad, but if you do it by religion, those are all included.

host · 05-05-2007, 11:56 AM

From post #3:

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

The fastest thing to improve Bush's approval ratings would be impeachment proceedings against him or Cheney. Kucinich can't really be that stupid. If he thought it would actually go somewhere I doubt he'd have done it.

If you've refused to consider impeachment of Cheney and Bush as a realitstic or even an appropriate response for the democrats to undertake, consider what influences have shaped your opinion, and whether they are trustworty:

.....Why is big corporate news media trying to convince us that the majority does not want the investigations by the new congress, that we actually believe are necessary and appropriate?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews
Democrats' Momentum Is Stalling
Amid Iraq Debate, Priorities On Domestic Agenda Languish

By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 5, 2007; Page A01

....."The primary message coming out of the November election was that the American people are sick and tired of the fighting and the gridlock, and they want both the president and Congress to start governing the country," warned Leon E. Panetta, a chief of staff in Bill Clinton's White House. "It just seems to me the Democrats, if they fail for whatever reason to get a domestic agenda enacted . . . will pay a price.".......

....and a WaPo article trotted Panetta out with the same message, (Jonathan Weisman....in both stories...) just a month ago:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040100766.html
Democrats To Widen Conflict With Bush
Some on Both Sides See Plans as Risky

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 2, 2007; Page A01

...Leon E. Panetta, who was a top White House aide when President Bill Clinton pulled himself off the mat through repeated confrontations with Congress, sees the same risk. He urged Democrats to stick to their turf on such issues as immigration, health care and popular social programs, and to prove they can govern.

"That's where their strength is," Panetta said. "If they go into total confrontation mode on these other things, where they just pass bills and the president vetoes them, that's a recipe for losing seats in the next election."....

But recent polls show just the opposite: (results here show 60 percent satisfied with amount of time spent investigating by congress....or they want even more...)

Quote:

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/315.pdf
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007, 2:00 PM

pages 3 and 4:

Congressional Investigations
The Democrats’ stepped-up pace of investigations has not drawn much in the way of
negative reaction. Just 31% believe Congress is spending too much time investigating possible
government wrongdoing, while slightly more (35%) say they are spending too little time on this,
and a quarter believe that the time spent on investigations has been appropriate.

Little Evidence of Investigation Backlash.....

...and it doesn't seem that sentiment has changed much since before last november's elections:

Quote:

http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm
CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"Do you think it would be good for the country or bad for the country if the Democrats in Congress were able to conduct official investigations into what the Bush Administration has done in the past six years?" Half sample, MoE ± 4.5

____________Good _____Bad ______Unsure
_______________% _______% ______%

8/30 - 9/2/06____57 ______41 ______2

The state Democratic Convention last week, in the most populous state in the US, passed a resolution that called for

Quote:

......using congressional subpoena power to investigate the administration and apply "appropriate remedies and punishment, including impeachment."

Quote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGCGPGFRB1.DTL

.....In addition to the presidential contest, convention delegates also are going to turn their attention to more than 100 separate resolutions, including strongly worded calls for the impeachment of President Bush, a quick end to American involvement in Iraq and other hot-button issues. Many of the resolutions are so controversial that party leaders would rather not see them debated on the convention floor, one reason the party's resolutions committee, appointed by party Chairman Art Torres, is expected to trim those down to a dozen or so of the most important, which delegates will vote on Sunday morning...

The San Francisco newspaper, quoted above, did not report on the outcome of the impeachment resolution vote.

Doesn't the democratic party in California, consist of the largest number of registered voters, by an overwhelmingly high number, of any state party membership, in the country?

Why was coverage of the party's impeachment resolution, shunned or downplayed so dramatically by all of the news media?

The other two major California papers that did report on the outcome of the impeachment resolution vote, did not lead their stories with it, and they downplayed the significance:

Quote:

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/163432.html
Convention continues Iraq pullout pressure
Democratic candidates Edwards, Richardson stir up anti-war passions on final day of party's gathering
By Peter Hecht and Andy Furillo - Bee Capitol Bureau

Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, April 30, 2007

.....Many spent the weekend parading with banners demanding the impeachment of the president and vice president and stronger action by Democratic leaders to end the war.

They bristled in angry protests when state party leaders favored more restrained policies, ultimately leading delegates to pass a resolution that demanded a "full investigation into abuse of power by President George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney."

While not calling for impeachment, the resolution called for using congressional subpoena power to investigate the administration and apply "appropriate remedies and punishment, including impeachment."...

Quote:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...0notebook.html
Even in GOP county, Obama's king of cash

By Bill Ainsworth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

April 30, 2007

.....Iraq, impeachment resolutions
The California Democratic Party approved resolutions yesterday seeking the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and calling on Congress to investigate the actions of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney and take appropriate action, which could include impeachment.

The Iraq resolution calls for Bush to immediately begin the orderly withdrawal of combat forces.

The impeachment resolution calls on Congress to investigate if Bush has abused his power and to “take necessary action to call the administration to account with appropriate remedies and punishment, including impeachment.” .....

A google news search of the quote, "appropriate remedies and punishment, including impeachment."
http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8...22&btnG=Search

...demonstrates support for the opinion that it got no widespread coverage....

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_042907.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2685133.shtml
CBS News
FACE THE NATION
Sunday, April 29, 2007

(Page 7...)

Rep. MURTHA: Well, in the first place we gave the president everything he
asked for and then some. We gave him $4 billion more. We gave him for PTSD,
we gave him for brain damage, all those kind of things, more money for Walter
Reed to take care of those problems. But what--if he vetoes this bill, he's
cut off the money. But obviously we're going to pass another bill. It's
going to have some stringent requirements. I'd like to see two months. I'd
like to look at this again in two months later...
SCHIEFFER: Just fund it for two months, rather than a year.
Rep. MURTHA: Fund it for two months, instead of a year, and then look at it
again.
SCHIEFFER: White House says no.
Rep. MURTHA: White House says no. But the White House has said no to
everything. They say we're willing to compromise, and then we don't get
any--we've compromised on waivers for the requirements of the troops, which is
their own requirements, and also goals instead of requirements for the
benchmarks. So we've already compromised, and we need to make this president
understand, `Mr. President, the public has spoken.' There are three
ways--four ways to influence a president, and one is popular opinion, the
election, third is impeachment, and fourth is--and fourth is tighten the
purse.

SCHIEFFER: Are you seriously talking about contemplating an impeachment of
this president, congressman?
Rep. MURTHA: Bob, what I'm saying is there's four ways to influence a
president.
SCHIEFFER: And that's one of them?
Rep. MURTHA: And one of them's impeachment...

SCHIEFFER: And that's one option--that's an option that's on the table?
Rep. MURTHA: ...and the fourth one that is on--I'm just saying that's one
way to influence the president. The other way, is your purse. And the purse
is controlled by the Congress, who's elected by the public. In the last
election, public said we want the Democrats in control....

Quote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9929716
Democrats Prepare Contingency Plans for Bush Veto
NPR.org, April 30, 2007 ·

....There's four ways you can influence a president. First of all, there's the polls, which didn't influence him. Second of all, there's an election, which should have influenced the president. It has had some influence: He fired the secretary of defense. Third, there's impeachment, and fourth, there's the power of the purse. We're using the power of the purse to negotiate with the president, and I hope we'll be able to work out a – we want to work with the president to end this long conflict, where our troops are caught in a civil war.

Congressman Murtha, when you include impeachment in that list of four, are you raising that as a realistic possibility of something that could happen here?

Well, I'm just saying that's one of the options that Congress has on the table. I'm getting more and more calls from the public about impeachment. Realistically, obviously the power of the purse is the most powerful influence that the public has, and we have to exert that influence to our utmost ability.

You're saying you're getting calls from the public on impeachment. Is the call for impeachment anything that you would consider?

Well, it's just one of the things that we always consider. That's part of the process. We're very careful about that. I've been through two impeachment proceedings. It's a very difficult proceeding, and I don't think it's appropriate at this time. But it's one of the things, certainly, that I always consider.

