More Things We Throw Away

202 thoughts on “More Things We Throw Away”

1. Thank you, hilzoy.

2. From the bottom of my heart, Hilzoy, thank you.

3. A thing of heartbreaking beauty. Precisely what I needed to read to regain my balance before bedtime. Thank you.

4. I realize this is repetative,but I state it so late in a previous thread:
   1) The “gulags” are unacceptable.
   2) Rendition is unacceptable.
   3) Bringing the prisoners inside borders of the U.S., especially if they are terrorists, is foolish and unacceptable.
   4) Simply releasing the prisoners, especially if they are terrorists, is foolish and unacceptable.
   I don’t have any solution that is both moral and avoids endangering Americans and the fledgling democratic governments of Iraq and Afganistan. And have not seen any great ideas about how to accomplish this.
   ***
   I understand the necessary right to criticize Gitmo, etc., but I have yet to see anybody offer an alternative course of action. I realize that in America, suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty, but those people captured on the battlefield, I believe should be considered guilty until proven innocent, and this poses a number of problems.
   Now I seem to remember an explanation from the administration early on that this is a “different kind of war” and that the US would take as allies some sorts of people that are not very nice. (Sorry, dialup, please somebody else find the exact words.)
   I know I use the Amish altogether too often as examples, but they are protected in many ways by the non-pacifist people in the US whodo bad things to protect the country. I am not excusing doing any and every bad thing possible, but I personally on occasion do bad things when I think I have no other choice. Here is my question: What is the better choice? How best to protect ourselves without being immoral to some extent?
   I don’t believe that the UN or ICC or any other international organization is capable or willing to protect US interests, and generally have quite the opposite intent. So how then are we going to approach this very real “twilight war”?

5. There has been evil done by the United States in evry war that we have been in. We did terrible things in WWII, as has been often pointed out, in Korea, a duplicitous entry into WWI, mass carnage in the Civil War, terrible atrocities in the Indian Wars, etc.
   Are the people in Texas, Arizona and California better off because the US won what were somewhat unjust wars against Mexico? I would say yes. Are Eastern Europeans better off even though the US murdered people in the Cold War. I would say yes again.
   I am not saying that everything that America does is moral, and it is dangerous to say that the ends justifies the means. I do feel bad for the innocents that are killed and understand that their blood is on my hands, but my take is that the US has truly tried to minimize the suffering or else we would have just nuked Baghdad. You think that Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush don’t understand that they are responsible for human suffering? Well I think that they do understand and accept the fact that they are doing some evil to other people with the understanding that it will ultimately protect US citizens. I am so thankful that I am not in the position to have to make those decisions. But I would argue that at least half of the US presidents were faced with a set of similar bad choices.

6. DaveC: I understand the necessary right to criticize Gitmo, etc., but I have yet to see anybody offer an alternative course of action
   Really? Because I and several others have (possibly before you joined us) proposed a very obvious alternative course of action to just throwing people into a prison camp without bothering to determine if they actually deserve to be there: hold tribunals. For each detainee, hold a competent tribunal. If the tribunal determines the detainee is a PoW, treat as PoW. If the tribunal determines there is good reason to believe the detainee may be guilty of criminal actions, send the detainee for a civil trial where guilt or innocence may be determined according to civil law. If the tribunal cannot find any good reason to believe the detainee is guilty of anything, release him (or if necessary send him to an internment camp for enemy aliens, run according to the Geneva rules for civilian internment). Do not use evidence obtained by torture to determine guilt or innocence.
   There you go, Dave. Not that it’s a new alternative form of action: it’s the alternative proposed (I suppose one can no longer say “required”, since the US felt free to ignore it) by the Geneva Conventions, so it’s been around since well before either of us was born.

7. And as far as ethical arguments go, I do tend to take more of a liberal attitude in the sense of John Stuart Mill’s utilitarin position, rather than, say Kant’s or Rand’s point of view, although you can justly accuse me of using a moral abacus or even counting on my fingers. rather than having some sort of sophisticated ethical calculator.

8. I appreciate your comments Jes, and think that presenting alternative courses of action is exactly the right thing to do. It is either really late for you to be up, or really early. In any case, it is really late for me and I’m going to bed now because I’m too much of a coward to argue with you 🙂

9. It is either really late for you to be up, or really early.
   Early. However, I have now had coffee.
   In any case, it is really late for me and I’m going to bed now because I’m too much of a coward to argue with you 🙂
   I’m not scary! I keep telling people this. Often when they are backing away from me…

10. Hilzoy,
    The appreciation of America that you present in your post is only one side of the coin. The other side has Hamilton’s face on it.
    Hamilton: “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are rich and well born; the other, the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second; and as they cannot receive any advantage by change, they will therefore maintain good government.”
    “Can a democratic assembly who annually [through annual elections] revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and changing disposition requires checks.”
    Isn’t part of the inheritance of American citizens the Hamiltonian perspective that one sees today in the Administration and Neo-con circles, where the fickle masses are to be governed by experts and elites, and where the line between state and corporate power is at least fuzzy? How is America to stay great – and around – if it doesn’t address the issues of hegemony and resources that so concern the Neo-cons? As DaveC alluded to, how are Americans to safeguard and promote their values if they do not put force behind them and endeavor to best their rivals in this “battle for ideas”? How is America to deal with China, its principle imperial rival and the main focus of the Neo-con’s policy advice? The “respect for human rights and human dignity” aspect of the American nation was Jefferson’s contribution, not Hamilton’s. Is it fair to criticize America for expressing one side of its duality, one side of its inheritance?
    I suspect that the greater problems (if they are such) and the causes of much of what one sees in America today lie in unregulated capitalism, a consumer economy based on constant “growthmanship,” and corporatism (to include the Military Industrial Complex), all of which are part of what defines America, especially from the Hamiltonian perspective. These are not recent developments that are the products of the current administration or even the rising Conservative “majority” of the last generation. (One often assigns blame for effects that begin to show themselves under contemporary leadership but have in fact been in the pipeline for years.) The path America is taking that you decry in your post is part of the American experiment as well and the expression of some of the “ideals that it stands for.” Abu Ghraib is as American as Ellis Island.
    “Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy.” -Plato

11. In regard to “breaking the Army,” Rumsfeld understood the troop level issue very well which is why he pushed to focus US military power on weapons systems and other force multipliers as opposed to boots on the ground. Several generals disagreed with him on this and many on the Left now criticize the Pentagon for not having enough troops to “get the job done” in Iraq.

12. DaveC,
    -“I know I use the Amish altogether too often as examples, but they are protected in many ways by the non-pacifist people in the US whodo bad things to protect the country.”
    The dictum “Freedom is not free” seems to be a justification for discipline and control. If one needs to behave in certain proscribed ways in order to maintain “freedom,” where does the free part come in? An assumption by many in the American Civil Rights movement (and elsewhere) who embraced non-violent resistance was that if one behaves as if they are free, they are, regardless of the behavior, constraints, or support of others. This is the philosophy that makes it possible to face water hoses, dogs, clubs, and bullets and not respond in kind.

13. Otto: If this administration were sacrificing our honor for wealth and strength, we’d be having a different sort of argument. But we are squandering both halves of our inheritance. If our present course continues, we will have taken a wealthy country and left it hobbled by debt; we will have taken a strong country and destroyed both its army and its freedom of action (and, of course, the respect that it took generations to build up); we will have failed to act in the face of enormous challenges, including the emergence, for the first time, of countries whose internal markets are as large as ours; and, in the process, we will have sacrificed our ideals. That’s not Hamiltonian; that’s just, well, throwing things away. (The other sort of heir: the spendthrift who thinks the money will always be there, since s/he never had to earn it.)
    As for the part about the people: well, as one of them, I am addressing my peers, or at least that comparatively small number of them who read this blog. As I said, the point is not just to “express” our inheritance; it’s to preserve and improve it, so that we can hand it down in better shape than we found it.
    One other note: I’m helping to teach an intensive course this week, and in DC, not Baltimore: out the door roughly now, back around eight every day. (I did not need to be writing this post until after 1am. Except, of course, that I did.) I suspect that today is the day when the sleep deprivation will really hit, so if I say something intemperate, I apologize in advance.

14. hilzoy, excellent.

15. But I also love it for the noble experiment I take it to be. We have never completely lived up to our ideals. We enslaved people, slaughtered the indigenous peoples of North America, and so on.
    Your mastery of the understatement is second to none.
    America has more often stood on the side of the angels.
    Once in the twenthieth century and only because the US was attacked! More often than not it’s been on the side of it’s self-interest, or that of stupidity.
    We are on the way to breaking our armed forces.
    They threw a war and nobody is coming, besides which we are already spending 47% of the global military expenditures.
    That’s an idiotic thing to say, I replied. We don’t just throw people in prison for no reason and torture and kill them. At that point someone asked: are you sure?
    No, we only overthrow foreign goverments, setup dictatorships and train their military in the fine arts of torture. That’s when we don’t launch civil wars that kill 100,000 of innocent bystanders.
    We are taking no serious steps to deal with the impending crunch in oil supplies.
    The $300 barrel of oil will resolve that problem.
    At a time when China, for instance, is training scientists and engineers like crazy, we seem to be stuck debating whether or not to teach evolution in our schools.
    That’s what happens when you let the Rush Limbaugh & the Pat Ronertson of the world set policy.

16. Bless you hilzoy. I am proud to know someone who can express these thoughts so well.

17. Excellent, hilzoy. I don’t think I could summon, in my entire life, as much eloquence as you’ve packed into what’s got to be just a few hours of writing. I am humbled.

18. I just joined the Coalition of the Chillin’, and would like you to see my homepage and give me some input. Just click on my name and it will take you there. Also, unfortunately, many of those who care about politics are an elite group, at least in terms of intellect.

19. Good luck with the teaching, hilzoy.

20. “In regard to “breaking the Army,” Rumsfeld understood the troop level issue very well which is why he pushed to focus US military power on weapons systems and other force multipliers as opposed to boots on the ground. Several generals disagreed with him on this and many on the Left now criticize the Pentagon for not having enough troops to “get the job done” in Iraq.”
    Posted by: otto
    Otto, I haven’t seen anything indicating that Rumsfield understood the manpower issue. IIRC, the 130K troops which were used was much more than Rumsfield wanted. In terms of force multipliers, the US military has vast force multipliers – for conventional war.
    What are our force multipliers for a guerrilla war?
    Rumsfield (and Bush) actually used force dividers in Iraq – not having enough troops up front to take control of the situation and possibly prevent a guerrilla war, allowing (through forces and attitude) the looting and destruction after the fall of Baghdad, and acting in word and deed as if all problems were merely minor difficulties, not requiring any special effort at the top to deal with.

21. What are our force multipliers for a guerrilla war?

    Besides specific training, there’s really not much. I’m a force-multiplier kind of guy, and other than enhancing detection and identification capabilities, it’s almost all training. It’s nearly impossible to get around that there’s not much tactically one can do when the enemy using the civilian population as protection.
    Which is in itself a violation of the Geneva Conventions, not that we’ve gotten any traction from that.
    Aside: Rumsfeld didn’t start the tilt toward force multipliers, but I think he did quite a bit to tilt the military in that direction. And when the opposing force is conventional military that plays by the rules of the Geneva Conventions, or unconventional military that’s away from civilian areas, that is exactly the right thing to do. Unfortunately it’s next to useless in an urban setting, but there’s not much that is useful there. And whatever the approach, there’s no way to truly eliminate the threat without endangering the civilian population while curtailing civil liberties. It’s an uncomfortable situation for us, which is a propaganda victory for them. The only saving grace that I can see is getting the civilian population fully engaged in safeguarding their own territory. And of course we’ve got to completely shut down the flow of people and weapons into Iraq, which is (I believe) also going to go much better with the civilian population more fully involved.

22. slartibartfast-
    Just a semantic question, because I’m not familiar with the jargon: While I get the point that there may be no force multiplier technologies for a guerilla war (intent-seeking missiles not having been invented yet), is human intelligence considered a force multiplier? Reliable intelligence regarding the identity and activities would surely increase the effectiveness of our troops individually and collectively, could such efforts be properly referred to as a “force multiplier”?

23. Hilzoy,
    Thanks so much for this post. Beautiful to read, and it reflects my feelings wonderfully.
    crutan

24. What are our force multipliers for a guerrilla war?

    I can think of two: intelligence and cooperation from the civilian population. Both require knowledge (including language skills) and actions that “win hearts and minds.”
    Judging by results, it appears we are deficient in these areas.

25. awesome, beautiful, chilling
    I like to believe, though, that the answer to your Canadian colleagues is that “our Government” did not sanction the arrest and murder of an innocent taxi driver. If “our Government” is responsible for that act in some way it’s through negligence, not direct orders to do so, as we have reason to believe Hussein gave.
    That belief is actually very important to me. Were that veneer that separates the plausibly deniable assertion that Bush, Gonzales, et al. didn’t “officially” approve the use of torture from the mountains of evidence suggesting a systematic change in doing things came from the top fall away, AND STILL the folks who support Bush didn’t demand his impeachment, then I’d suggest the great experiement had failed. We’ll probably never know until he’s long out of office, though, so plausible deniability wins the day.

26. As usual, I feel totally superfluous saying anything as long as hilzoy is there to say exactly what I would say, only with much more eloquence.