Even CBS news provided no news reporting of Murtha's impeachment references, originally broadcast on their own network news, Sunday morning program.....

Contrast the lack of coverage about references to impeachment of Bush and Cheney with this "message"....from "the people":

Here are polling results from polls taken just before this Chris Matthews program aired:

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/t...03-26-poll.htm
USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,007 National Adults, aged 18+, conducted March 23-25, 2007:

14. Do you think Congress should -- or should not -- investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter?
Yes, should No, should not No opinion
2007 Mar 23-25 ______________72 _____________21 ____________ 7

15. If Congress investigates these dismissals, in your view, should President Bush and his aides -- [ROTATED: invoke "executive privilege" to protect the White House decision making process (or should they) drop the claim of executive privilege and answer all questions being investigated]?

BASED ON –526—NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM A
Invoke executive privilege Answer all questions No opinion
2007 Mar 23-25 ________________26 _______________________________68 _________________6

Quote:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...ves/10322.html
March 26, 2007
A painful four minutes

The Chris Matthews Show devoted four minutes to the prosecutor purge scandal over the weekend, which quickly worked its way onto YouTube. Glenn Greenwald <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/26/matthews/index.html">called it</a> “the most revealing” YouTube clip ever. Before watching it, I thought he was probably exaggerating. Then I saw it for myself.

....MATTHEWS: Welcome back. The legend of Karl Rove has been over a decade in the making, ever since he teamed up with George W. Bush in 1994 in a down-and-dirty defeat of Governor Ann Richards. And of course, continuing with the wins over Gore and Kerry. The Bush-Rove team has developed a reputation for ruthlessness that’s earned them the hatred of a lot of Democrats, and also some grudging respect. When I interviewed Joe Biden on “Hardball” in 2005, he admitted there’s envy.

(Clip from July 12, 2005)

MATTHEWS: Do you think the Democrats wish they had a guy as good as Rove?

Senator JOE BIDEN: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. But I hopefully–yeah, yeah.

MATTHEWS: OK.

(End of clip)

MATTHEWS: Joe’s honest. Democrats are frustrated that Rove wasn’t indicted in the CIA leak case, but now that he’s been implicated in the firing of those US attorneys, it looks to some people as though Democrats are smelling blood.

Gloria, are they after Rove?

Ms. BORGER: Sure. You know, he’s the cross between Ahab and Darth Vader for them, for the Democrats. And honestly, they would love nothing more than to get him up before a congressional committee.

MATTHEWS: OK, OK.

Ms. BORGER: But they want to change the subject, Chris. They don’t want to talk about how they’re doing on the war in Iraq or where they’re…

MATTHEWS: You’re with me on that. They divide over the war and fund-raising, but this makes it simple. It’s good for fund-raising.

Ms. BORGER: Right.

MATTHEWS: Guess who’s making this case? Chuck Schumer, who’s the chief fund-raiser.

Ms. BORGER: Of course.

MATTHEWS: Rick, here’s the question. When the dog catches the car, what do they do? They want a confession, like on “Perry Mason,” where Rove just says, `You’re right, I’m no good.’ Do they want him to show his horns and be really nasty? Or do they want him to get into a perjury rap? What’re they after with this guy?

Mr. STENGEL: Well, as Joe Biden implied, it looks like the car would run over the dog in that case. And there are no–there are no “Perry Mason” moments except for “Perry Mason.” I am so uninterested in the Democrats wanting Karl Rove, because it is so bad for them. Because it shows business as usual, tit for tat, vengeance.

MATTHEWS: (Unintelligible).

Ms. BORGER: Mm-hmm.

Mr. STENGEL: That’s not what voters want to see.

MATTHEWS: So instead of like an issue like the war where you can say it’s bigger than all of us, it’s more important than politics, this is politics.

Mr. STENGEL: Yes, and it’s much less. It’s small bore politics.

O’DONNELL: The Democrats have to be very careful that they look like they’re not the party of investigation rather than legislation in trying to change things.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.....

Watch them giggle...the fourth "branch" of government....on a "mission" to constantly challenge those in power, or not?:

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ews/index.html
Glenn Greenwald
Monday March 26, 2007 08:47 EST
The most revealing three-minute YouTube clip ever

 Just as was true for their virtually unanimous insistence that there was no wrongdoing worth investigating in the Plame case -- including the serial lying and obstruction of justice from the Vice President's top aide, one of the most powerful people in the White House -- they also see nothing wrong whatsoever with serial lying and corruption by the Attorney General in this case.

Think about this: there are only two instances in the last six years where real investigations occurred in any of the Bush scandals -- this U.S. attorneys scandal (because Democrats now have subpoena power) and the Plame case (due to the fluke of two Republican DOJ officials with integrity, James Comey and Patrick Fitzgerald). And in both cases, it was revealed conclusively that top Bush officials -- at the highest levels of the government -- repeatedly and deliberately lied about what they did. Isn't that pattern obviously extremely disturbing?

....... These are not journalists who want to uncover government corruption or act in an adversarial capacity to check government power. Rather, these are members of the royal court who are grateful to the King and his minions for granting them their status. What they want more than anything is to protect and preserve the system that has so rewarded them -- with status and money and fame and access and comfort. They're the ludicrous clowns who entertain the public by belittling any facts which demonstrate pervasive corruption and deceit at the highest levels of our government, and who completely degrade the public discourse with their petty, pompous, shallow, vapid chatter that transforms every important political matter into a stupid gossipy joke.

<h3>Here are several of our media elites from our nation's most influential journalistic outlets -- including from Time, U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times, and NBC News -- all sitting around on the Chris Matthews Show giggling for three and a half minutes straight about the silly U.S. attorneys scandal. The whole thing is just a fun game for them, and it's absurd to them that anyone could take things like this seriously.</h3>

And what is most notable is that they express outrage at one part, and one part only, of this whole story -- namely, they are furious over the fact that the foolish, unfair Democrats would even dare to try to force Karl Rove to testify. Why, firing U.S. attorneys and lying to Congress and the country about it is all fair game, but that -- trying to get Rove to answer questions -- is really beyond the pale. Just watch how the people who have done so much damage to our country think and behave:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZuulS3xfKs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esalon%2Ecom%2Fopinion%2Fgreenwald%2F2007%2F03%2F26%2Fmatthews%2Findex%2Ehtml">Chris Matthews Show - 070324 - Purge Scandal YouTube</a>

If you've watched the video, consider this:

Quote:

http://theimpolitic.blogspot.com/200...a-is-mess.html
Monday, March 26, 2007
The media is the mess

....This gossipy, frivolous tripe masquerading as political commentary is coming from Chris Matthews of NBC; Norah O’Donnell, chief Washington correspondent for MSNBC; Richard Stengel, editor of Time magazine; Gloria Borger, national political correspondent for CBS News and a columnist for U.S. News and World Report; and Patrick Healy, a political reporter for the New York Times. You have to watch it to believe it.....

......For those who can't watch videos, Steve Benen has <a href="http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10322.html">the transcript</a> but it's not nearly as strong without the four minutes of incessant giggling going on among these "serious" pundits. They're not concerned about the burgeoning evidence that the administration has engaged in six years of serial lying to the detriment of our national security. But they're outraged that anyone -- namely Democrats -- would call the White House to account for its criminal behavior.....

Contrast what Andrea mitchell has reported twice....with:

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703130010

Ignoring polling to the contrary, NBC's Mitchell claimed "most people think ... Libby should be pardoned"

Discussing the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on the March 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, NBC chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell claimed that polling "indicates that most people think, in fact, that he should be pardoned -- Scooter Libby should be pardoned." Mitchell did not indicate to what specific "polling" she was referring. But a CNN poll released earlier that same day indicated that an overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe Libby should be pardoned.

The CNN poll, released at 4 p.m. ET on March 12, found that 69 percent of respondents felt President Bush "should not pardon" Libby, while only 18 percent felt the president "should pardon" him. CNN appears to be the only major news outlet thus far to have posed the question in a poll since Libby's March 6 conviction on federal charges of perjury and obstructing justice in connection with an investigation into the leaking of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame....

Quote:

http://www.pollingreport.com/whprobe.htm

Gallup Poll. March 11-14, 2007. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"As you may know, a jury found Libby guilty on four out of five criminal counts. Do you think George W. Bush should or should not issue a presidential pardon for Lewis 'Scooter' Libby?"
.
Should Should Not Unsure
% % %

3/11-14/07 ______21 ________67 __________12

Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. March 9-12, 2007. N=1,711 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, Louis 'Scooter' Libby, was convicted last week of lying to a grand jury and to FBI agents investigating the leak of the name of a secret CIA operative in 2003. Do you think that President Bush should give Libby a presidential pardon, or not?"

Should Should Not Unsure
% % %

3/9-12/07 _______18 ________72 __________11

....and here was Andrea Mitchell observed again, on April 26, telling the same lie about favorable sentiment for a Libby pardon:

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013860.php
(April 26, 2007 -- 02:32 PM EDT)

You probably remember a few weeks ago when NBC's Andrea Mitchell went on the air and announced that the American people supported pardoning Scooter Libby when they actually overwhelmingly opposed it, according to all available polling.

Well, this morning TPM Reader CG caught her at it again, this time with Nancy Pelosi. And we grabbed the clip for a TPMtv Extra.

Take a look ...

....so, all ye "conservativolk", no need to confine your viewership to foxnews....all of the major media seems beholden to your opinions....

dc_dux · 05-05-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Depends on how you define "Middle East". There are different answers based on that definition. For instance, oil producing states would exclude Somalia and Ethiopia/Eritrea and possible Chad, but if you do it by religion, those are all included.

Jazz....that is the most sweeping and far fetched definition of the Middle East I have ever seen. If you "go by religion", would you also include Indonesia, the largest muslim country in the world (it has small oil reserves as well), in the "Middle East"?

By geo-political standards, you can include Egypt and Libya, but by any standards, the African nations of Algeria, Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Somalia have absolutely nothing to do with "Middle East" warfare and/or politics.

IMO, characterizations like that just further make the case for MM's observation about "painting the middle east, arabs, muslims, etc. (groups that cannot easily be "grouped") with broad strokes of 1st world arrogance and indifference."

But back to the more important topic:

Quote:

In other news, two cosponsors just signed Kucinich's impeachment bill. They are Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). Schakowsky is a deputy whip and senior member of the House congressional leadership.

A small step but still DOA.

John Conyers' impeachment bill in 2005 had 38 co-sponsors and was focused on other equally, if not more important issues, like torture, spying on Americans, using govt resources to retaliate against critics, etc....

Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...9:h.res.00635:

Conyers, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, would have to give the Kucinich bill at least a cursory acknowledgement for it to get on the committee's calendar. He hasnt and there are no indications he will....nor is he considering re-introducing his own bill.

Willravel · 05-05-2007, 03:51 PM

Hey, DC, can I ask you a favor? When some people quote others, they include the name of the one they quote ([Quote=DC_Dux]). Being the lazy ponce that I am, I don't usually go back and read the entire thread, especially in those with many responses. I sincerely appreciate it.

Getting back, Somalia isn't in the Middle East any more than California is in Central America.

dc_dux · 05-05-2007, 04:01 PM

Will...i'm a lazy ponce as well..but I promise to do better

Judy Taber · 05-05-2007, 04:07 PM

The political correctness meter is bouncing off the stops here. Why is everyone always so afraid to mention the elephant in the room? The thing about lefties is they blame everything bad on the advanced and civilized, while the weak and backward get a pass on everything.

Willravel · 05-05-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Will...i'm a lazy ponce as well..but I promise to do better

My sincerest and most humble thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judy Taber

The political correctness meter is bouncing off the stops here. Why is everyone always so afraid to mention the elephant in the room? The thing about lefties is they blame everything bad on the advanced and civilized, while the weak and backward get a pass on everything.

I can't wait for you to go into details about these very broad strokes. The left is blaming everything on Dick Cheney because he's advanced and/or civilized? I'm going to enjoy this.

host · 05-05-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judy Taber

The political correctness meter is bouncing off the stops here. Why is everyone always so afraid to mention the elephant in the room? The thing about lefties is they blame everything bad on the advanced and civilized, while the weak and backward get a pass on everything.

A well supported post, Judy ! I hope to read more from you....

Judy Taber · 05-05-2007, 04:36 PM

That's just my opinion. Do I need some kind of "support" to post an opinion?

filtherton · 05-05-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judy Taber

That's just my opinion. Do I need some kind of "support" to post an opinion?

If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, yes.

Willravel · 05-05-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judy Taber

That's just my opinion. Do I need some kind of "support" to post an opinion?

I would respond to that with a question of my own: If I were to assert that George W. Bush not only had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, but was involved in the planning and staging, would you take my statement as fact or ask me to corroborate or provide proof?

Judy Taber · 05-05-2007, 04:59 PM

I'm aware of the conspiracy theories, and everyones entitled to have theirs. Are you asking for my personal opinion in regard to your personal opinion?

Willravel · 05-05-2007, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judy Taber

I'm aware of the conspiracy theories, and everyones entitled to have theirs. Are you asking for my personal opinion in regard to your personal opinion?

I'm suggesting that the idea that Bush was involved in 9/11 is as believable as the 'left' blaming everything on Cheney because he is either advanced or civilized. You, Judy, are quite wrong. Speaking as someone from the left, I believe my mistrust of Dick Cheney to be well justified in that the man has lied, and there is proof of that.

loquitur · 05-05-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Coming strictly from my own layman's perspective, the Luttwak piece seemed to paint the middle east, arabs, muslims, etc. (groups that cannot easily be "grouped") with broad strokes of 1st world arrogance and indifference. Something we are all very used to hearing among average folks here on the ground, but something I find very disturbing and dangerous coming from someone who supposedly has a better vantage point to make observations from than most of us.

Well........ I'm not signing on to Luttwak's thesis by any means, but it's way too glib to discount commonalities among the Middle Eastern peoples simply because there are differences. The issue is which ones are relevant for us, as outsiders, insofar as there are things we have to respond to and deal with. Certainly there are huge differences between, say, Algerians and Omanis. But there are also some serious commonalities (e.g., language, religion, some ethnic overlap). The trick is to tease apart which cultural markers are relevant to which collections of peoples, and which are unique to specific areas. For example, Morocco is a much more open and tolerant society than, say, Saudi Arabia, although both are Islamic, Arabic-speaking societies. But they also have a lot in common, including (for instance) a heavily blood-based social structure (families, clans and tribes) and strong notions of shame and honor.

This comes back to a concept I have discussed with people before quite often. Generalizations aren't invalid merely because they don't account for each individual case. They are what they are: general statements, and they are only as strong as the degree to which they hold true. Just as it's a mistake to apply general statements to individuals, it's equally a mistake to ignore general truths because of individual cases.

pig · 05-05-2007, 06:21 PM

i almost posted this a while ago:

but then i thought, Politics gets a rough enough image as it is, so now i thought i'd take the approach of reaching out to Judy Taber as a newcomer to the forums. judy, this tfp place tends to be a litle different than many forums on the internets. generally, just an fyi: if you'd like for anyone to respond to you for sustained periods of time, you're going to have to post more than that. not everyone will post with the linked references as host and dc tend to do; however, some sort of logic train or sequence of thoughts other than comments that could easily be taken for trolls is expected.

i feel fairly confident that an out and out discussion of the gist of your comment will be refuted under scrutiny, if it should come to that. regardless, if you'd like for it to be taken seriously, i would suggest starting another thread regarding your views on conservative and liberal thought, and expounding upon it there. otherwise its (hopefully) going to fall flat in this thread, as its a complete threadjack without any particular significant link to the topic.

mixedmedia · 05-05-2007, 07:10 PM

Sure, loquitor, sometimes generalizations are expedient, but when you use such vast generalizations to theorize about shunning a "group" that is actually a very wide variety of nations, cultures, lifestyles and RELIGIONS as a possible "solution" to today's problems and conflicts, then it's nothing but appallingly absurd. It's as if we decided to "disown" Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana because "they're all white trash." We would never say something like that about a 1st world region.