27. Edward_: is that “our Government” did not sanction the arrest and murder of an innocent taxi driver
    Certainly the arrest and murder of an innocent taxi driver was sanctioned, after the fact. If you mean that Bush did not give orders to go out, find an innocent taxi driver, and beat him to death, well, I concur: but we know out of his own mouth that Bush considers arrest and imprisonment to be sufficient to condemn prisoners as “bad men”; and that Bush’s response to widespread torture by US soldiers has not been to publicly condemn and root out of the military those responsible, of whatever rank.

28. More directly OT –
    Hilzoy,
    Thanks. If we toss these things aside in our pursuit of security, we become just another jousting, jostling power. Ascendant, triumphant, absolutely, but no different than the other empires that have risen, declined, and fallen. America may only rationally view itself as an exception, as outside the cycle, if we are, in fact, different. If the only thing we treasure and exult in and protect is our power, and the only thing we are concerned with is our safety, we are doomed, standing a thousand miles tall, ruddy with vigor, shield polished and held high, enemies at our feet, sun on our face, cancer in our belly, creeping, creeping.

29. human intelligence considered a force multiplier?

    I don’t know, honestly. My entire experience with the concept of force multipliers comes from the development of technology. I’d guess that the answer is “yes”, but I have to confess that I read ral’s answer before I wrote this.
    But I think both humint and civilian support were covered in my comment as key to getting Iraq in some sort of decent condition so that we can get out.
    And I agree that for some time beginning with the start of occupation and possibly including right now, we’ve failed to execute adequately in the area of intel and public relations (and I don’t mean that last in the sense of PR propaganda, but literally: relationships with Iraqi communities).

30. A beautiful, beautiful post. Thank you, Hilzoy. Hang in there.
    Badly attempting to interpret and paraphrase a bit of conversation in the Bhagavad Gita: No matter what others take from you, your property, your family, but especially your honor, you must not allow your heart to break. Should your heart become brittle or hardened or if you deny your heart altogether, the battle is lost. Soldiers should expect wounds. It is the ability to fight with wounds and to recover from wounds with a compassionate heart still beating that determines the outcome of the world in every battle throughout time.
    And, Otto, even though I am no fan of Hamilton’s elite school of thought, you make a good point that the development of the disasterous trajectory we now find ourselves on began much before the current administration.

31. Hi, DaveC, are you awake yet and ready to rumble? (joking–I don’t want to argue with you). I wrote a long essay in response to your words on the subject of Bush and Rumsfield being aware of the harm they have done, but unable to avoid hard choices because they had to carry out their responisbility to protect us. Hopefully that’s an accurate paraphrase. WEll my essay, nearly complete, suddenly disappeared when my computer spontaneaously said “Good by” and went to sleep. Hate that.
    So here’s the short version; we didn’t need to go to war in Iraq. Bush and Rumsfield were aware that the war was a choice, not a necessity. As the Downing Street memo says, they “fixed the intelligence’. They were aware of the counter information, the facts that indicated that Saddam did not have WMD. They decided to minimize that info and promote the cherry picked details that suppported the decision that they had already made. Further proof that they chose this war, as opposed to being forced into it by circumstances, is the series of meetings held immediately after Bush was installed in 2000 wherein discussions were held on how to promote the idea of invading Iraq. One of Bush’s former Cabinet officers (Foster?) wrote about this in a book last spring. He was present at the meetings.
    The only way to make the Iraq war look like a defensive war is to either assume that the administration was genuinely fooled by the intell, which makes them incompetent, or not really fooled by the intell, which makes them evil conniving liars. Neither view makes the war truly defensive–preempting an imaginary attempt to attack isn’t a defense.
    Now we are supposed to believe that invading Iraq and creating a democracy there (which was not part of the original arguament) will somehow promote democracy elsewhere (as if Middle Easterners are incapable of thinking up the idea of promoting democracy themselves) which will in a roundabout way decrease terrorism ( as if many of the pro-democracy forces weren’t also quite anti-American and in some cases, more or less pro-terrorism).
    In any case it was a choice, not a necessity to invade a country on the off chance that after a great deal of hardship and suffering a democracy would emerge that might have the side effect of inspiring other people to seek democracy even thought they already are, and might have the effect of reducing terrorism even though terrorists are motivated largely by hatred of outsiders who they think are trying to control them.
    The war was a choice, not a necessity. Bush and Rumsfield did not have to do the harm they did.

32. Hilzoy,
    Most conservatives wouldn’t argue that you hate America, but that you have an unhealthy hatred of Bush. Von posted a rather benign rebuke of Amnesty International that agreed with Applebaum on 2 points-
    1. Amnesty went over the line
    2. The administration’s detention practices are abhorrent because it erodes our credibility with Muslims who otherwise might be sympathetic to our cause
    But it was the criticism of the critics that was obsessed over and resulted in reflexive “with us or against us” circling of the wagons. Not exactly 200 of the most nuanced of responses.

33. The ultimate force multiplier for a querrilla war:
    Don’t start one.

34. Hilzoy, drat you; I’m really not supposed to cry at work.
    Thank you for writing this. Thank you for having the patriotism to feel this, and the eloquence to express this. (And thanks to ObiWi for providing the forum.)
    Thanks for the reminder what a treasure our heritage can be when we are true to our ideals, to “the better angels of our nature.”
    Don’t mind me; I’ll just be here at my desk sniffling…

35. Sulla: The administration’s detention practices are abhorrent because it erodes our credibility with Muslims who otherwise might be sympathetic to our cause
    No, that was Charles Bird. 😉
    To do Von justice, I think that while he’s got a little too obsessive over not calling a gulag a gulag, he recognizes that the administration’s detention practices are abhorrent, period.
    It’s Charles Bird who argues that the administration’s detention practices are only abhorrent because they’re bad PR with the Islamic world.

36. Sulla, I’d like to assure you that I don’t think hilzoy’s…dislike for Bush is anything resembling reflexive and unthinking, but is the result of a great deal of consideration. But maybe I don’t fall in the “most conservatives” bin, in that regard.

37. Slarti-
    Amen re: PR. and the sad thing about it is that it seems that there are genuine efforts being made by the majority of soldiers. I for one don’t scoff at the whole ‘painting schools’ thing; it’s great that we are painting schools, setting up markets, trying to get power restored, trying to act as honest arbiters, distributing supplies, all of it. The goddamn shame seems to be that the troops that are trying to help are getting their hamstrings slashed by our own government, from the massive PR (in the sense you describe) debacle of Abu Ghraib, to smaller things like insufficient Arabic translators to help in these missions. I heard several accounts of earnest, hardworking infantry captains trying to negotiate with town leaders and civilians, depending only on an arabic phrasebook and what little English was possessed by the population. Even without considering the insurgency (obviously a related and unavoidable factor), it seems like we are swimming upstream in the “hearts and minds” department. It’s frustrating.

38. st: agreed. I love it that we’re that involved, but I think it’s a huge mistake not to invite THEM to get that involved.

39. ST: Amen re: PR. and the sad thing about it is that it seems that there are genuine efforts being made by the majority of soldiers. I for one don’t scoff at the whole ‘painting schools’ thing; it’s great that we are painting schools, setting up markets, trying to get power restored, trying to act as honest arbiters, distributing supplies, all of it
    I totally agree with this. I’ve heard some great, direct accounts, from soldiers who’ve served in Iraq, about their direct efforts – just because, as human beings, they wanted to do stuff for the Iraqis they were meeting. From soldiers writing home to their friends to say “send school supplies” for a local Iraqi school that had nothing (beyond, perhaps, fresh paint!) all ways up. And this is all good.
    But the whole attitude of the Bush administration to the reconstruction of Iraq appears to have been that it’s got to be done from the top down – via orders from Washington, via contracts awarded in the US to big US corporations. There has been, as far as I can see, no concerted support for grassroots action.

40. Slarti
    Yes, we’ve been talking about you at the VRWC meetings. There is a great deal of concern about your reluctance to fully commit to the dark side.
    Jes,
    If that is so I’ll stand corrected.

41. A very fine post, Hilzoy, one that makes me sad because evidently what you say is not obvious to every American.

42. There is a great deal of concern about your reluctance to fully commit to the dark side.

    Well, I’ve always had commitment issues. Should that concern lead to termination, though, I’m still keeping the VRWC Jackboots of Suppression.

43. prof:
    we get the country we deserve.
    Ronald Reagan told us it was morning in America, and promptly borrowed billions of dollars from future generations of taxpayers. The Bushes don’t have nearly Reagan’s rhetoric, but they understand that americans
    just
    don’t
    care
    about mortgaging their future.

44. Hilzoy:
    Another excellent and eloquent post. Like tonydismukes above, I feel like lurkerdom is all that’s called for when you are posting on the frontpage. Good job.
    Oh and Sulla: I’d like to second Slarti’s comment at 11:12; and ask you to take a short quiz:
    Part I:
    Since January 21, 2001, which of the following has occupied the office of President of the United States (thus Head of the Executive Branch of the US Government)?:
    a) Albert Gore, Jr.
    b) William Jefferson Clinton IV
    c) George Walker Bush
    d) John Forbes Kerry
    Part II:
    Which of the following branches of the United States Government is primarily responsible for setting and implementing US military and foreign-affairs policy and actions?:
    a) Judicial
    b) Legislative
    c) Executive
    I think an analysis of the correct answers here might give you an insight as to why so much of the criticism of American policy (by those disagreeing with it) gets directed where it does. I know it is just so much easier to chalk up critique of, say, the US’ war efforts in Iraq, or domestic fiscal policies to “unhealthy hatred”, rather than actually having to defend said policies, or deal with the issues: but when it IS the Presdent who is responsible for as much as he, by law, is: he/she WILL be on the firing line.
    Yeah, for the crank commenters on Atrios and their ilk for whom repetitiously posting “Bush sux” is the be-all and end-all of political discourse, you might have a point: for hilzoy, though? No. Way.

45. Slartibartfast:
    “Aside: Rumsfeld didn’t start the tilt toward force multipliers, but I think he did quite a bit to tilt the military in that direction.”
    The way that I see it, the US military has been tilted that way for a long time. Rumsfield’s mistakes were (1) not having a clue as to what he was doing; (2) taking a system which was overbalanced, and pushing it even more in that direction; (3) making sure that everybody knew that telling him he was wrong was a career-ending move; (4) not realizing that things were going wrong, way after they obviously had (that’s assuming that he has realized it by now, which I’ve seen no evidence of).
    “And when the opposing force is conventional military that plays by the rules of the Geneva Conventions, or unconventional military that’s away from civilian areas, that is exactly the right thing to do. Unfortunately it’s next to useless in an urban setting, but there’s not much that is useful there. And whatever the approach, there’s no way to truly eliminate the threat without endangering the civilian population while curtailing civil liberties. It’s an uncomfortable situation for us, which is a propaganda victory for them.”
    In short, an enemy facing an overpowering conventional force goes, guerrilla, or loses in short order. Which has been true for quite some time, now.
    “The only saving grace that I can see is getting the civilian population fully engaged in safeguarding their own territory. And of course we’ve got to completely shut down the flow of people and weapons into Iraq, which is (I believe) also going to go much better with the civilian population more fully involved.”
    I agree with the first sentence – guerrillas with low popular sympathy have a life that is nasty, brutish and short.
    I also agree with the first clause of the second sentence, although this might not be enough, due to this being one of the better-supplied guerrilla movements in history (all of those ammo dumps!).
    The second clause is doubtful – there is a lot of hatred towards the Sunni guerrillas from many Shiites and Kurds, but also for the Sunnis themselves, and lots of hatred for the US. This is a bad situation.
    Juan Cole’s forecast is for Lebanon II – 10-15 years of ethnic/religious civil war, ending in exhaustion when the Sunnis believe that they can’t run things again.
    I haven’t seen anybody more accurate than him, so I’ll go with that.

46. A clever ploy…I like it

    Obsidian Wings has done a great thing. I've never quite understood the mix of contributors there before, but now I do. Hilzoy has written a magnificent article. All in one place, she has listed the ways our Republican masters have betrayed the ide…

47. Well said, hilzoy. And your solution is?

48. Most conservatives wouldn’t argue that you hate America, but that you have an unhealthy hatred of Bush.
    Let’s turn that around though, matching speculation with speculation: The argument from the conservative POV as far as I can tell is that overall Bush is no worse than your average president and in some areas (mostly with regards to advancing a conservative social agenda) he’s actually quite good. Given that he’ll be out of office in three years, how much harm can the guy really inflict.
    In other words, depsite the fiscal irresponsibility, the unimaginable debt, despite the piss-poor way he’s fought the war in Iraq, despite the growing division among Americans he willingly promotes, the lack of trust among our allies, the weakening of environmental protections, the weakening of our science programs, the rewriting of scientific findings to suit business, the weakening of the division between church and state, the advance of a radical right-wing Christian agenda, the increase in the calls for banning of books, the increase in hatred spewed toward gays…despite all that, he’s not so bad.

49. Charles Bird: And your solution is?
    Solution to what?

50. otto: Isn’t part of the inheritance of American citizens the Hamiltonian perspective that one sees today in the Administration and Neo-con circles, where the fickle masses are to be governed by experts and elites, and where the line between state and corporate power is at least fuzzy? [Emph mine]
    Part of the problem is precisely that we are not being governed by experts, only elites. The Bush Administration has, whether by accident or design I do not know, managed to discredit much of the objective notion of “expertise” and replace it with the notion that all forms of expertise are equal and hence differentiated only by their political persuasion. This, I’d argue, is probably the second-greatest systemic problem — and, to my vast regret, I think it now is a systemic problem — facing the Administration today, the greatest being the related notion that factuality itself is open to subjective interpretation and hence can only be differentiated by political ramifications.
    Jes: It’s Charles Bird who argues that the administration’s detention practices are only abhorrent because they’re bad PR with the Islamic world.
    No offense, but could you please take it to the other thread? I’d rather not see this one sullied.
    And finally, hilzoy? Beautiful. Thank you.

51. Barry, Cole’s got his politics so intricately intertwined with his academics that I’m not sure I could give him much weight even when it comes to statements of fact. I mean, this is a fellow who publicly opined that the IraqTheModel guys were CIA plants, among other bizarrely reasoned things.
    So, respectfully, I decline.

52. Well, technically, it was Sulla who started this…

53. the solution, CB, is to have people like you and your fellow posters at Redstate to force a change in policy.
    given the partisan atmosphere in DC, hilzoy and I have no traction. As during the Clinton admin, when the push to the center first came within the party, the responsibility now lies with the republican grassroots, i.e., YOU personally, to redirect our nation.
    I’d be interested to know what your solutions are.
    Can we stay the course on the budget? If not, where would you make the cuts and/or raise taxes? (and please, let’s not pick on seven-digit programs when eight-digit solutions are needed.)
    Can we stay the course in Iraq? If not, what would you do differently?
    Can we stay the course in Gitmo?
    Can we stay the course in energy policy?

54. Barry, Cole’s got his politics so intricately intertwined with his academics that I’m not sure I could give him much weight even when it comes to statements of fact.
    And yet, I would rather have had Juan Cole estimating the results of invading Iraq than Richard Perle, or Paul Wolfowitz (whose apologia in the new Atlantic is strange and wonderful to read; apparently the anthrax scare, not 9/11, was the principal motive to remove Saddam. No, really).

55. Thank you, Anderson. Slartibartfast, I didn’t say that Cole was perfect, just better than anybody else I’d heard of. And, of course, anybody in or being listened to by the adminisrtation.

56. Sulla–Most conservatives wouldn’t argue that you hate America, but that you have an unhealthy hatred of Bush.
    In my apparently not so nuanced response to Von’s post I noted that Applebaum’s characterization of AI as anti-American was inaccurate. I think that the heat with which people committed to the continuation of the war in Iraq (whether an enthusiastic or a reluctant commitment) reacted to AI’s criticism, and their outrage at one inflammatory comparison stems from an unfortunate tendency to collapse ‘America’ into ‘America’s Commander-in-Chief.’ Any criticism of a policy that is tied to the C-i-C in an attempt to create some sense of responsibility for changing that policy is immediately reinterpreted as an attack on America.
    I want to be very careful in this, because my argument, hopefully nuanced enough for you, is that this reflects in a plurality of American voters a tendency towards identifying en masse with a strong leader. I say I want to be careful because I am not talking about the President here, and I do not want this to turn into a Bush = Hitler/Stalin comparison. This is about the people who support the C-i-C and excuse his mistakes and do not hold our leadership responsible for the crimes committed as a result of these ‘states of exception’ that the C-i-C and his supporters feel are necessary to preserve the state. I am worried because this ‘follower mindset’ is the mindset present in totalitarian states. Even if the wrongs we have done in pursuit of security are not of the same order of magnitude as those committed by the totalitarian states we all decry, I can’t help but be sickened to see otherwise rational and moral people adopt the same methods and mindsets that allow those atrocities to happen, even if they believe that they have the moral fortitude to refrain from those excesses. History has far too many examples of societies who allowed themselves to create a state of exception, only to have that license get away from them and lead to greater atrocities.
    I am thinking as much of Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France as I am of Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism here. ‘We the People’ are always seen as right from the moment of setting aside the rule of law or the ‘state of exception’ right through the reign of terror or the detention of stateless individuals.
    In every case, it is not the leader that is to blame, but the scared core of people willing to personally abhor the practices and policies enacted under the auspices of that leader, but unwilling to stand up and demand that the leader acknowledge that these practices are morally repugnant and that they must stop without trying to justify them or preserve the loophole that allowed them in the first place.
    It is time to break that slide toward authoritarianism and demand that the ‘state of exception’ be returned to the rule of law.

57. “Well said, hilzoy. And your solution is?”
    Posted by: Charles Bird
    Kick the GOP out of power. That’s pretty much the only way to change it. These policies aren’t the result of the Evul Klinton, or Evilooshunists; or the dreaded Dictatorship of Relativism. And after the ’04 elections, they aren’t merely Bush policies; they are the policies of every Republican who voted for them.
    Whether or not they whine about media coverage, or Amnesty International.

58. Jay C
    It is precisely the condescending attitude that drips from your post that makes the answer to Part I- c. Let’s review the chronology of events:
    – Applebaum takes offense to the use of gulag and writes a column that also includes
    “Like Khan and Schulz, I am appalled by this administration’s detention practices and interrogation policies, by the lack of a legal mechanism to judge the guilt of alleged terrorists, and by the absence of any outside investigation into reports of prison abuse.”
    – Von aggress and posts it along with some of his thoughts
    “Never forget our errors, our sins of omission of commission, or our excesses of fear and anger. Never forget the wrongs that have been perpetrated in our name in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and other places whose names and places remain unknown. “
    – Hilzoy then posts some thoughts on why criticism of the administration isn’t unpatriotic with a title nearly identical title to Von’s.
    How is it that a rebuke of Amnesty’s poor choice of words (while all the while being critical of the Bush administration’s policies) is somehow interpreted as calling someone un-American? The only problem I see is that Von and Applebaum failed to tow the party line.

59. Fevered Swamp Watch: ObWi edition
    Edward,
    Feel free to speculate all you want. I only hope it acts as a therapeutic exercise to vent your spleen. It’s your house after all.

60. Sulla:
    You said of Hilzoy: Most conservatives wouldn’t argue that you hate America, but that you have an unhealthy hatred of Bush.
    JayC responded with a simple example to show why Bush is a legitimate focus for criticism of current US policy, and that criticism of policy and/or Bush himself is not, therefore, inherently irrational or “unhealthy.”
    You have responded by asking “How is it that a rebuke of Amnesty’s poor choice of words (while all the while being critical of the Bush administration’s policies) is somehow interpreted as calling someone un-American?, and objecting to JayC’s condescension.
    To which I say: Whuuh?
    First, JayC was not addressing that point.
    Second, the Applebaum article contains the following sentence: I don’t know when Amnesty ceased to be politically neutral or at what point its leaders’ views morphed into ordinary anti-Americanism. So Applebaum, at least believes that one critic of the Bush administration (Amnesty International) is motivated by hatred of America, and one presumes that Von cited Applebaum for a reason.

61. nous,
    The problem I have is that Applebaum and Von both attacked the policies Amnesty was critical of. This hardly makes them sycophants for Bush and I can’t understand why the knives needed to be drawn on them. If Applebaum’s characterization of AI bothers you then fine however, I don’t see how their posts reflect a lock step attitude your worried about.

62. And now Sulla and nous: would you mind taking this dispute (or, indeed, anything Applebaum/Amnesty/”gulag”-related) to the other thread? Again, I’d rather not see this one sullied (no pun intended).

63. nous,
    The problem I have is that Applebaum and Von both attacked the policies Amnesty was critical of. This hardly makes them sycophants for Bush and I can’t understand why the knives needed to be drawn on them. If Applebaum’s characterization of AI bothers you then fine however, I don’t see how their posts reflect a lock step attitude your worried about.

64. st,
    Well if presumption is en vogue I presume gulag is as offensive to Applebaum as Bush/Hitler might be to a holocaust survivor. It demonstrates that the user has experienced a departure from reality and isn’t worth serious consideration, which is what she laments in her article.

65. SUlla — checking in during lunch hour (they have computers available, and I am trying not to fall asleep): had I meant to draw a knife on von, it would have been a lot more obvious. I was not.

66. 4) Simply releasing the prisoners, especially if they are terrorists, is foolish and unacceptable.
    Maybe they could release the prisoners who are not terrorists, and not release the prisoners who are terrorists. Unless they have all become terrorists while in custody, which is quite possible, and would be quite the microcosm of our “Wipe out an enemy and create ten more” policy.

67. Ah, Sulla, glad to see you still have that extra-special tough of mordancy in your prose (seriously though, thanks for posting, don’t let the spleen-venting scare you off, especially when you damned-well invited it). ;-p
    You do see, though, that my speculation was in response to yours, don’t you? Or are you a qualified psychiatrist? Able to diagnose healthy, versus, unhealthy degrees of hatred?

68. “And your solution is?”
    My dad has a friend who calls himself a “Republican in Exile”. He has decided to vote for Democrats until the Republicans divest themselves of their oligarchical/theocratic leadership. Quite seriously the solution to our problem–the things that we are throwing away–is to reform and clean up the Republican party. That won’t happen unless Republican rank and file folks start insisting on reasonable, responisible candidates and withhold their votes from extremists.

69. Anarch,
    If Hilzoy asks me to take off I will. Until then sorry, I’m feeling obstinate today. I get the feeling you’d prefer this thread to be some type intellectually pure echo chamber, which I find puzzling.
    Hilzoy,
    If your post is in no way related to Von’s I apologize. Say the word and I’ll beat it.
    Edward,
    You didn’t actually expect me to defend Bush’s fiscal and social policies? When backed in a corner attack the first opening you see.

70. lily: That won’t happen unless Republican rank and file folks start insisting on reasonable, responisible candidates and withhold their votes from extremists.
    But does Charles Bird (if we may take him as a representative of Republican rank and file) see Bush&Co as extremists, or as “reasonable, responsible candidates”? I suspect the latter.

71. Sulla – er, ok. I’m still not clear what that does as a retort to JayC’s actual point, but never mind. My mind must be clouded by my unhealthy hatred of the President. Oh, no! I’m in DC, and Hilzoy must have brought the contaminant with her from Baltimore! Soon the DC streets will be filled with rabid anti-Bush zombies, chanting “Bush lied….people died….aggggg….brains….”
    Damn you, Hiiiiillllzzzzoooooyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!

72. Francis,
    “(and please, let’s not pick on seven-digit programs when eight-digit solutions are needed.)”
    Your numbers are off. A solution in the tens of millions (eight digits) is worthless. We need at least twelve digits, as our annual deficits are in the hundreds of billions.

73. don’t let the spleen-venting scare you off, especially when you damned-well invited it
    I’m outraged about this

74. You didn’t actually expect me to defend Bush’s fiscal and social policies?
    That would make me entirely unreasonable…I’m only “moderately” unreasonsable.

75. It’s Charles Bird who argues that the administration’s detention practices are only abhorrent because they’re bad PR with the Islamic world.
    That is a complete distortion, mischaracterization and smear. Please retract, Jes.

76. Or, at least, take it to the thread in which you believe Charles was arguing that.

77. ack … need more coffee . . . can’t count the number of zeroes in 10 billion.
    Dantheman, instead of asking for cuts in 12-digit programs, which would be DOD, I intended to ask for 11-digit programs, which would be sub-programs within DOD.

78. Anarch–
    Sorry that my (failed) attempt to redirect the digression back to the topic at hand (i.e.–at least in part–returning the US to the rule of law rather than the state of exception) only led to a retrenchment. I don’t know how to shift the dialogue back to the most important point already in agreement, which is that there is no excuse for a free and democratic nation to allow a state of exception in which immoral acts are not checked by the rule of law. It is not enough to claim that we allow ourselves that loophole only because we believe ourselves moral enough to not allow it to get out of hand.
    Which is, as I read it, on-topic.

79. Sulla: my “quiz” in my 11:54am post was meant to sarcastic, not condescending; apologies for any misunderstanding.
    So as to clarify: the formulation …rebuke of Amnesty’s poor choice of words (while all the while being critical of the Bush administration’s policies) perfectly sums up my reaction to the whole AI/”gulag” affair: so no dispute there; my snark was directed at the “unhealthy hatred of Bush” remark; which is a pet peeve of mine.
    For years now, I have been seeing, mostly on right-wing blogs, wholesale dismissal of any and all criticism
    of the Bush Adminstration and its policies as being motivated mainly by “Bush-hatred” or “Bush Derangement Syndrome” – the implication being, as I see it, that any criticism of this President and his Adminstration’s policies/actions is just so much irrational nuttery, and thus, ignorable. Applying this to hilzoy’s post, though, just seemed to me to be WAY off-the-mark; hence my comment.
    Oh, and FWIW, I certainly believe that there IS plenty of “unhealthy hatred of Bush” out there (mostly on left-wing blogs) – few commenters, I think would have a lower opinion of our current President and his Administration than I – but at least I try to frame my opinions on some level of informed critique of policy, ideology, and action rather than just “Bush sux” reactionism (tidy formula though it may be).