1. in our steadily shrinking world it is IMPOSSIBLE to ignore them and still progress ourselves

2. it is in our own best interest to help bring these, as someone else so charmingly put it, "weak and backward" people into the 21st century...your moderate globalists and neo-cons understand this...Colin Powell understands this...James Baker understands this

Luttwak mentions the "irritant of terrorism." Well, I think we all know that terrorism is more than an irritant. And if you want to seduce young men away from the wiles of rasputin-like leaders who will use their minds and bodies as disposable weapons, then you need to give them jobs. You need to give them jobs and (please forgive me) fucking Wal-Marts and FUTURES. Something to lose so that they don't feel like all they have that is precious is an afterlife. It may not be perfect, but fuck it all if having a family and a livelihood and a little money left over every month to go to the movies isn't better than living your life at the barrel of gun. Muslim societies can and have moderated and progressed and it's extremely disingenuous (and, I think, suicidal) to purport that they haven't and can never have something to offer us.

I've been under the impression for a while now that maybe the real challenge today is not for the broken societies to progress, but for the healthy societies to really selflessly sacrifice for their betterment first. And I suspect if we don't learn how to do that then we're screwed. And personally, I don't hold a lot of faith that we're up to that challenge.

So no, I vehemently disagree that we should roll our eyes, chuckle and walk away from several billion of the earth's inhabitants. It's ludicrous because it is impossible.

Not to mention that now we have already planted our fat ass over there and they've got our license number. They know where to find us.

Sorry to go on and on. I know this is threadjacking and I shouldn't do it, but I really care about these kinds of issues more than any others...and, well, folks are talking about them.

Judy Taber · 05-05-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm suggesting that the idea that Bush was involved in 9/11 is as believable as the 'left' blaming everything on Cheney because he is either advanced or civilized. You, Judy, are quite wrong. Speaking as someone from the left, I believe my mistrust of Dick Cheney to be well justified in that the man has lied, and there is proof of that.

This evening its Cheney, tomorrow it'll be Rove, and Monday (all) day and night it'll be Bush. Pretty soon those names will change into Clinton, Obama, Emmanuel, Pelosi. Is there terrorism? Eh. Maybe. Is it worth getting this country worked up about it? Eh. Maybe.

Anyone see 300?

tecoyah · 05-06-2007, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judy Taber

The political correctness meter is bouncing off the stops here. Why is everyone always so afraid to mention the elephant in the room? The thing about lefties is they blame everything bad on the advanced and civilized, while the weak and backward get a pass on everything.

Please elaborate on the missing grey mammal.....it seems in my ignorance, or confusion I might have noticed the whale, but not the elephant. I fail to see the "pass" anyone is getting, unless you are confusing understanding and a search for information as forgiveness and looking the other way. Blame for the current situation is being placed exactly where it belongs....on those that created it.

Perhaps you know a better place to direct dissatisfaction?

Oh, by the way. Political correctness is often confused with diplomacy.

host · 05-06-2007, 02:59 PM

I began post #171 with two examples of WaPo Jonathan Weisman "stories" which both conveyed a "message" from Leon Paneta to other democrats, advising them not to be "too confrontational". Now, for the third time in just a month, Jonathan Weisman "plants" more reporting to discourage democrats, only this time:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050201517.html
Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable
Compromise Bill in Works After Veto Override Fails

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 3, 2007; Page A01

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.
.......

Weisman had to correct his story, and there is not much left to it, after this correction:

Quote:

Correction to This Article
A May 3 Page One article about negotiations between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a war spending bill said the Democrats offered the first 9major concession by dropping their demand that the bill it include a deadline to bring troops home from Iraq. While Democrats are no longer pushing a firm date for troop withdrawals, party leaders did not specifically make that concession during a Wednesday meeting with Bush at the White House.

....so, Mr. Weisman, where and when did "Democrats offer[ing] the first major concession"?

"Liberal press"....and "democrats better watch out !"....is this BS coming from this faction?

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Marcus Mabry
Newsweek
Updated: 9:31 a.m. ET May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08.....

Too "confrontational" seems to be working.....

The "given" that impeachment will increase the Bush-Cheney approval rating, "like Clinton", is more BS:

Quote:

http://www.nyu.edu/its/statistics/Docs/scandals.html
Presidential Scandals and Job Approval
Impact Analysis with SAS

by

Robert A. Yaffee
Statistics and Social Science Group
Academic Computing Facility

..... In simple English, apart from the regular autocorrelated approval, the approval rate is reduced by change in scandal by a factor of 12.36. The model shows that the influence of the scandal greatly depresses the approval rating. From the model developed, a forecast along with the upper and lower confidence intervals is projected forward into time and plotted. Figure 5 shows that the forecast cleaves tightly to the actual data once that has been gathered, that the model is good, and that it is thereby tested for predictive validity with satisfying results.

At this juncture, a caveat should be issued. Not all political crises follow the Watergate pattern. To develop a theory of political scandals, other scandals -- such as the hostage seizure during the Carter administration, the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, and the current Lewinsky affair and impeachment trial -- would have to be examined. Patterns of presidential crisis approval ratings are found to differ. Nixon's ratings nose-dived after Hunt and Liddy were convicted, and were scraping the bottom when the House took up deliberation of impeachment. In contrast, President Clinton's presidential approval ratings have proved more robust and very resilient. After four months following the exposure of the Lewinsky affair, Clinton's Gallup Poll approval ratings began to trend upward. During the Senate impeachment trial, Clinton's presidential approval ratings were at 67 percent.......

loquitur · 05-06-2007, 04:18 PM

Interesting election result in France today. Amazing turnout: 85.5%!! That's just unbelievable. I haven't figured out yet what it means. I really loved my time in France - great country, beautiful, terrific food, and yes, the people were friendly.

And I just have to note that Segolene Royal is one of the best-looking 53 year-olds I have ever seen.

host · 05-06-2007, 08:17 PM

I won't sleep soundly through a single night until they're both tried in the senate, resign, or complete their terms on Jan. 20, 2009:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/02/wa...prod=permalink
Administration Pulls Back on Surveillance Agreement
By JAMES RISEN
Published: May 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, May 1 — Senior Bush administration officials told Congress on Tuesday that they could not pledge that the administration would continue to seek warrants from a secret court for a domestic wiretapping program, as it agreed to do in January.

Rather, they argued that the president had the constitutional authority to decide for himself whether to conduct surveillance without warrants.

As a result of the January agreement, the administration said that the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program has been brought under the legal structure laid out in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for the wiretapping of American citizens and others inside the United States.

But on Tuesday, the senior officials, including Michael McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, said they believed that the president still had the authority under Article II of the Constitution to once again order the N.S.A. to conduct surveillance inside the country without

warrants. click to show

During a hearing Tuesday of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. McConnell was asked by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, whether he could promise that the administration would no longer sidestep the court when seeking warrants.

“Sir, the president’s authority under Article II is in the Constitution,” Mr. McConnell said. “So if the president chose to exercise Article II authority, that would be the president’s call.”

The administration had earlier argued that both the president’s inherent executive powers under Article II of the Constitution, as well as the September 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda, provided him with the power to conduct surveillance without warrants.

Mr. McConnell emphasized that all domestic electronic surveillance was now being conducted with court-approved warrants, and said that there were no plans “that we are formulating or thinking about currently” to resume domestic wiretapping without warrants.

“But I’d just highlight,” he said, “Article II is Article II, so in a different circumstance, I can’t speak for the president what he might decide.”

The exchange came as the administration is seeking new legislation to update the surveillance act to expand the government’s surveillance powers, in part to deal with vast changes in communications technology since 1978, when the measure was enacted.

The White House says that the outmoded rules embedded in the law mean that the government cannot eavesdrop on some telephone calls, e-mail and other communications that do not involve Americans or impinge on the privacy rights of people inside the United States.

While administration officials, citing national security concerns, have declined to discuss publicly what communications gaps they wish to plug, their proposed legislation seems designed to single out so-called “transit traffic,” purely international telephone calls and e-mail that go from one foreign country to another, but happen to be digitally routed through the United States telecommunications system.

The administration’s proposal would also provide legal immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the National Security Agency’s surveillance program without warrants before it was brought under the surveillance act in January. It would also provide legal protections for government workers who took part in the N.S.A. program.

Several Democratic lawmakers expressed frustration on Tuesday that the administration had not provided documents related to the National Security Agency program, which the White House called the Terrorist Surveillance Program. They suggested that they would be reluctant to agree to a change in the surveillance law without more information from the White House.

“To this day, we have never been provided the presidential authorization that cleared that program to go or the attorney general-Department of Justice opinions that declared it to be lawful,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island. “Where’s the transparency as to the presidential authorizations for this closed program? That’s a pretty big ‘we’re not going to tell you’ in this new atmosphere of trust we’re trying to build.

Quote:

http://opinionjournal.com/federation.../?id=110010014
OPINIONJOURNAL FEDERATION

The Case for the Strong Executive
Under some circumstances, the rule of law must yield to the need for energy.

BY HARVEY C. MANSFIELD
Wednesday, May 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

.....Only a strong president can be a great president. Americans are a republican people but they admire their great presidents. Those great presidents--I dare not give a complete list--are not only those who excelled in the emergency of war but those, like Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, who also deliberately planned and executed enterprises for shaping or reshaping the entire politics of their country.

This admiration for presidents extends beyond politics into society, in which Americans, as republicans, tolerate, and appreciate, an amazing amount of one-man rule. The CEO (chief executive officer) is found at the summit of every corporation including universities. I suspect that appreciation for private executives in democratic society was taught by the success of the Constitution's invention of a strong executive in republican politics.

The case for a strong executive begins from urgent necessity and extends to necessity in the sense of efficacy and even greatness. It is necessary not merely to respond to circumstances but also in a comprehensive way to seek to anticipate and form them. "Necessary to" the survival of a society expands to become "necessary for" the good life there, and indeed we look for signs in the way a government acts in emergencies for what it thinks to be good after the emergency has passed. A free government should show its respect for freedom even when it has to take it away. Yet despite the expansion inherent in necessity, the distinction between urgent crises and quiet times remains. Machiavelli called the latter tempi pacifici, and he thought that governments could not take them for granted. What works for quiet times is not appropriate in stormy times. John Locke and the American Founders showed a similar understanding to Machiavelli's when they argued for and fashioned a strong executive.

In our time, however, an opinion has sprung up in liberal circles particularly that civil liberties must always be kept intact regardless of circumstances. This opinion assumes that civil liberties have the status of natural liberties, and are inalienable. This means that the Constitution has the status of what was called in the 17th-century natural public law; it is an order as natural as the state of nature from which it emerges. In this view liberty has just one set of laws and institutions that must be kept inviolate, lest it be lost.

But Locke was a wiser liberal. His institutions were "constituted," less by creation than by modification of existing institutions in England, but not deduced as invariable consequences of disorder in the state of nature. He retained the difference, and so did the Americans, between natural liberties, inalienable but insecure, and civil liberties, more secure but changeable. Because civil liberties are subject to circumstances, a free constitution needs an institution responsive to circumstances, an executive able to be strong when necessary.

The lesson for us should be that circumstances are much more important for free government than we often believe. Civil liberties are for majorities as well as minorities, and no one should be considered to have rights against society whose exercise would bring society to ruin. The usual danger in a republic is tyranny of the majority, because the majority is the only legitimate dominant force. But in time of war the greater danger may be to the majority from a minority, and the government will be a greater friend than enemy to liberty. Vigilant citizens must be able to adjust their view of the source of danger, and change front if necessary. "Civil liberties" belong to all, not only to the less powerful or less esteemed, and the true balance of liberty and security cannot be taken as given without regard to the threat. Nor is it true that free societies should be judged solely by what they do in quiet times; they should also be judged by the efficacy, and the honorableness, of what they do in war in order to return to peace.

The American Constitution is a formal law that establishes an actual contention among its three separated powers. Its formality represents the rule of law, and the actuality arises from which branch better promotes the common good in the event, or in the opinion of the people. In quiet times the rule of law will come to the fore, and the executive can be weak. In stormy times, the rule of law may seem to require the prudence and force that law, or present law, cannot supply, and the executive must be strong. In judging the circumstances of a free society, two parties come to be formed around these two outlooks. These outlooks may not coincide with party principles because they often depend on which branch a party holds and feels obliged to defend: Democrats today would be friendlier to executive power if they held the presidency--and Republicans would discover virtue in the rule of law if they held Congress.

The terms of the disagreement over a strong executive go back to the classic debate between Hamilton (as Pacificus) and Madison (as Helvidius) in 1793-94. Hamilton argued that the executive power, representing the whole country with the energy necessary to defend it, cannot be limited or exhausted. Madison replied that the executive power does not represent the whole country but is determined by its place in the structure of government, which is executing the laws. If carrying on war goes beyond executing the laws, that is all the more reason why the war power should be construed narrowly. Today Republicans and Democrats repeat these arguments when the former declare that we are at war with terrorists and the latter respond that the danger is essentially a matter of law enforcement.

As to the contention that a strong executive prompts a policy of imperialism, I would admit the possibility, and I promise to think carefully and prayerfully about returning Texas to Mexico. In its best moments, America wants to be a model for the world, but no more. In its less good moments, America becomes disgusted with the rest of the world for its failure to imitate our example and follow our advice. I believe that America is more likely to err with isolationism than with imperialism, and that if America is an empire, it is the first empire that always wants an exit strategy. I believe too that the difficulties of the war in Iraq arise from having wished to leave too much to the Iraqis, thus from a sense of inhibition rather than imperial ambition.

Mr. Mansfield is William R. Kenan Professor of Government at Harvard.

loquitur · 05-07-2007, 04:33 AM

Host, since it's unlikely they'll be removed from office before their terms end, I'd suggest you get some sleep aids, preferably nonpharmacological. I find that 1/2 hr daily of cardiovascular exercise vastly improves the quality of my sleep.

host · 05-07-2007, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Host, since it's unlikely they'll be removed from office before their terms end, I'd suggest you get some sleep aids, preferably nonpharmacological. I find that 1/2 hr daily of cardiovascular exercise vastly improves the quality of my sleep.

I hope that you are responding with humor, but, even if you are....you're an officer of the court....and you don't seem very concerned by any of this....
....I noticed your under reaction to the charges against Libby, and his trial.

Who do you admire....James Comey?....Patrick Fitzgerald?....Bradley Schlozman? ....William Rehnquist? .....Thurgood Marshall? ...... Ted Olson? ...... John Roberts ?
I'm just six years older than you are....and I have never seen anything that compares with what is happening in Washington, now. It makes Nixon's disregard for the law look trivial......

Quote:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0507/420376.html
I-Team: Justice Attorneys

- Friday May 04, 2007 5:50 pm

ABC-7 NEWS I-TEAM INVESTIGATOR ROBERTA BASKIN IS HERE WITH THE EXCLUSIVE DETAILS�.ROBERTA?

Roberta Baskin on set: ONE OF THE TOP PRIORITIES OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS TO PROSECUTE VIOLATIONS OF OUR CIVIL RIGHTS. HOWEVER THE TEAM OF PROSECUTORS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS PUT TOGETHER LOOKS NOTHING LIKE THE AMERICA IT'S SUPPOSED TO PROTECT.

Story: Some of the most notorious crimes committed in America � police brutality..cross burnings..violence at abortion clinics..modern day slavery - all federal crimes - are prosecuted by The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

But our investigation has found that the Justice Department is missing a key component in its mission to protect civil rights - DIVERSITY � diversity in the attorney ranks to prosecute cases.

Congressman John Conyers: "They need someone to investigate them."

The I-Team has learned that since 2003...the criminal section within the Civil Rights Division has not hired a single black attorney to replace those who have left. Not one.