80. To anybody with any sense, the attempt to make that loophole is the waving flag that it is already out of hand.

81. nous, I believe you have hit the nail on the head (or at least reinforced my own preconceived notions 😉
    Unfortunately, another of my preconceived notions is that this is a problem which cannot, in practice, be addressed directly. At least not any more than gravity can be addressed directly. When you want to lift something away from earth, you have to expend energy, period. Ain’t no way ’round it — the closest you can get to cheating is with leverage. By the same token, if you want to impede tyranny, the absolute best you can do is to invoke leverage as best you can. I was just commenting recently (Mark Schmitt’s place, as it turns out) that when people are nervous, they cluster together. For most people, that means acquiescence to whoever is in the alpha role.
    I think quite a few of the founders of the US were viscerally aware of this basic problem, despite not having the language and resources of modern cognitive and social psychology to express it. I consider that the fundamental reason why the US Constitution is (IMHO) a work of remarkable, world-changing genius. The game will always be rigged in favor of tyranny, and I try not to harbor any illusions about my country being inherently “good,” but by Odin’s whiskers, it is a damn good effort.
    A republic, if we can keep it.

82. DaveC:

    I don’t have any solution that is both moral and avoids endangering Americans

    I’ve think you’ve hit on the crux here, Dave. The problem is that since Sep 11, too many Americans have decided that safety is a little more important that they thought, and morality is a little less important than they thought. Or that safety is even worth compromising morality at all. They’ve forgotten that freedom isn’t safe. It was never intended to be safe.
    I’ll ask you the question directly. Would you accept a 1% greater risk that you and your family would be killed in a terrorist attack if in exchange you were assured that no innocent men were taken from their families, tortured, and killed? It’s not a flippant question. . it’s a terrible one. And it’s the question that lies at the heart of all these issues we’re arguing about.
    My followup question is this, what do you think ‘bravery’ means in this context?

83. Bush-,God- and America-Hating Terrorist #405969, formerly known as Edward_:
    “Ah, Sulla, glad to see you still have that extra-special tough of mordancy in your prose (seriously though, thanks for posting, don’t let the spleen-venting scare you off, especially when you damned-well invited it). ;-p”
    Terr, you are warned about the misuse of the sacred American language – this so-called ‘spleen-venting’ does not exist. One might inflame one’s spleen, a doctor might remove one’s spleen, a spleen might presumably drain whatever it produces, but there no such thing as spleen-venting.
    This shocking misuse of the American toungue, the one that Jesus Himself used, outweighs every other evil ever carried out in all of history (aside from hounding Nixon out of office and not confirming St. Bork to the Supreme Court, of course – I’d hate to exaggerate).
    I call upon the Injustice League of America, the Might Warbloggers of the 101st Keyboard Brigade – whenever the wretched scum >dares to pollute our sacred blogosphere by mentioning any alleged ‘evil’ or ‘torture’, I command you to bring up this incident, filling thread after thread with the slimy Kudzu of GOP talking points.

84. st and Jay C.
    The President is a justifiable target for criticism but I saw nothing that would lead me to believe Von or Applebaum were trying to defend the administration in their critique of Amnesty and as such the only reason to take offense by said criticism is because it lacks enough Bush bashing. I posted what I did here because I thought, with similar titles, this post was in response to Von’s. Maybe it’s me who is clouded. I saw a lot of conservatives go bonkers over the littlest thing in Clinton years and it seems to me the converse is true now.
    Oh, there’s a fine line between sarcastic and condescending, I cross it all the time. And there is no need to ever apologize to me, I like to play rough.

85. Barry, I suggest to you that the fine edge of the sarcastic knife is rather more quickly dulled when you use it as a screwdriver, paint scraper and prybar. IOW, do you ever turn it off?

86. “the Might Warbloggers of the 101st Keyboard Brigade”
    It’s good to see that despite the movement to clean up Kos their moonbats will still have a home.

87. hilzoy
    I have an old friend who recently returned from Iraq and is now venturing into politics by running for Rob Portman’s Ohio district. He is running as a democrat – certainly an uphill battle in that district.
    I am sending this great post to him for inspiration. You put into words what many feel and been unable to.
    By the way, Amnesty using THAT word may have been the primary presspoint that moved the debate into the general populace and press. The unwilling administration this week seems to be more willing to address the issue.

88. Links both horribly broken, Sulla.

89. A beautiful post, hilzoy. Many separate points and arguments, from fiscal to diplomatic, and perhaps not quite a succinct enough conclusion. May I suggest?
    This “government” …quotes are meant to include Congress, etc, administration is inadequate and regime possibly offensive….is the most radical and dangerous in American history.
    I dislike the focus on Bush, by both left and right. No organization of the size of the US Gov’t is controlled by one man. No area of policy is directed by one man. Many people in the 80s “won the cold war”. If Alexander or Ashcroft had won in 2000 many of these players, Rumsfeld,Cheney,Wolfowitz,Bolton,DeLay,Thomas,Hatch, Roberts etc etc would have been involved in policy and administration and legislation. To give all credit or blame to one man is simply absurd, and incomprehensible to me.
    To say:”Bush chose war in Iraq.”…or any other policy decision…is, for me, to misunderstand the nature of bureacracies and the nature of power. Yes, in a sense he made the “final” decision, but I can’t remember many “leaders” making such decisions in stark opposition to the majority of their closest advisors. If it even happens once, the leader needs different advisors.

90. One of Sulla’s links is here and the other here
    {OT, but… It’s fascinating what’s happening on Kos…I’m getting some back-channel reports from friends who feel they’re no longer welcome there and Armando is certainly emerging as enemy #1.}

91. the solution, CB, is to have people like you and your fellow posters at Redstate to force a change in policy.
    given the partisan atmosphere in DC, hilzoy and I have no traction.
    That is a diversion, Francis, but to answer your question, I am doing my part. Here’s my beef. Eloquent and elegant as my colleague Hilzoy phrases it, the structure of her post still boils down to this:
    1. We have a great country and great system of governance and I’m proud of it.
    2. We done some things I profoundly disagree with, some of which bring me shame.
    3. I care more about my country than Amnesty International.
    It begs the question: Then what? No matter the readability and deft turns of phrase, her post is still a rant. A well-written rant, but still a rant it is. The venting may make her feel better, as well as the readers who agree with her, but where does it go after that? Nowhere. If Hilzoy truly wants change, then I expect her to tell me how. Where is the constructive strategy, what are the big ideas, what are the tactics, what are the priorities, etc. You can’t just say “we have no power so we’re not obligated to provide solutions.” Well, how are you going to get your power back without them? “No” and “anti” aren’t good enough.

92. I disagree, Charles. hilzoy’s post wasn’t, as far as I’m concerned, a rant. It’s simply an explanation of why there’s a great deal of upset going on.

93. I saw a lot of conservatives go bonkers over the littlest thing in Clinton years and it seems to me the converse is true now.
    See, this is what’s odd. From my perspective, which I think is shared by most of the Bush opponents posting on these threads, what’s going on here is, once again, a lot of conservatives going bonkers, in that they’re making a huge fuss about word choice in AI’s report on U.S. government-sanctioned abuse rather than making a fuss about the abuse itself.
    Now, when Von or one of the other decent conservatives around here has this reaction, I give that a fair bit more weight than the latest pile of Bird droppings, and I do stop to think that there’s value in noting that our country has not yet completely run off the cliff. I think it’s likely that we’ll get through this. But I don’t think it’s inevitable. I think there’s a danger–not a huge danger, but a real one–that we could slide from what’s happening now into a truly ugly situation. That’s why I think that in the situation we’re in now, it’s much more important to point out what we’re losing than to remind us of what we still have, and why I think that Von et al are off-base to spend time bashing AI for poor word choice.

94. Yeah, hilzoy, why can’t you pull together a great idea like, er . . . “Get a bunch of conservatives to join Amnesty International” or “Appoint a ‘commission’ to ‘study’ something that the President could end with the stroke of a pen tomorrow?” What’s your deal, anyway?

95. I dislike the focus on Bush, by both left and right. No organization of the size of the US Gov’t is controlled by one man. No area of policy is directed by one man. Many people in the 80s “won the cold war”. If Alexander or Ashcroft had won in 2000 many of these players, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton, DeLay, Thomas, Hatch, Roberts etc etc would have been involved in policy and administration and legislation. To give all credit or blame to one man is simply absurd, and incomprehensible to me.
    Okay, but (1) Bush won, not those guys and (2) who appointed Rumsfeld? chose Cheney? Wasn’t it that President Bush guy?
    Bush, and the voters who think he’s doing a splendid job, is the problem. If a Democrat wins in 2008 and continues Bush’s wicked policies, he or she will be the problem.
    If Bush was genuinely misled, if he didn’t approve of the evisceration of human rights or the trumping-up of WMD evidence or the botching of the post-invasion of Iraq, then heads would have rolled. Heads have not rolled. THAT is why I detest Bush.
    I don’t understand at all the implication that our anger and blame should be so dispersed as to be meaningless. One man is supremely responsible for the crippling of America’s military, diplomacy, and civil rights, and that man is the President of the United States.

96. I’m with Slarti.
    America has always tried to close the chasm between our ideals and our reality. The current upset for many is that they feel that may no longer be the case.
    I thought hilzoy’s post was her attempt to define what she sees with what she feels.

97. Well, how are you going to get your power back without them?
    I think a good place to start would be to convince people who keep formulating the question this way that talking about “your” power and “ours” are the same [expletive deleted] power. That means, in part, that where we agree, we acknowledge a we and not just argue about whether we disagree on other points.
    It seems from actions and responses that the majority leadership is unwilling to listen to criticism and only recognizes familiar voices. So on these issues, where there is a clear consensus, this means that the familiar voices need to be louder. It also means that both sides might do well to set aside the divisive issues with the thinnest margins for the time being to concentrate on the ideas with the biggest “we”. It’s bad game theory, but good citizenship, which may be the more important thing right now.
    Supermajorities all around.

98. DaveL
    That is where the gulf begins I guess. I wouldn’t define Von or Applebaum as conservatives and they criticized both Amnesty and the President. Consequently I was left scratching my head to the negative reaction it generated.
    Edward- thanks (ow, that killed)

99. It’s not a flippant question. . it’s a terrible one.
    Yes it is. 1% is too high a number for me. I can’t answer the question right now, and may never have a good answer.

100. I have to second Charles Bird, here, hilzoy (boy, I betcha that you’d never hear that from me, did you?).
     You and these other liberals are yacking about ‘torture’ and ‘rendition’ and ‘loss of constitutional rights’. Meanwhile Charles, not-a-conservative Von, Slartibartfast and a dead latin dictator nanmed Sulla and the Ann ‘not conservative, merely foolish’ Applebaum are working hard, doing hard work, you know – drowning some seriously unpleasant news under squeals and screams of outrage.
     So much that when they’re through, the casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that the real crime was the use of the word ‘gulag’. And, honestly, I’ve got to agree that it’s a hard job to generate that much realistic-seeming outrage – I could never do that, even with extra help. I salute you, CB, and you, NaC Von, and you, Slart, and you, Ann ‘destined for Fox News’ Applebaum, and even you, Sulla, although I generally don’t like roman dictators.
     Thanks to your hard work, George Bush has the breathing space he needs to clean out those very, very few bad apples (undoubtedly left there by the Evul Librul Klintoooon), to Restore Honor and Dignity to the White House, and to show the world that the Adults are Back in Charge.
     I challenge any liberal here to dare to disagree with me, when I say: thanks to these guys, and millions more Americans just like them, when the world sees a picture of the White House on TV, or our President, the last thing that they think of is blowjobs.

101. Don Quijote,
     Hilzoy: “America has more often stood on the side of the angels.”
     Don Quijote: “Once in the twenthieth century and only because the US was attacked! More often than not it’s been on the side of it’s self-interest, or that of stupidity.”
     Hilzoy’s perspective here is as subjectively valid as yours and can be argued for just as persuasively. I appreciate many of the things you mention in your comments, but try a little empathy – it will help your arguments.

102. This post reminds me of my earliest encounter with America-criticism.
     My high school European History teacher was a very old-school professor, top-down, authoritative–and confrontational. He loved provoking us with contrarian viewpoints; some of the conversations were Socratic, but he truly meant some of his criticism of our ignorance and chauvinism. His complaint that he was teaching a class filled with “tranquillized garden-slugs,” on the other hand, we did not take so seriously.
     So one day we all got fed up with this WWII refugee who seemed to prefer anywhere but here and asked: “So, Mr. C, if you’re so down on America, why do you stay?”
     And he stopped. And he thought very seriously. Then he said: “Your Bill of Rights is a very good thing. No other country has such a strong statement of rights.”
     That exchange has stuck with me, even during my most critical moments. Our bill of rights is indeed a wonderful thing, one that gives me satisfaction to remember when I consider my passport photo, one that gave me some backbone when arguing international politics with my French (ex)partner’s family during 2002-04, and one that I would be terribly sad to be curtailed.
     Thanks, hilzoy, for an eloquent post, which, pace Charles, I think expresses some big ideas indeed.

103. Would you accept a 1% greater risk that you and your family would be killed in a terrorist attack if in exchange you were assured that no innocent men were taken from their families, tortured, and killed?
     horrible hypothetical.
     we weren’t given that choice – W chose for us.