(Graphic)

As a result, the current face of civil rights prosecutions looks like this: Out of fifty attorneys in the Criminal Section - only two are black. The same number the criminal section had in 1978 - even though the size of the staff has more than doubled....

If you think that I am over reacting to a president and vp, and now a DOJ, that seem more like enemies of the state, than defenders of it, do you believe that your reaction is "just about right"?

loquitur · 05-07-2007, 08:02 AM

Yes, it was humor. I don't want you to give yourself a heart attack over politics. Believe me, it's not worth it. In two years or less there will be new issues, new actors, new crises, new headlines. Tying yourself up into a pretzel over today's nonsense is not good for your soul. Try taking a longer view.

I cant' believe you say you can't remember anything as bad as today. Surely you can remember Nixon? That was much worse than anything that even you think is going on now. Fercrissakes, back then the President was involved in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice!!! Step back a second and think.

My general feeling is that people need to get a grip and remember that what goes around comes around. The state of political discourse has degenerated so badly that I think we are going to be disabling the federal government from ever getting anything done. A good libertarian like me should think that's not such a bad outcome, but this isn't the way to do things. We still need good public servants, and the way things are now, I can't see any good quality person wanting to go under the microscope. Not every disagreement is the apocalypse, and not every person on the other side from you should be investigated as a potential criminal.

Whom do I admire? Lots of people, on both sides of the aisle. My first requirement is honesty: I'm okay with disagreement but I detest intellectual or other dishonesty. After that is ability - can the person get things done? After all, you can be the world's smartest person and still be unable to screw in a lightbulb. Part of ability is decency, interpersonal relations - after all, part of getting things done involves motivating and convincing other people.

Host, a bit of perspective please. Being on the other side of the political divide from you doesn't make someone a criminal. If you recall, there was a string of investigations of people in the Clinton admin, too, and I'm sure you were just as outraged about the persecution of Ron Brown and Henry Cisneros as the Repubs are now about Scooter Libby. Believe me, there's plenty of this stuff everywhere. As I said, what goes around comes around.

Now if I was intent on being a shit disturber I'd say that if the federal government wasn't involved in so many things there would be much less opportunities for corruption, but maybe I better not open that can of worms.

I have kept myself on an even keel by reminding myself that we live in a fundamentally good and strong country and that we will likely muddle through even if the people I don't support are in charge for a while. The US survived Millard Fillmore, it survived Warren Harding, it survived Jimmy Carter, and it will certainly survive whoever you're complaining about at any given time. In my entire lifetime there was only one election (and it wasn't a federal election) where I honestly thought that if the guy I was supporting didn't win there would be a general disaster. Other that that one time, though, I am usually perfectly content to let whoever my fellow citizens chose to do the best s/he could do in the job s/he was elected to do - whether or not the winner is who I voted for. They should be watched and held accountable for results, certainly - but they also should be allowed to do their jobs. It's the American way. And it's much better for your blood pressure.

Willravel · 05-07-2007, 08:58 AM

loquitur, I'm with host on this stuff. If what's going on now isn't going to ruffle your feathers, then you may waker up one day and it'll be too late. For example:

The suspension of habeas corpus was one of the biggest blows to our Constitution in history. The Military Commission Act of 2006 seems to forget that the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion; neither of which we face today. There's nothing about enemy combatants from another country. It's blatantly unconstitutional and should be struck down immediately.

The domestic wire taps bypassing the FISA court and not having any judicial over site were illegal and wrong, and the president is NOT above the law. The wiretaps were and are unconstitutional.

roachboy · 05-07-2007, 09:15 AM

digression on the french election/sarko (post 189):

this an appalling result. but the shoes have not really dropped yet--he still has to form a (viable) government and then the elections for the assemblé have to happen next month. if no-one else does it, i'll put up a thread about this when things are clearer. but at the moment, sarko's election is a very bad development for france. the only good thing is that the biggest loser is the front national--but the reasons for it are terrible--alot of their positions have been co-opted by sarko. the 53.6% that voted for him voted for front national-lite.

btw this election is also very much about the disarray of the socialists on the one hand, and about the problems that non-fascist conservatism confronts as well.

ratbastid · 05-07-2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I cant' believe you say you can't remember anything as bad as today. Surely you can remember Nixon? That was much worse than anything that even you think is going on now. Fercrissakes, back then the President was involved in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice!!! Step back a second and think.

There are plenty--and I believe host is among them--who would say that the Bush has a hand in at least that level of malfeasance.

I was five months old when Nixon left office, so I can't really compare first-hand. I do know there's some dirty stuff happening.

Willravel · 05-07-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

There are plenty--and I believe host is among them--who would say that the Bush has a hand in at least that level of malfeasance.

Nixon - tapped the phones of a few journalists
Bush - tapped the phones of countless American citizens

Nixon - talked to G Gordon Liddy about assasinating columnist ack Anderson
Bush - misrepresented the truth about Iraq and led the country to a war that's costed hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

Nixon - broke into Daniel Ellsbergs office, the the Dem HQ at the Watergate hotel
Bush - suspended Habeas Corpus

I'd say Bush is much, much worse than Nixon, who was a crook.

loquitur · 05-07-2007, 12:59 PM

As I said, people need some perspective here. When the come up with politically motivated tax audits, FBI investigations of opponents and discussions of raising bribe money, you might convince me we're getting there. Right now I don't see it. I do see some mismanagement and political overreaching but nothing qualitatively different from many other presidencies.

I think people have to get over this notion that if your side loses an election the other side has to be deligitmated. It wasn't any more attractive when the cranks on the right were trying to get Clinton charged with murder or claiming that Hillary had Vincent Foster bumped off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

So no, I vehemently disagree that we should roll our eyes, chuckle and walk away from several billion of the earth's inhabitants. It's ludicrous because it is impossible.

Not to mention that now we have already planted our fat ass over there and they've got our license number. They know where to find us.

Sorry to go on and on. I know this is threadjacking and I shouldn't do it, but I really care about these kinds of issues more than any others...and, well, folks are talking about them.

I'll try to remember to write a longer post later, but my short-form response is that we should help where our help is likely to do good, and stay away where it's likely to be futile. In the short term we shouldn't try to help people who are likely to feel that what we consider help is actually a form of invasion. The trick is in knowing which is which. Long term, helping one group, if done right with a successful result, is likely to incentivize others to want to conform. But that's a long-term scenario, and presumes an ability to know what we're doing. We kinda made that mistake before, so I'd be very wary of making it again.

Willravel · 05-07-2007, 01:14 PM

loquitur, are you familiar with the death toll in Iraq? That's all the perspective I need.

loquitur · 05-07-2007, 01:43 PM

Yes. It's also irrelevant to the discussion, unless you really think that a difference of opinion over a foreign policy question is the same thing as a crime.