104. Charles & Slarti: I believe that “bad PR” was the entire point of Charles’ post here, linked to from here. Also note, Charles, that if you’re calling for a retraction, it’s Sulla you need to see about it: he attributed your views to Von, which struck me as unfair.

105. Jeez, Jes, I hate to say it, but I think that this sentence from the linked Redstate post contradicts you:
     

     Why [do conservatives have to confront this issue]? First, because our mistreatment of prisoners/detainees is wrong. Second and less importantly, because it’s bad politics

     
     You may be of the opinion that the political angle is what CB was really going after; I might even be inclined to agree, were I in an uncharitable mood. But the text is the text, and objectively, your characterization of his post is not accurate.

106. “we weren’t given that choice – W chose for us.”
     No, we (meaning the citizens of the US) were given that very choice, not as individuals, but collectively. If there was 99% opposition to any of these policies, they would have never seen the light of day (or the light of the dungeon, or whatever). Bush’s mandate is fractured and besieged, but he still definitely has one.
     The problem is what to do when there’s a disagreement. DaveC honestly points out that he would not increase the risk of his family’s loss by 1% in exchange for the freedom and live of other innocent people. I (meaning my family, of course) would. If 51% or so agree with me, Dave has to live in a world of risk he consider unacceptable. If 51% or so agree with him (and evidently they do), children have to be raped with flourescent lights in exchange for a safety I neither deserve nor desire.

107. St: Really, I don’t want to get into an argument about it here – I agree with Slarti that the linked post on ObWing would be a better place for it, and I’ll shift it there by quoting your post, okay?

108. It’s not a flippant question. . it’s a terrible one.
     Yes it is. 1% is too high a number for me. I can’t answer the question right now, and may never have a good answer.
     DaveC, I appreciate the honest difficulty you have in answering the question, so here’s some thoughts to make it a bit easier. Note that sidereal did not ask if you would accept a 1% chance of being killed in a terrorist attack in exchange for ensuring no innocent was arrested, tortured & killed. The question was “would you accept a 1% greater risk.” To evaluate that increase in risk, we need to determine what your baseline risk is. Some quick googling & calculations give the following results:
     In 2001 your chance, as an U.S. citizen, of being killed by terrorism, was roughly .001%. A 1% increase in that risk would have made your chance .00101%. In just about any other recent year besides 2001, your risk would have been more like .00001% as a base line, .0000101% if you accepted the extra risk. (The previous sentence presumes that you travel outside the country. If you stay in the U.S., your chance of being killed by terrorism most years is just about zero.)
     For comparison purposes, in most years you are anywhere from 5 to 10 times more likely to be killed by lightning than by terrorists. You are almost 1500 times more likely to be killed in an auto accident.
     Even if sidereal’s theoretical tradeoff was much more drastic – say you doubled your chance of being killed by terrorists in exchange for not torturing and killing innocent people – you would still be in much more danger from lightning.
     Does that make the choice any easier?

109. If Hilzoy truly wants change, then I expect her to tell me how. Where is the constructive strategy, what are the big ideas, what are the tactics, what are the priorities, etc. You can’t just say “we have no power so we’re not obligated to provide solutions.” Well, how are you going to get your power back without them? “No” and “anti” aren’t good enough.
     Hilzoy’s post certainly speaks for me. (I might add that as a naturalized citizen I see the US as more of a gift than an inheritance. That may heighten my appreciation. Think of the difference between growing up wealthy and inheriting millions and growing up poor an winning the lottery).
     You ask for big ideas. Some – the most important – are plainly implied in the post. Stop the torture. Stop the renditions. Stop the illegal detentions. Why is “No” not good enough on these issues? It is in fact the only decent position.
     Why is anything other than “Bulls**t!!” the appropriate response to Bush’s claims of unlimited authority? Are we supposed to compromise? “It’s OK to lock people up like you want, as long as they’re Muslims?” Is that your idea?
     More. Hilzoy complains about the deficit. Gee. That’s not tough. Repeal the big tax cuts. Stop the manic race to cut even more. Call it “No” and “anti” if you like, but the way you get the budget under control is to raise taxes. Talk about cutting spending if you prefer. But I dare you to keep the arithmetic honest and produce a set of cuts that is both big enough to make a significant dent and politically acceptable. Until you do I will ask you where your ideas are. In fact, let me ask where the Administration’s ideas are?
     Iraq? I admit I have no great idea what to do. Neither does Bush. Which of us is more culpable for lack of a good plan, do you think?
     So no, I don’t accept that the post is just a rant. And I don’t accept that we are just saying “No.” Nor do I accept that it’s wrong to be oppose destructive policies. Given the current state of affairs, I suspect that the most useful thing the Democrats can do is obstruct Bush.

110. Anderson,
     I think you may be missing Bob McManus’ point.

111. “It begs the question: Then what? No matter the readability and deft turns of phrase, her post is still a rant. A well-written rant, but still a rant it is. The venting may make her feel better, as well as the readers who agree with her, but where does it go after that? Nowhere. If Hilzoy truly wants change, then I expect her to tell me how. Where is the constructive strategy, what are the big ideas, what are the tactics, what are the priorities, etc. You can’t just say “we have no power so we’re not obligated to provide solutions.” Well, how are you going to get your power back without them? “No” and “anti” aren’t good enough”

     There have, in fact, been a number of solutions or steps towards a solution proposed, many of them proposed by me or hilzoy on this blog. There is Senator Jay Rockefeller’s proposal that the Senate Intelligence Committee investigate extraordinary rendition, which committee chairman Pat Roberts refuses to allow a vote on. There are the calls by Amnesty and numerous other human rights groups for an independent commission with strong powers to gather evidence, akin to the 9/11 Comission, and a special prosecutor, to investigate all the various allegations of abuse and torture. There is the ACLU FOIA request on torture, which has produced many useful documents already and which will probably produce more before the litigation finishes. There are the attempts to subpoena relevant government documents and hold further hearings on the subject; these have been proposed numerous times by Democrats in Congress, but all subpoenas and most requests for hearings have been voted down on a party line vote. There were calls for the resignation of, and attempts to avoid promoting officials responsible for the interrogation policies; the calls for resignation have fallen on deaf ears and most of the relevant nominees have been confirmed in largely party line votes. (The exception to this is William Haynes’ Circuit court nomination.) There have been proposals to simply de-fund Guantanamo, like Senator Robert Byrd’s amendment to the appropriations bill; I am wary of that because I think the administration would simply send the detainees to a worse prison further beyond the reach of the law (Amnesty chose the wrong word from Solzhenytsin–our detention system is not a gulag, but it is an archipelago; Amnesty’s biggest mistake was probably focusing on only one island, and not the worst one at that.) There is Durbin’s anti-torture amendment forbidding the use of funds for cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the U.S. military, which was finally passed; but unfortunately that only restates existing law that is going unenforced. The part of the proposal that might have had a legal effect, a prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by members of the CIA, Durbin has not been able to pass. There is H.R. 952, Congressman Edward Markey’s bill closing two of the loopholes that allow for extraordinary rendition: the reliance on assurances not to torture from Syria and Uzbekistan, and the argument that its fine to send people to be tortured as long as they are captured overseas. There is S. 654, Senator Leahy’s very similar anti-rendition legislation. Two legal changes I would support would be to create a private right of action and waive sovereign immunity in cases like Maher Arar’s, where a detainee wants to sue the U.S. government for violations of its legal obligations that led to his torture; and to amend the anti-torture statute to change the mens rea requirement from “specific intent” to cause severe pain or suffering to “intent, knowledge, or severe recklessness manifesting an extreme indifference towards human life” for the crimes of torture, complicity in torture, and conspiracy torture.
     There have also been attempts to formulate more comprehensive interrogation policies. That link is a report by a commissions led by two of my former professors, which formed the basis for legislation on interrogations proposed by Representative Jane Harman of California. I don’t agree with all of its recommendations but I agree with most of them.
     Here’s the thing about virtually all of these proposals: they don’t stand a chance in hell of passing Congress (the only place where Democrats in Washington can really try–the administration has simply ignored all this). Not while the Republicans are voting against every single one of them along strict party lines. Most of them cannot even get a committee debate or vote. To my knowledge all of the subpoenas have been rejected, and the nominees confirmed, without a single dissenting vote from a Republican in Congress. Most of the bills lack a single Republican co-sponsor.
     If we’re talking about a subpoena, you just need a majority on a comittee–but again, that has not yet happened, not one single Republican has broken ranks even in the immediate aftermath of Abu Ghraib, when this was not all “old news”. If we’re talking about legislation, it’s even harder. Most of these bills have not even received a committee hearing. If they get a hearing, they still have to win a committee vote to get to the Senate floor. If they get to the floor they will need the support of at least six Republicans to pass; so far they have zero. In the House they will not get to the floor without Hastert and DeLay’s consent, which will simply not happen in the current political climate.
     Some of the bills can be passed as amendments in the Senate, but if they are not in the House version in the bill, and sometimes even if they are, they will be simply stripped out in conference committees controlled by DeLay, Hastert, the administration and to a lesser extent by Frist.
     If a bill has little chance of passing both houses, you can imagine the chances of legislation authorizing a special independent investigation.
     Further, it is not clear that a law by Congress would settle this issue anymore than the Supreme Court decisions in Hamdi and Rasul have. The administration has taken the legal position that in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President may violate the laws against torture if he deems it necessary for national security. They have never repudiated this position. The memo retracting much of the Bybee “Torture Memo” was silent on this issue. The attorney general refused to repudiate this position and was extremely evasive in answering questions about it during his confirmation hearings. If that is still the administration’s view, none of these Congressional statutes are going to guarantee the end of abuses anymore than the Anti-Torture Statute, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the non-detention act, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Reconstruction Act, etc. etc. prevented the abuses up to this point. The Executive has a sweeping power of classification which it can use to prevent violations of these laws from coming to light. All administrations have used the classification power to their political advantage, and this one has been especially likely to do so. Violations of these laws are prosecuted by the executive branch–either the Department of Justice or the military. If the military refuses to prosecute anyone above a certain rank, or the DOJ refuses to prosecute anyone at all–Congress’ next remedy is impeachment. That simply will not happen, as you surely know.
     (In contrast to all this, by the way, most of these policies could be ended in a matter of hours, days, weeks, or at most months by the orders of the President of the United States.)
     Not long ago I got the chance to hear Edward Markey, the Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts who has been most vocal in opposing rendition, speak on this issue. What he said was this: my bills isn’t going to pass, not without a major change in public opinion on these issue. News stories would help, if there were a series of stories above the fold–but there have been news stories. New information about the abuses would help, and the human rights groups were working to collect it–but we know an awful lot of information about this already. Perhaps there would be some new revelation that would finally shock the Republican majority of Congress into action, but he would be quite surprised. “This Republican majority is very hard to shock”, he stated.
     The only way out he could see, he said, was for the American people at large to know about these things, and care, and demand that they end.
     As far as I can tell, hilzoy’s posts is an unusually eloquent and effective attempt to make people know about these things, and care, and demand that these things end–or at least to make them understand why she feels the way she does about them. She is doing, unusually well and unusually eloquently, exactly what Markey, and the members of Amnesty and ACLU present at the same event, suggested that we do.

112. Excellent post, Katherine. Any chance of putting it up on the front page?

113. What it means to love America

     Hilzoy at Obisian Wings has written an excellent essay on what it’s like to be someone who loves the United States with open eyes. It’s the answer to all the peop

114. Anderson,
     I think you may be missing Bob McManus’ point.
     Oh, quite likely, though it’s always a bit more helpful to hear *how* I’m missing the point, then it is to go back & try to enlighten myself. Thanks though, and due apologies to McManus if that’s the case.

115. Charles,
     Perhaps you could read Katherine’s thorough and informative comment on what is being attempted, on what constructive steps have been proposed, and what has happened to these proposals, and then reconsider your criticism of the post.
     Also, perhaps you could stop complaining about “gulag,” and start complaining about Republican obstructionism.

116. Wow, I just read Katherine’s comment, and where CB’s “rant” comment was standing, there’s this smoldering crater a mile wide and unfathomably deep.
     Not so deep, I predict, that we won’t hear a tiny voice crying out that if the Democrats weren’t just using the torture issue for political advantage, the Republicans would be against torture too. But only time will tell.

117. Hilzoy,
     -“If this administration were sacrificing our honor for wealth and strength, we’d be having a different sort of argument.”
     Whose wealth and strength are we talking about? I am not so sure that the Administration is not doing just that, at least in the minds of many of its members and benefactors. Wealth and strength is precisely what they are after. I am not convinced that a sure conclusion can be reached at this time that America has lost wealth and strength. We may have to wait to see if America’s involvement in the Middle East works in its favor against China.
     -“we will have failed to act in the face of enormous challenges, including the emergence, for the first time, of countries whose internal markets are as large as ours”
     I don’t understand, “failed to act.” The challenges presented by such nations explain a great deal about our presence in the Middle East, and the larger, though less visible, focus on China.
     I did not mean to suggest that the effects we see are Hamiltonian, but that the thinking and motivation of the Administration and the Neo-cons was. This side is part of America as well, not just some recent right turn but part and parcel of America’s “noble experiment.”
     -“and, in the process, we will have sacrificed our ideals.”
     We may sacrifice the Jeffersonian ideals but perhaps not the Hamiltonian ones.
     Laura,
     I’m no fan either. The Neo-cons make some valid, or at least arguable points, but what I find so distasteful from Hamilton and his ideological heirs is their misanthropy, or, if that’s too strong a term, contempt of other people.