05-04-2007, 05:57 AM	#161 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the luttwak piece is really pretty funny---and it only makes sense as a satire. which makes sense: luttwak is an interesting cat---here's a reasonably well written blog-like piece on him and a few others, which is worth a read through: http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/lists_...es-l/2776.html ==================== in a manner of speaking, reconmike and powerclown above demonstrate the apparent a priori status of facile, one-dimensional critiques of the un in the context of the ever-diminishing space of conservativeland....i have long found it curious that such claims had any traction anywhere, given that they are little more than retreads of old school john birch society nonsense, the fear of a rootless cosmpolitanism destroying the authentic backwoods nationalism of righteous amuricans...the rabid and fundamentally anti-semitic anti-communism of the birchers was geared around the equation of the un with an international bolshevik conspiracy, with the protocols of the elders of zion actually functioning as a logical lynchpin. it is truly a glorious ideological legacy the right drew on for this particular element of its collage politics, reaching way into the lower depths of the jurassic park of reactionary ideology that is the united states. in the retread version, the historical ignorance of the conservative set is taken for granted, the facile appeal of blood-and-soil politics is taken on as a structuring trope and the attending paranoia deployed as a mobilizing tool. this is ultimately about rightwing identity politics--the logic functions to link a vague image of a very large-scale phenomenon to imagined threats to blood and soil and the virtuous toil of the volk---er..."patriots"....within this schema, you see a marketing device for the neocon geopolitical phantasm that shaped the logic of the iraq debacle itself---you see the linkages between the ideology of conservativeland in its more respectable-seeming form and that of the black helicopter set----here as elsewhere, the logic is basically pavlovian--rooted in a sense of being-threatened by outside forces beyond comprehension or control (a classical feature of petit bourgeois fascism everywhere)----and so is rooted in class anxiety, in status anxiety----this johnbirchsociety schema does nothing but condense and rechannel, requiring no particular thought, only a reaction. a third element of this johnbichsociety idiocy emerges in the way the term "socialism" operates in conservativeland: which refers typically to some undefined and undefinable Evil, one that collapses a vague image of stalinism into the history of social-democratic politics into a fear of the state, which is in turn refigured as a correlate of the international conspiracy of rootless cosmoplitans that it is the duty of righteous volk/patriots to oppose. it'd be funny, this bizarreo identity politics, if it hadnt been a considerable force in the states over the past few years, had it not been a central element in the fabrication of a sense of being-threatened by saddam hussein/al queada/pick your Villain----within such a schema, the Source of the Threat hardly matters: anyone or anything can be plugged into the position occupied by the un in johnbirchland and the effect is the same--- so it is that the retread version can drop the centrality of the protocols of the elders of zion and replace it with something else--it doesnt matter, really, the logic works with or without explicit reference to the ur-text---and was a perfect devise for structuring and selling the "war on terror" hallucination, the "threatened by iraq" hallucination--all of it. and it worked: in responses even in this thread from ace, for example, it is pretty clear that the problem--the root problem--is that this is less about the validity of claims made to market the neocon's war than about maintaining a space for a conservative identity, which is a visceral construct, not a logical one. threats to the ideology or to the signifiers organized by it are ultimately threats to indentity that have to be swatted away. the motivation is psychological, but the arguments are routed through the discourse of politics. the effects of conservative identity politics linger still, like the smell of some nasty flower. the ideological context has changed around them, and they cannot deal with this simple fact. as the context changes, the choice it presents simplifies: denial or vertigo. so it goes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-04-2007, 06:05 AM	#162 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	<157> Host, I used the word "arguably" for a reason. This isn't cut and dry. And I never said it was 1441 that might have authorized the invasion; what I was referring to was the argument that the original ceasefire resolutions from 1991 could (note the word "could", not "must" - this is not stuff that is clear) be read to authorize resumption of hostilities upon breach by Iraq. Bear in mind that people's conceptions of the UN and its role (and the role of the US) will bear heavily on how they come out on this legal issue - it certainly affects yours, doesn't it? It's dangerous to get yourself too invested in the legalisms on this issue, as if there is a single determinable right or wrong legal answer - this is foreign policy and power politics, and legalities tend to be invoked to justify whatever position someone wants to take. In my day to day life that's done, too, but there is a judge to decide who was right. In this context there isn't one, so invoking legalities is of limited usefulness other than to set the boundaries of the disagreement. That's useful, but it won't give you definitive answers in a particular case. Roachboy, the Luttwak piece is the foreign policy equivalent of Pat Moynihan's "benign neglect" advice. I was recommending reading it mainly because of his observation (which to my eyes appears historically accurate) that Arab societies don't react to politics and war the way other societies do, that neither making nice nor getting tough appears to alter behavior. No doubt there are deep cultural reasons for it (and that's way beyond my expertise), but it certainly appears to be true. Germany and Japan, for instance, did some soul searching as a result of their loss in WW2 and fundamentally changed their societies to the point that they are almost aggressively pacifist - this after centuries of militarism and expansionism. The countries of the Middle East have been battered by the past century's events, yet appear not to have adapted much - free inquiry, status of women, tolerance of dissent, all are frowned on. It's a pity, too: half a billion people living in social structures that are a thousand years old. I don't know what can be done to change it or if it even is susceptible to change; greater minds than mine are wrestling with it. Last edited by loquitur; 05-04-2007 at 06:12 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

05-04-2007, 03:14 PM	#163 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	loquitor: the subtext of the article is hegel's philosophy of history. what that comes down to is that places you know something about change, but places that you dont know shit about dont seem to. it is not accurate, it is not interesting and if it isnt a joke intentionally, it nonetheless is one. let's assume that the piece is in fact satirical, shall we? that way, i can retain my veneer of being nice and you can too. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-05-2007, 07:31 AM	#166 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	loquitor: you cant pull "old man shit" on me...well maybe by a matter of months if you were born before august...but those months can be crucial, i know. the problem with luttwak's piece and your memory exercise is superficiality. hegel at least tried to "prove" that history only happened to white people: egypt for example once had history: they "knew there was a riddle" but couldnt figure out how to say it, therefore pyramids. so you see that hegel was able to go from superficial understanding to major tourist attractions and back to superficiality with ease when it came to places he fundamentally knew nothing about. this is obviously not to say that hegel was stupid---which would itself be a ridiculous thing to say--more that his book the philosophy of history is absurd. strict application of dialectical thinking to a world composed entirely of signifiers. luttwak relies on this philosophy of history to organize his superficiality--but there is not method to be applied with strictness, so there is nothing of any interest to be had from his particular exercise. the idea that his piece could be confused with anything like a history of the region is laughable. that is why i prefer to think of it as a satire. it's a way of saying that he cannot possible be serious. on a related note, over the past week we have seen the following bushworld developments: a clampdown on military personnel blogging from iraq and a piece about new conflicts emerging at guantanomo between detainees and their lawyers. in the first, you see an outline of what the folk in bushworld imagine the problem with iraq to be: bad press. in the second, you see another: legal representation which results in bad press. and you see the response of the bush people to this: try to eliminate or undermine the information. without information, folk like luttwak can almost seem compelling. its just a lobotomy away. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-05-2007, 07:44 AM	#168 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Coming strictly from my own layman's perspective, the Luttwak piece seemed to paint the middle east, arabs, muslims, etc. (groups that cannot easily be "grouped") with broad strokes of 1st world arrogance and indifference. Something we are all very used to hearing among average folks here on the ground, but something I find very disturbing and dangerous coming from someone who supposedly has a better vantage point to make observations from than most of us. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

05-04-2007, 03:34 PM	#164 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	ummmm............ not sure that's right, roachboy. Not to pull the old man shit here, but I do recall that for pretty much my entire life there has been intractable strife in that section of the world that that has been impervious to all efforts at resolution on any terms except 100% what the locals want. When that happens you tend to see violence. The sheer volume of Middle Eastern warfare has been staggering: in my lifetime alone (I'm 48), and leaving out the Israeli issue and leaving out Western country interventions, so that we have only locals fighting each other, there have been wars involving Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Somalia - and that's just off the top of my head. Some of those countries have been involved in more than one war and some more than two. Mix in the conflicts at the edges of the Muslim world, with non-Muslims, and the number increases by an order of magnitude. No, it's not satire, sadly. His prescriptions might be fatuous but his identification of an intractably pathology-wracked region is spot on.

05-05-2007, 04:14 AM	#165 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	In other news, two cosponsors just signed Kucinich's impeachment bill. They are Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). Schakowsky is a deputy whip and senior member of the House congressional leadership. http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05032007.html

05-05-2007, 11:06 AM	#170 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Depends on how you define "Middle East". There are different answers based on that definition. For instance, oil producing states would exclude Somalia and Ethiopia/Eritrea and possible Chad, but if you do it by religion, those are all included. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

05-05-2007, 03:51 PM	#173 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Hey, DC, can I ask you a favor? When some people quote others, they include the name of the one they quote ([Quote=DC_Dux]). Being the lazy ponce that I am, I don't usually go back and read the entire thread, especially in those with many responses. I sincerely appreciate it. Getting back, Somalia isn't in the Middle East any more than California is in Central America.