118. In 2001 your chance, as an U.S. citizen, of being killed by terrorism, was roughly .001%. A 1% increase in that risk would have made your chance .00101%.
     The problem with this is that it is stating that only 3000 people out of 300,000,000 were killed, but the effects were much broader than the raw numbers suggest.

119. Katherine: I am wary of [shutting down Gitmo] because I think the administration would simply send the detainees to a worse prison further beyond the reach of the law
     AP: The United States would rather have detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp imprisoned by their home countries, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday.

120. Anderson,
     Sorry. I think what Bob McManus was getting at is that the culpability or power of the president is not as linear or as simple as one might suspect. Did you see Oliver Stone’s film “Nixon” where the protester confronts Nixon at the Lincoln Memorial about just how much control is in the hands of the president? I think this gets at Bob McManus’ point. We often lay things at the feet of leaders because they are more visible than abstract forces or institutional machinations (it also lets us put a human face on the issue and lets us think that we are more in control of our world than may be the case). Because this approach proves an accessible way to get a handle on a problem does not mean that such an appreciation is accurate or all-inclusive.
     You’re right, focus on these other factors does tend to disperse anger or criticism, which is why it can be a good idea to take your perspective on blaming “one man.”

121. GOP – the Party of … ?

     Over at Pharyngula, PZ comments on a thoughtful piece (at Obsidian Wings) on the Republican agenda:
     So the ugly truth is that the Republican party is the party of torture and detainment and extraordinary rendition and murder. The Republican party is th…

122. “I think you may be missing Bob McManus’ point.”
     I don’t think Anderson entirely missed my point, to the extent it has one. Cause he said this.
     “I don’t understand at all the implication that our anger and blame should be so dispersed as to be meaningless.” …Anderson
     Question: if umm, how shall I put this, if Bush fell off the wagon and was discovered in the Oval Office surrounded by twenty bottles of Yukon Jack, and sent off to dry out, and Cheney took over under the 25th, how much would actually change? There would be some change, my guess is a more “activist” foreign policy and less social agenda.
     It takes a lot of people to make policy, and a whole lot more to implement it and sustain it. Katherine above talks about the complicity of the Republican Congress. They, let me assure you, are not acting in ways that guarantee their non-election. Ten CIA agents or military interrogators walking into the NY Times might change the policy. Facts are, that ten Republican Senators could make Bush’s days a living hell. Twenty contributors could spoil a few dinners. There are lots of checks and balances, which are not currently working.
     “So dispersed as to be meaningless.” It is only when the responsibility is maximally dispersed that it becomes meaningful. To go Zennish, if only Bush has responsibility, there is no responsibility and no accountability. I am reminded of Beirut, when Reagan took “full responsibility”. End of story, nothing happened, impeach me or screw off.
     “Anger and blame so dispersed….” Mea maxima culpa. I hate Bush, but that is personal. I don’t hate Cheney or Rumsfeld or DeLay or Tacitus or Lileks. Honest. I hate policies and behavior, and sorry to say, sometimes I hate some abstract called “all Republicans”. That is self-indulgent, agreed. Sometimes I hate all humans, not excepting myself. That may be wisdom.
     Point is, each and every Republican, each and every Democrat, has some influence and some responsibility for torture, for policy. You will never reach Bush. You may reach your Senator or Congressman or neighbour. And they can change things.

123. Katherine, an excellent post, as always. Before you engage more with Charles, you might want to read more. If you look back at a recent post which he has authored, so that you can understand his position more:
     “Amnesty Travesty Part III: Should conservatives beat ’em by joining ’em?”
     He also contributed some to the thread under the post:
     “The Things We Throw Away”, by Von (who goes by the nickname ‘not a conservative’, which is important, if you’d seek to understand some of the people here).
     This will help you integrate better with the culture. The primarly lesson is probably that Charles, Von, Sull and Slartibartfast take their English language very, very seriously. For example, they get far more outraged over the use of the word ‘Gulag’ by Amnesty International, than by everything which Bush has done.
     Since you are writing about sensitive matters like ‘detention’, ‘interrogation’, ‘stress positions’, you might easily offend their sensitive natures.
     However, don’t worry about, you know, actually raping somebody or having a dog chew on them, or beating them and hanging them by their wrists until they die, even after the guards figured that they were probably innocent. They are morally very tough, and understand about omlets and eggs and all of that.

124. Bob is doubtless more correct than I am; still, some thoughts:
     Question: if umm, how shall I put this, if Bush fell off the wagon and was discovered in the Oval Office surrounded by twenty bottles of Yukon Jack, and sent off to dry out, and Cheney took over under the 25th, how much would actually change?
     But who (1) accepted Cheney as VP and (2) continued to rely on him, and acquiesce in his becoming so powerful as VP?
     As for the Republican senators & their misplaced loyalties (as so witheringly illuminated by K. above), quite right. And I live in Mississippi, so I have no shortage of senators & congressmen to loathe.
     The single person most responsible remains Bush, even if that doesn’t get the others off the hook. So, a matter of emphasis?

125. You know, Hilzoy’s post had an effect on me that she might not be so happy with, but I will note it here as a possible discussion point. I have been considering, for some time, the idea of taking Japanese citizenship. It would be “relatively” easy for me, by virtue of my ancestry and my current situation. However, the one thing that has held me back was that one is supposed to, after a period of about 5 years, revoke the other citizenship. Many people don’t do that (a sort of don’t ask, don’t tell policy), but I’ve always held off because they might ask and I would be faced with a choice of either revoking my US citizenship, or saying ‘whoops, you guys caught me, here’s the Japanese passport’ (which one might realize is not a good bureaucratic survival strategy) Hilzoy’s post makes me think that the first option is not so bad.
     Note that this is not doing a revival of A man without a country here, and I’m not going to be like Iain Banks, who cut up his passport and mailed it to Tony Blair. I have to admit that who I am has never been predicated by what the cover of my passport is. I also realize that even if I take Japanese citizenship, I will never be ‘Japanese’ and one could argue that I am taking this line because of the value of the outsider stance that allows one to criticize and but not actually do anything.
     It’s interesting that Anderson notes that he is from Mississippi, as am I. Perhaps my feelings might be different if I really felt that I could ‘go home’. At any rate, I wonder what other responses are to this. At any rate, I’m off for the day, so if this generates any responses, I will answer in about 12 hours.

126. Lily,
     -“Bush and Rumsfield were aware that the war was a choice, not a necessity”
     I think a good argument can be made that the war was a necessity, which may then actually back up the claims by the Administration that they had no choice. How is the Military Industrial Complex, a very important part of our economy and instrument of power projection, to go on without war? (You may like to check out Paul Virilio’s work, especially “Pure War” and the “technical surprise” at the beginning of the last century in relation to maintaining a war economy in peacetime.) That war is the health of the state is a tenet of Neo-conservatism (e.g. see Aaron Friedberg’s “In the Shadow of the Garrison State: America’s Anti-Statism and Its Cold War Grand Strategy”*). Maintaining the health of the MIC, and by extension the health of the state, is one way to make the war against Iraq defensible.
     *Friedberg’s book is only recommended as an example of Neo-con thinking. As a serious academic work it is garbage: he omits what does not support his thesis and misrepresents some of his sources to get them to say what he wants. In layman’s terms, he’s lying.
     -“Now we are supposed to believe that invading Iraq and creating a democracy there (which was not part of the original arguament) will somehow promote democracy elsewhere”
     It is a curious thing that so many Americans take as an article of faith the idea that democracy can be spread or bequeathed. While some aspects of a political system or ideology may be transferable, forms of government arise from historical factors and the particulars of time and place. Have we forgotten Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union? How is American style democracy to be imposed on a nation with no tradition of rule of law and faith in courts? Or the other way around: Imagine an attempt at imposing communism in America. There would not even be the language to discuss it much less the institutions, values, traditions, or ideas to support it. I seriously doubt that American institutions and values are timeless and universal (a commonality of both the Left and the Right – the question being mainly whose methodology has the greater potential for the success of such efforts), though it may make some Americans feel better to think so.

127. Don’t give up lj. I was at a fundraiser for a private school in DC a couple of months ago, and the speaker was Rev. Jackson. Among other things, he said that although things might look kind of bleak, we are winning the battle of ideas. Comparing his own childhood to that of his grandaughter (a student at the school) made this crystal clear.
     You know, it’s been very interesting having much the same discussion today as is in hilzoy’s post with a couple of dogmatic young men in shackles in Gitmo. They actually seem to have understood our explanation of why we were there, and, as surprising, so did several of the Navy enlisted men who were guarding them. They’ll have to be saints to forgive the US for the treatment that have suffered, but it’s not too much to expect that they’ll go home — when they go home — with some small understanding about the ideals upon which our country was founded. (Neither Saudis nor Yemenis will go home as part of diplomatic deals. No, they’ll go home because the pen actually is mightier than the sword).
     Both clients are articulate and engaged. Smart, but thus far much of what they’ve seen of our culture has not been the best we have to offer.

128. Perhaps you could read Katherine’s thorough and informative comment on what is being attempted, on what constructive steps have been proposed, and what has happened to these proposals, and then reconsider your criticism of the post.
     I agree that Katherine offered a detailed post on what the Democrats are doing constructively. The questions you have to ask yourselves then, are (1) are you getting the message out, (2) are the people hearing your message and (3) when people hear the message, are they convinced? To me, the answers are “no” to (1) and (2) and “I don’t know” to (3). Does this mean that you give up? No. Does this mean that you play the victim and tell everyone how mean and nasty those Republicans are? No. Does this mean long sorrowful posts of lament and litany? No. What you do is step back in, focus your message, get it out, redouble your efforts, debate your point of view and do your goddamdest to persuade others that your answers are the right ones. If you lose today, you go back, figure out how to do it better and try to win tomorrow. Ask yourselves this, do American voters really want to hear woeful messages of “fiscal disaster” or “breaking our military” or “squandering our freedom”, without hearing the punchline and without hearing your way out of this sad picture? Of course not. What you do is tell the American people that you have a plan to aggressively win this war (and then spell it out) without descending to detainee maltreatment, that we can get more help from Europe and the Muslim world by stopping the practice of extraordinary rendition, that you can restore fiscal sanity by ridding marginal rate cuts for incomes over $200,000, that you’ll put reasonable brakes on the growth of non-discretionary spending, that you’ll negotiate face-to-face and hard-bargain Kim Jong Il and the Iranian mullahs, that your plan for Social Security is better (and then actually lay out a plan). But what are we hearing on June 9, 2005? None of the above. I know what it’s like to be in a party totally aced out of power. I’ve been there. Ask yourselves, how did Republicans do it? Gloom and doom didn’t work, hope did.

129. Every time I think the irony meter is pegged once and for all….

130. And if you’re on the other side, you scream, “Gulag! Newsweek! Gulag! Amnesty!” over and over as loudly as you can in hopes of preventing anyone from hearing anything else.
     What you do is tell the American people that you have a plan to aggressively win this war (and then spell it out) without descending to detainee maltreatment, that we can get more help from Europe and the Muslim world by stopping the practice of extraordinary rendition, that you can restore fiscal sanity by ridding marginal rate cuts for incomes over $200,000, that you’ll put reasonable brakes on the growth of non-discretionary spending, that you’ll negotiate face-to-face and hard-bargain Kim Jong Il and the Iranian mullahs, that your plan for Social Security is better (and then actually lay out a plan).
     Presuming you think all of those things are good ideas — and I don’t know if you do or don’t — why do you support a political party that has absolutely no intention whatsoever of pursuing any of them, and in fact intends to pursue the precise opposite of most of them?

131. I’m just stunned by how no part of this task seems to be your job, Charles. Who are your Senators? Are you involved in any way with your local Republican party committee? What is stopping you from organizing a visit to your Congressional representative’s office with some other constituents to push him/her to support Markey’s bill? Have you written a letter to the editor, or to any of your Congressional delegation?

132. I’m just stunned by how no part of this task seems to be your job, Charles.
     You misunderstand. Charles’ job is to get out in front of Katherine and yell about Newsweek, Amnesty International, swift boats in Cambodia, and the like while she tries to make herself heard.
     And Charles, precisely what on God’s green earth do you think Katherine has been working her behind off at doing? Are you ever, just for a moment, ashamed of posting this kind of stuff? How is it possible for you to affect this more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone when you know perfectly well that you and people like you are precisely the reason why Katherine and people like Katherine have trouble getting the message across?

133. I’m just stunned by how no part of this task seems to be your job, Charles
     That’s by design: always try to make it your political opponents be the ones who have to jump through the hoops.

134. What are our force multipliers for a guerrilla war?
     I can think of two: intelligence and cooperation from the civilian population. Both require knowledge (including language skills) and actions that “win hearts and minds.”
     Judging by results, it appears we are deficient in these areas.
     And when that fails, we can always restart operation Phoenix

135. when you love, sometimes you have to criticize

     I’ve said before (1, 2, 3) that just as when you see someone you love doing something wrong you should…

136. And after the ’04 elections, they aren’t merely Bush policies; they are the policies of every Republican who voted for them.
     Not true, they are the policies of every American!

137. Not To Be Thrown Away

     Without further comment, a very short excerpt from a remarkable essay about being American, and why we might might question whether those who loudly claim their greater love of country are really to be believed.
     Right after the Abu Ghraib photos sur…

138. Charles: A lot of other people have posted about the positive policy proposals one could make. I’ll just add: I thought that a lot of my post was positive. It was, among other things, a love song to my country, and I thought I came out fairly strongly for a bunch of things, most notably the ideals that it was founded on. But if it came off as a rant, I’m not sure what else I can say.

139. But who (1) accepted Cheney as VP and (2) continued to rely on him, and acquiesce in his becoming so powerful as VP?
     As for the Republican senators & their misplaced loyalties (as so witheringly illuminated by K. above), quite right. And I live in Mississippi, so I have no shortage of senators & congressmen to loathe.
     The single person most responsible remains Bush, even if that doesn’t get the others off the hook. So, a matter of emphasis?
     The single most important person is the American citizen who is either to lazy, to stupid or to ignorant to get informed and vote, the citizen who voted to put these scumbags in office so that they could get a tax cut or bash gays and minorities.

140. Hilzoy – Thank you for this post. Very well done, indeed.

141. hilzoy: Thank you.

142. Ask yourselves this, do American voters really want to hear woeful messages of “fiscal disaster” or “breaking our military” or “squandering our freedom”, without hearing the punchline and without hearing your way out of this sad picture?
     So what you’re saying is… when someone screws up this country, possibly beyond repair, the fault is with the people who tried to stop them because they can’t suggest a remedy within the miniscule paradigm of the destroyer.
     Seriously: does that make the slightest bit of sense whatsoever?
     At what point can we expect the American people to wake the hell up, do their homework, and start to realize the tragedy (and travesty) we’re in? At what point are the American people going to accept responsibility — and demand real accountability — for those who have sinned against them, and for those who have sinned in our names?

143. At what point can we expect the American people to wake the hell up, do their homework, and start to realize the tragedy (and travesty) we’re in? At what point are the American people going to accept responsibility — and demand real accountability — for those who have sinned against them, and for those who have sinned in our names?
     Sometime after WWIII or the Great Depression (part II), which ever happens first.

144. when someone screws up this country, possibly beyond repair
     Thanks for arguing for limited government!
     I’m mad a Bush for making the government bigger, but a large number of conservative / libertarian web sites cover that pretty well, so I’m not gonna do it here.
     I remember when Andrew Sullivan was urging every day “Don’t go wobbly”. Now, he’s practically one of those wobble-head dolls that are carictatures of professional ball-players.
     lj, if your kids identify as Japanese, and you are happy with them growing up there, then why not? You’re living there. I wouldn’t take offense at you renouncing US citizenship because I have more of a problem with conflicts of dual citizenship. If you are happy where you are, go for it.

145. I’m turning Japanese. I think I’m turning Japanese. I really think so.
     Ah, sorry. Couldn’t resist.
     But I wouldn’t look forward to being gaijin in my own country for the rest of my life.

146. Charles Bird: “What you do is step back in, focus your message, get it out, redouble your efforts, debate your point of view and do your goddamdest to persuade others that your answers are the right ones.”
     With no consideration that your answers might be otherwise? The William F. Buckley method of discourse?

147. hilzoys post – not a rant, but an invocation.
     * * *
     The United States of Omelas. But not nearly as nice. What a thing to look forward to!

148. Hilzoy mumbled: “We were talking about the war, and one of them said: how, exactly, is America better than Saddam Hussein? That’s an idiotic thing to say, I replied. We don’t just throw people in prison for no reason and torture and kill them. At that point someone asked: are you sure?
     I cannot describe to you (those of you who have not felt it) what it was like to think: no, I am not sure. Not at all.”
     Hilzoy, if you don;t not understand the difference between Saddam’s Iraq and today’s USA, then you have most dramatically demonstrated your utter lack of basic intelligence. I suggest you go to Iran or Iraq, and find out first hand… if you live to tell the story. You have a degree in Philosophy…? From where… Mickey Mouse College of Wannabees?

149. hilzoy, if you will permit me…
     Joe, to me there is a big difference between being able to say “we never do that” and where we are today. It is the difference between the moral high ground versus simply a matter of degree.
     You might respond, as we have seen from others, that “oh, but in our society when we find abuses we investigate and bring the guilty to justice,” but that rings a little hollow lately, as the evidence continues to mount that there is tacit approval of “taking the gloves off.”
     Can you in all honesty say that President Bush takes it his moral duty to root out all our use of torture, to ensure beyond doubt humane and correct treatment even of the guilty? I can’t.

150. Joe, I’d suggest you take a gander at the posting rules and banning policy. Perhaps you should consider modifying your extremely rude tone if you wish to continue posting comments here.
     This isn’t that kind of blog – for now at least.
     :\

151. Hi, Joe!
     How embarassing for you.
     You’ll probably want to read the passage you quoted again, but more carefully.
     Have you ever been to Iran or Iraq?
     If hilzoy were to go to Iraq and not come back alive, would that still be Saddam’s fault? He’s been in custody for a while.

152. Hilzoy, from one who is not a US citizen and hopes never to live there, this is as fine a piece of writing as I have seen in years. It is nice to see that not everyone in the US has their head in the sand. Congratulations and thank you.

153. Nothing here – but there, oh look!

     I’m sorry about the recent lull here on HDTD. Doug’s in Albania, the nanny is sick, my mother-in-law is visiting and my life is just full of stupid little things like paying bills, filing insurance claims and making sure…

154. Never been to this site before. Tremendously impressed, both with Hilzoy and the commentators. So, there really are such things as intelligent, principled conservatives still alive in the U.S.

155. Joe — I take it phrases like “the obvious fact that we are not, and I hope will never be, in Saddam’s moral universe” just flew right over your head.
     Everyone else — thanks.

156. Anarch,
     -“the greatest being the related notion that factuality itself is open to subjective interpretation and hence can only be differentiated by political ramifications.”
     Same as it ever was? 😉

157. My sentiments exactly

     Jeanne writes, Happy Fourth of July “No, I’m not kidding. It came early this year. And in place of a flag I’d like to hang this essay on my door next month.”

158. More Things They Throw Away

     Hilzoy apparently know what’s worth our love and what’s now. Good to know someone still dares to speak up….

159. “Every time I think the irony meter is pegged once and for all….”
     Posted by: DaveL
     Excellent notion, DaveL! There are several people here who could earn lucrative living as irony meter testers. I think that we know who they are, so I don’t have to name names.

160. “So what you’re saying is… when someone screws up this country, possibly beyond repair, the fault is with the people who tried to stop them because they can’t suggest a remedy within the miniscule paradigm of the destroyer.”
     Posted by: Anarch
     Ya gotta admit, Anarch, for those presently running our country, and the many who voted to continue those policies, that’s a very comforting philosophy.
     For those who read the book ‘Shards of Honor’, by Bujold, remember the old Emperor? He’s done a lot of nasty things, including starting a war just for the purpose of killing his son. Now he’s dying. He comments to the protagonist that “I’m an atheist. A simple faith, but one that comforts me more these days.” The protagonist later said about him “…praying with every breath that there is no God.”.
     Of course, our leaders have that beat – they know in their hearts that there is a God, and the *understands* their need to do everything which they did.

161. Liberal America: If we did not believe our country was better than this, our hearts would not be breaking

     Why do liberals love America? Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has written a beautiful essay about American ideals and what it means to love America, which has prompted lots of thoughtful comments and discussions from conservatives and liberals. The essay is

162. Thank you. The power and beauty of this post is demonstrated by the comments, which are mostly thoughtful and intelligently arguing all sides of the question. I congratulate you for what you’ve accomplished, and thank you for bringing tears to my eyes.

163. Thanks for the comments, all. I should make it clear, the act of taking Japanese citizenship does not seem to necessarily demand that I revoke my US citizenship. For some people, it seems to be ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ (however, if you make yourself too conspicuous, apparently, it will be pointed out that you have to choose) However, technically, I would have to revoke one within 3 years of taking the Japanese passport. So basically, I’m not ‘giving up’ on the US, but I’m more gambling that I can keep both (sorry DaveC, that puts me precisely in the category that you don’t like). Previously, the gamble was too high (you know, never gamble something that you are not comfortable losing). However, we are rapidly reaching the point where it would not fuss me so much. Sidereal’s point about being a gaijin in one’s own country is a good one, but certainly going back to the US, I feel like a gaijin, so it’s not all that startling a feeling.
     As for how my kids identify themselves, they are 6 and 11 months, so it’s not really set yet.
     btw, I dated a person who did a double degree in Japanese and law, and she said that the Vapors tune convinced her to do it, because on the B side was Here comes the judge…

164. Two Observations

     1. Amnesty International is probably doing more for the human rights situation in any given country than you are, unless you’ve actually won the Nobel Peace Prize. Complaining that they are also paying attention to some other human rights abuse…

165. DaveC – “The problem with this is that it is stating that only 3000 people out of 300,000,000 were killed, but the effects were much broader than the raw numbers suggest.”
     True, but sidereal’s question, which you found so challenging, was just concerned with the chances of death, so that’s what I focused my statistics on.
     The 9/11 attacks also inflicted a fair amount of financial damage, so we could rephrase the question as “Would you accept 1% greater financial expenditures by the U.S. due to terrorist attacks and the war on terror if in exchange you were assured that no innocent men were taken from their families, tortured, and killed?” To my mind, that question is easier than the original.
     The 9/11 attacks also engendered quite a bit of fear and anger in the American public. (Much as the abuse and murder of innocent prisoners is engendering anger in the Musliim world.) Here the question changes though. It’s not “would you accept 1% more fear and anger…”, rather it’s “would you be willing to give up some of your fear and anger, if in exchange you were assured that no innocent men were taken from their families, tortured, and killed?”
     Does that cover the issue more thoroughly?
     By the way, don’t forget that “only 3000 people out of 300,000,000 were killed” on the worst year of our entire national history for terrorism. Most other years, the number is “only 12 people out of 300,000,000”, or “only 30 people” or “only 8 people”. That’s why, even if you accepted a doubling of the risk from terrorism, you’d still be more likely to be killed by lightning.
     I hope none of this comes across as snarky. From what you’ve written, you seem to be making a good faith effort to balance the demands of morality against the demands of safety for you and yours. The problem is that as human beings, we aren’t wired to be naturally very good at assessing and comparing real risks. (Consult a good cognitive psych researcher for more details on that subject.) I’m just trying to make the point that you put yourself and your family much more at risk by driving on the freeway than you would by having the government respect the human rights of those it suspects of terrorism.

166. Charles is “on the record against torture,” but thinks it’s the Democrats’ job—not the job of Republicans like himself, although their party holds power—to do something about torture.
     The second chapter of James comes to mind; here’s what it says about being “on the record against poverty”:

     What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
     If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
     And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
     Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
     Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
     Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

     When the self-proclaimed “on the record” crowd is as loud about Republican obstruction of the struggle to stop America from abusing & torturing her prisoners, as they have been about AI’s diction, then their being “on the record” will mean something.
     (I’m a Democrat; my so-called representatives don’t care what I think.)

167. why do you support a political party that has absolutely no intention whatsoever of pursuing any of them, and in fact intends to pursue the precise opposite of most of them?
     Because, in toto, Republicans views remain closer to my own than Democrats, Phil, despite some areas where there are significant differences.
     So what you’re saying is… when someone screws up this country, possibly beyond repair, the fault is with the people who tried to stop them because they can’t suggest a remedy within the miniscule paradigm of the destroyer.
     You haven’t understood what I’ve written, Nate.
     But if it came off as a rant, I’m not sure what else I can say.
     It was as I wrote about it at 3:07. Part love letter to country, part lament, no real answers. At least think about it when you’re penning future posts.

168. I think Charles’ point is that it’s easy to criticize, but that the Administration has a job to get done that’s complicated, messy and very, very important. In other words, criticizing is a luxury. I don’t think he’s agruing that Republicans are not responsible for solving the problem, just that criticizing without solutions is not all that helpful.
     I don’t totally disagree, except to point out that silence = support, in this case. Also, letting the adminstration hide behind its (perhaps technically correct, but still relatively immoral) “outrage” over the use of the word “gulag” when that abuse of the language stunningly pales in comparison to the abuse of innocent human beings is something Republicans should not do. When Bush and Cheney dismissed the report as “offenseive” or “absurd” Republicans should have said, “Er, wait a minute, there. It’s OK for us citizens to say the use of the word is hyperbolic, but you fellows don’t have that luxury. You should be embarrassed, and the only thing I want to hear coming from your quarter is what the hell you’re doing about the absuses, not lame excuses.”

169. One more thing: being “on record against torture” is not the end of one’s obligations as far as I’m concerned, especially when one devotes more energy and effort to being on record against the opponents of torture, or can’t decide whether torture or overly harsh criticism torture is a worse problem. It begins to look more and more like a way to disassociate yourself from the embarrassing policies of the people you help empoewr, without actually doing a damn thing about it. The scandal of atrocities is that they happen. But not for any of the conservatives on this site, seemingly.