05-05-2007, 04:01 PM	#174 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Will...i'm a lazy ponce as well..but I promise to do better __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

05-05-2007, 04:07 PM	#175 (permalink)
Judy Taber Upright	The political correctness meter is bouncing off the stops here. Why is everyone always so afraid to mention the elephant in the room? The thing about lefties is they blame everything bad on the advanced and civilized, while the weak and backward get a pass on everything.

05-05-2007, 04:36 PM	#178 (permalink)
Judy Taber Upright	That's just my opinion. Do I need some kind of "support" to post an opinion?

05-05-2007, 04:59 PM	#181 (permalink)
Judy Taber Upright	I'm aware of the conspiracy theories, and everyones entitled to have theirs. Are you asking for my personal opinion in regard to your personal opinion?

05-05-2007, 06:21 PM	#184 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	i almost posted this a while ago: but then i thought, Politics gets a rough enough image as it is, so now i thought i'd take the approach of reaching out to Judy Taber as a newcomer to the forums. judy, this tfp place tends to be a litle different than many forums on the internets. generally, just an fyi: if you'd like for anyone to respond to you for sustained periods of time, you're going to have to post more than that. not everyone will post with the linked references as host and dc tend to do; however, some sort of logic train or sequence of thoughts other than comments that could easily be taken for trolls is expected. i feel fairly confident that an out and out discussion of the gist of your comment will be refuted under scrutiny, if it should come to that. regardless, if you'd like for it to be taken seriously, i would suggest starting another thread regarding your views on conservative and liberal thought, and expounding upon it there. otherwise its (hopefully) going to fall flat in this thread, as its a complete threadjack without any particular significant link to the topic. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

05-05-2007, 07:10 PM	#185 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Sure, loquitor, sometimes generalizations are expedient, but when you use such vast generalizations to theorize about shunning a "group" that is actually a very wide variety of nations, cultures, lifestyles and RELIGIONS as a possible "solution" to today's problems and conflicts, then it's nothing but appallingly absurd. It's as if we decided to "disown" Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana because "they're all white trash." We would never say something like that about a 1st world region. 1. in our steadily shrinking world it is IMPOSSIBLE to ignore them and still progress ourselves 2. it is in our own best interest to help bring these, as someone else so charmingly put it, "weak and backward" people into the 21st century...your moderate globalists and neo-cons understand this...Colin Powell understands this...James Baker understands this Luttwak mentions the "irritant of terrorism." Well, I think we all know that terrorism is more than an irritant. And if you want to seduce young men away from the wiles of rasputin-like leaders who will use their minds and bodies as disposable weapons, then you need to give them jobs. You need to give them jobs and (please forgive me) fucking Wal-Marts and FUTURES. Something to lose so that they don't feel like all they have that is precious is an afterlife. It may not be perfect, but fuck it all if having a family and a livelihood and a little money left over every month to go to the movies isn't better than living your life at the barrel of gun. Muslim societies can and have moderated and progressed and it's extremely disingenuous (and, I think, suicidal) to purport that they haven't and can never have something to offer us. I've been under the impression for a while now that maybe the real challenge today is not for the broken societies to progress, but for the healthy societies to really selflessly sacrifice for their betterment first. And I suspect if we don't learn how to do that then we're screwed. And personally, I don't hold a lot of faith that we're up to that challenge. So no, I vehemently disagree that we should roll our eyes, chuckle and walk away from several billion of the earth's inhabitants. It's ludicrous because it is impossible. Not to mention that now we have already planted our fat ass over there and they've got our license number. They know where to find us. Sorry to go on and on. I know this is threadjacking and I shouldn't do it, but I really care about these kinds of issues more than any others...and, well, folks are talking about them. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

05-06-2007, 04:18 PM	#189 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Interesting election result in France today. Amazing turnout: 85.5%!! That's just unbelievable. I haven't figured out yet what it means. I really loved my time in France - great country, beautiful, terrific food, and yes, the people were friendly. And I just have to note that Segolene Royal is one of the best-looking 53 year-olds I have ever seen.

05-07-2007, 04:33 AM	#191 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Host, since it's unlikely they'll be removed from office before their terms end, I'd suggest you get some sleep aids, preferably nonpharmacological. I find that 1/2 hr daily of cardiovascular exercise vastly improves the quality of my sleep.

05-07-2007, 08:02 AM	#193 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Yes, it was humor. I don't want you to give yourself a heart attack over politics. Believe me, it's not worth it. In two years or less there will be new issues, new actors, new crises, new headlines. Tying yourself up into a pretzel over today's nonsense is not good for your soul. Try taking a longer view. I cant' believe you say you can't remember anything as bad as today. Surely you can remember Nixon? That was much worse than anything that even you think is going on now. Fercrissakes, back then the President was involved in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice!!! Step back a second and think. My general feeling is that people need to get a grip and remember that what goes around comes around. The state of political discourse has degenerated so badly that I think we are going to be disabling the federal government from ever getting anything done. A good libertarian like me should think that's not such a bad outcome, but this isn't the way to do things. We still need good public servants, and the way things are now, I can't see any good quality person wanting to go under the microscope. Not every disagreement is the apocalypse, and not every person on the other side from you should be investigated as a potential criminal. Whom do I admire? Lots of people, on both sides of the aisle. My first requirement is honesty: I'm okay with disagreement but I detest intellectual or other dishonesty. After that is ability - can the person get things done? After all, you can be the world's smartest person and still be unable to screw in a lightbulb. Part of ability is decency, interpersonal relations - after all, part of getting things done involves motivating and convincing other people. Host, a bit of perspective please. Being on the other side of the political divide from you doesn't make someone a criminal. If you recall, there was a string of investigations of people in the Clinton admin, too, and I'm sure you were just as outraged about the persecution of Ron Brown and Henry Cisneros as the Repubs are now about Scooter Libby. Believe me, there's plenty of this stuff everywhere. As I said, what goes around comes around. Now if I was intent on being a shit disturber I'd say that if the federal government wasn't involved in so many things there would be much less opportunities for corruption, but maybe I better not open that can of worms. I have kept myself on an even keel by reminding myself that we live in a fundamentally good and strong country and that we will likely muddle through even if the people I don't support are in charge for a while. The US survived Millard Fillmore, it survived Warren Harding, it survived Jimmy Carter, and it will certainly survive whoever you're complaining about at any given time. In my entire lifetime there was only one election (and it wasn't a federal election) where I honestly thought that if the guy I was supporting didn't win there would be a general disaster. Other that that one time, though, I am usually perfectly content to let whoever my fellow citizens chose to do the best s/he could do in the job s/he was elected to do - whether or not the winner is who I voted for. They should be watched and held accountable for results, certainly - but they also should be allowed to do their jobs. It's the American way. And it's much better for your blood pressure.

05-07-2007, 08:58 AM	#194 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	loquitur, I'm with host on this stuff. If what's going on now isn't going to ruffle your feathers, then you may waker up one day and it'll be too late. For example: The suspension of habeas corpus was one of the biggest blows to our Constitution in history. The Military Commission Act of 2006 seems to forget that the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion; neither of which we face today. There's nothing about enemy combatants from another country. It's blatantly unconstitutional and should be struck down immediately. The domestic wire taps bypassing the FISA court and not having any judicial over site were illegal and wrong, and the president is NOT above the law. The wiretaps were and are unconstitutional.

05-07-2007, 09:15 AM	#195 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	digression on the french election/sarko (post 189): this an appalling result. but the shoes have not really dropped yet--he still has to form a (viable) government and then the elections for the assemblé have to happen next month. if no-one else does it, i'll put up a thread about this when things are clearer. but at the moment, sarko's election is a very bad development for france. the only good thing is that the biggest loser is the front national--but the reasons for it are terrible--alot of their positions have been co-opted by sarko. the 53.6% that voted for him voted for front national-lite. btw this election is also very much about the disarray of the socialists on the one hand, and about the problems that non-fascist conservatism confronts as well. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-07-2007, 01:14 PM	#199 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	loquitur, are you familiar with the death toll in Iraq? That's all the perspective I need.

05-07-2007, 01:43 PM	#200 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Yes. It's also irrelevant to the discussion, unless you really think that a difference of opinion over a foreign policy question is the same thing as a crime.