170. Because, in toto, Republicans views remain closer to my own than Democrats, Phil, despite some areas where there are significant differences.
     OK, but . . . man, sometimes you have to decide where your priorities lie. I’ve always been sympathetic to — and voted for — the libertarian wing of the Republican party, but once they decided that the most important things to them were catering to a religious-right social agenda, utterly irresponsible fiscal behavior, and poorly-planned military adventurism . . . that’s not worth relaxed trade restrictions a higher student-loan interest deduction, you know?

171. ” At least think about it when you’re penning future posts.
     Posted by: Charles Bird”
     Now my irony meter exploded.

172. that went on the wrong thread. oh well, same difference.

173. Hilzoy,
     I can’t believe it took me this long to look at this. You articulated, so thoroughly, what so many of us feel — what had me sobbing last month at the old Paul Simon lyric: about “the statue of Liberty sailing away to sea.”
     Thanks for knowing, and highlighting, the difference between actual love of country — of the principles this country is founded on — and the kitsch “patriotism,” rooted in images of death and fear of the foreigner, which is churned up by powers that love very little.

174. > By the way, don’t forget that “only 3000 people out of 300,000,000 were killed”
     tony,
     your problem is that terrorisim is an exponentialy growing threat. it grows because weapons get smaller and cheeper. One day it will be bio weapons that fit in a thimble that you will need to stop or some power greater than nuclear power. It is nonsense to argue that weapons wont get cheaper and easier to use fairly exponentionaly not because of people but because of science.
     One day those weapons will inevitably be serious threats to human civilization. You must have a system to keep it under control by then.
     otto,
     > It is a curious thing that so many Americans take as an article of faith the idea that democracy can be spread or bequeathed.
     It is interesting how idealists become pragmatists and pragmatists become idealists in these debates. This is a highly pragmatic judgement looking at effects not goals while on so many other issues the opposite position is taken by the same people.
     Don,
     > At what point can we expect the American people to wake the hell up, do their homework, and start to realize the tragedy (and travesty) we’re in? At what point are the American people going to accept responsibility — and demand real accountability — for those who have sinned against them, and for those who have sinned in our names?
     > Sometime after WWIII or the Great Depression (part II), which ever happens first.
     The problem is that these scenarios are a loss for hte peopel who revel in proposing htem as much as for those they are trying to scare.
     By that stage it will be irrelevant what americans think because someone else will be in charge doing exactly what america used to do.
     As to torture and war
     > “That war is the health of the state is a tenet of Neo-conservatism”
     Actually it is more like
     1) you can only do as much good as your power will allow
     (eg the USA has more potential to do good than the ivory coast so we dont turn to the IC to solve the worlds problems)
     2) To be powerful you must accumulate or retain power
     3) rules designed to limit your power will limit your power
     This is rather like 1+1=2 we can and should take moral positions but at some point if yo uare “pure” you are also entirely neutered.
     i.e. If you set yourself no rules you will get the job done in a nasty way – if you have a perfect set of moral rules you wont be able to do anything.

175. Katherine: “…One more thing: being ‘on record against torture’ is not the end of one’s obligations as far as I’m concerned….”
     I’d certainly agree, and I think most reasonable people with any sense of perspective would.
     But I feel impelled to speak to a more general point, one driven by cumulative observation, and not any particular post. (Did everyone get that? — this is a general observation, not a response specifically to Katherine — everyone clear?)
     And that point touches on the fact that while you, Katherine, set a stunning example of effective activism, one that all of us can take as something to try to live up to, and while various folks who regularly comment on this blog engage in various exemplary activities in their lives for causes such as human and civil rights, while we are engaged in, say, posting comments to this, or any other blog, and thus doing a small part to spread our sense of what is important and exemplary, posting either blog entries or comments is, per se, of limited moral import. In any direction.
     Yet, of course, endless sound and fury is expended on outrage over what are, in fact, no more or less than passing opinions. People are castigated almost as if they actually were personally engaged in torture, or terrorism, or violence, simply for engaging in verbal debate.
     Which is still one thing if people are actually giving opinions as simple and condemnable as, say, personally endorsing torture — which is still a different thing than personally torturing, although I entirely agree that both are condemnable — but another thing if they, say, don’t merely use as strong language in their condemnation of torture as another feels is warranted.
     Which is the point I’m getting at: for all that there are valid things to shout at each other about, I’m unconvinced that another’s failure to shout loud enough, in the language one’s own self prefers, is one of them.
     And it seems to me that that behavior is, unfortunately, endemic in political debate, endemic in America today, and, of course, endemic online. It’s not enough to take a position, to say what it is in clear language, and to thencefore clearly state “I agree” or “I disagree.”
     What is instead demanded is that to be a valid position, it has to have lots of impassioned adjectives. It has to convey passion, spirit, and emotion. It has to fulfil a model of a ritual denunciation.
     But that’s not, to my eyes, actually something that’s particularly morally superior. It’s, too often, a demand for emotional ritual, and that’s all. This is understandably personally satisfying to gain, and unsatisfying to deny, but I’m not convinced, nonetheless, that it’s a moral demand, or a demand anyone is entitled to see fufilled.
     To be very clear here: I have many and varying differences of opinion with, in no particular order, von, Charles, and Sebastian. But when any of them, in their own individual language, do state clearly that they condemn torture (and that “state clearly” part is essential, and not to be glossed over), or a particular set of acts by the U.S. government, I think it’s at least sometimes dubious for anyone to then hammer at them for not meeting a more rigorous set of required points, particularly given, aside from my prior reasoning, that a) when addressing a crowd, people’s demands will always be varied and somewhat contradictory; and b) it’s generally counter-productive to try to persuade people by making them feel defensive and pushed into ritual responses.
     But, then, part of my opinion about this comes from generally finding — and I repeat, generally, as in not directed at anyone specific, which I say because that’s what I mean — breast-beating condemnations of other people for not being as morally perceptive as ourselves rather repellent, no matter that’s it’s an understandable temptation that we all feel, and likely pretty much all engage in to some degree from time to time. God knows I do.

176. GeniusNZ,
     Thanks for your insightful comment. Yes, AI gets an idealistic criticism while spreading democracy gets a pragmatic one. Your point has been very helpful.

177. GeniusNZ,
     -“As to torture and war”
     When I first read this I thought that you must have misunderstood my attitude and understanding (the paragraph I wrote was not meant to be an attack on the neo-cons – liberals as well as neo-cons (and the rest of the political spectrum) are legitimate parts of what America is)): yes, yes, I know what you are saying. I see that the miscommunication was the result of my poor expression. “War is the health of the state” is a tenet not limited to, or the creation of, neo-cons. Nor is this process, this relationship as simplistic as the catch phrase reduces it to. I meant that it is more boldly presented, more evident in their political philosophy, and sought to make a connection to the Administration and a possible defense of the war.
     -“If you set yourself no rules you will get the job done in a nasty way – if you have a perfect set of moral rules you wont be able to do anything.”
     Indeed. The man of action versus the inertia of sitting with one’s hands folded. On another post I took what I meant to be a friendly poke along these lines at what I saw as a call-to-arms by Felixrayman.

178. I was ambivalent prior to invading Iraq. So I wrote Bush a letter which stated –
     Dear President Bush,
     I offer this suggestion. Before you commit yourself and the nation to war with Iraq, find the silent place within and ask, “Is this for my highest good and the highest good of all concerned?”
     The answer is within. Be patient. Wait until your heart answers. Then take right action.
     Simple, yet complex.
     (end of letter)
     I don’t believe that any sane man or woman could rightly argue that the invasion was for the highest good of all concerned. Of course, argue we will.
     As for myself, the existence of the Downing Street memo coupled with the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction lead me to conclude that Bush and gang are a danger to this nation.
     To make matters worse, just think what steps this administration will take should another 911 occur on their watch.
     PDK – the madman and his constant rejoinder… “The empire never ended.”

179. Um, make that PKD.
     One more thing, I think the tipping point for impeachment starts
     here.

180. “Are the people in Texas, Arizona and California better off because the US won what were somewhat unjust wars against Mexico? I would say yes. Are Eastern Europeans better off even though the US murdered people in the Cold War. I would say yes again.”
     No they are not. When you buy freedom or safety or any other benefit with other people’s lives, you have bought a false benefit and sacrificed precious things in return. Losing the position of right, you don’t deserve anything you have won. You do not deserve your safety or freedom and have no right to have them protected in the future. You’ve become what you used to have the right to censure. No-one is better off after taking someone else’s life for their own benefit – they’ve captured a temporary illusion of a prize and sold their soul in return.

181. Patriotism

     Rather than “My country right or wrong,” here’s “My country, when wrong, should be righted.”.We have been born into an astonishing country, with astonishing values. And it is our job, as citizens, to help keep alive in whatever small way…

182. WOW! Awesome, moving, wonderful writing and reading (More things we throw away). Thank you to http://www.linkmeister.com/blog/ for the link. Definitely will add you to my blogroll, so glad I stopped by!

183. Patriotism

     Rather than “My country right or wrong,” here’s “My country, when wrong, should be righted.”We have been born into an astonishing country, with astonishing values. And it is our job, as citizens, to help keep alive in whatever small way…

184. Patriotism

     Rather than “My country right or wrong,” here’s “My country, when wrong, should be righted.”We have been born into an astonishing country, with astonishing values. And it is our job, as citizens, to help keep [it] alive in whatever small…

185. Damned trackback pings. Sorry for the multiple hits.

186. More Things They Throw Away

     Hilzoy apparently know what’s worth our love and what’s now. Good to know someone still dares to speak up….

187. Gary:
     That was a brilliant post.

188. Oh, gee, thanks, Slart. Truth be told, I was rather disappointed that it was otherwise utterly ignored and not a single response made. I had rather hoped for at least a tad of discussion, although having it tattooed on everyone’s inner eyelids would be acceptable, as well. But that’s only because everyone who disagrees is moral scum.

189. I can’t believe that Slarti called it a post and not a comment…

190. I can’t believe that Slarti called it a post and not a comment…
     I can’t believe Gary let him get away with that…
     😉

191. I can’t believe you guys are focusing on my commenting on it, when there’s so much good stuff to discuss in Gary’s comment. If you’re not agreeing with the maximum amount of vehemence possible in an HTML-based forum, then you must be completely opposed to what he’s saying.
     8P

192. Well, I didn’t comment on it because Gary is specifically avoiding any particular post or comment, and I didn’t want to make this a meta-discussion about rhetoric in threads. But…
     I think that part of the breast-beating part comes from a process where any giving of an inch is taken as a loss of face. Thus, people tend to go full tilt. This is not a ‘ritual denunciation’, this is the dynamic that develops out of the positions that people take into the conversations.
     The fact that “People are castigated almost as if they actually were personally engaged in torture, or terrorism, or violence, simply for engaging in verbal debate.” is a sign that people take these ideas seriously. This is not like debate club, where you are assigned a position and regardless whether you agree with it or not, you defend it, this is a discussion where people bring their heartfelt beliefs, and when comments are selectively answered, or answered with empty snark, you can expect anger flowering into increasingly baroque adjectives. (or vice versa) It is not a measure of the validity of one’s position, but it is a measure how seriously people take things (as they should).
     This is not to say that there is not some merit to what Gary says, but the idea that this is a ritual denunciation, which suggests a formulaic response that doesn’t partake any of the actual emotions of the writer misses the point.

193. Linking Fool Friday

     Ran into FoolBlog reader Andrew F. this week, and he gave me crap for my lack of posts of late. Rightfully so. But you know how it goes: few posts for a couple weeks, then before you know it I’ll…

194. Durbin Agonistes

     Amid the howls of betrayal on the left over Dick Durbin’s tearful Guantanamo apology - an apology for the impact of his statement, not for the substance of his criticism - and the sneering jubilation on the right, Jeanne D’Arc…

195. Durbin Agonistes

     Amid the howls of betrayal on the left over Dick Durbin’s tearful Guantanamo apology - an apology for the impact of his statement, not for the substance of his criticism - and the sneering jubilation on the right, Jeanne D’Arc…

196. Quick Links

     I use del.icio.us with wild abandon. I thought that might put an end to the “quick links” blog entries, but as it turns out a few recent items merit being called out

197. Quick Links

     I use del.icio.us with wild abandon. I thought that might put an end to the “quick links” blog entries, but as it turns out a few recent items merit being called out

198. Durbin Agonistes

     Manufactured right-wing outrage and a Chicago mayor’s backstabbing made Dick Durbin cry. His apology was a mistake, but here we are, all the same.

199. Durbin Agonistes

     Manufactured right-wing outrage and a Chicago mayor’s backstabbing made Dick Durbin cry. His apology was a mistake, but here we are, all the same.

200. Love Letter

     July 4, 2005 My darling– To answer your question: Yes, I did receive your last letter. It arrived at my residence Tuesday last. My delay in replying may, I fear, be taken as an indication that (notwithstanding your apology, which…

201. Quick Links

     I use del.icio.us with wild abandon. I thought that might put an end to the “quick links” blog entries, but as it turns out a few recent items merit being called out

202. Jeff –
     You could argue IF the invasion had occured as the most optimistic scenario then it would have been for the good of all (eg no more sadam etc). and that the fairly bad result is a result of a mis-calculation.
     The biggest miscalculation is to have allowed the goal of many opposing the war to be just to MAKE it a miscalculation.

Comments are closed.