Republicans for Dean!

>See separate thread for details. You

>watch too much Fox News. We spin. You comply.

Actually, I don't have a television, because I despise TV - almost as much as I despise people who make statements on the Internet about people they never met which they will never retract, no matter how untrue.

The only television I ever see is when I go to someone's home to watch a specific program (like that Bravo garbage I watched recently at a friend's) or when I am travelling and at a hotel.

I have probably seen Fox News a total of twice in my entire life. I do not listen to talk radio because it's filled with imbecilles mindlessly spewing dogma they got from somewhere else - sort of like a more sensorily intrusive version of this board.

Ann Coulter is a screeching idiot whom I never read. I have never seen or listened to Sean Hannity, and have heard Rush Limbaugh mabye 3 times at most in the last 5 years.

In other words, everything you have said about me is completely wrong.

I don't blame you, though - not at all. Because you can think and form opinoins only be reading propaganda outlets and then spewing what you have read (often without attribution), you assume that everyone you encounter must do the same thing.

>See separate thread for details. You

>watch too much Fox News. We spin. You comply.

Actually, I don't have a television, because I despise TV - almost as much as I despise people who make statements on the Internet about people they never met which they will never retract, no matter how untrue.

The only television I ever see is when I go to someone's home to watch a specific program (like that Bravo garbage I watched recently at a friend's) or when I am travelling and at a hotel.

I have probably seen Fox News a total of twice in my entire life. I do not listen to talk radio because it's filled with imbecilles mindlessly spewing dogma they got from somewhere else - sort of like a more sensorily intrusive version of this board.

Ann Coulter is a screeching idiot whom I never read. I have never seen or listened to Sean Hannity, and have heard Rush Limbaugh mabye 3 times at most in the last 5 years.

In other words, everything you have said about me is completely wrong.

I don't blame you, though - not at all. Because you can think and form opinoins only be reading propaganda outlets and then spewing what you have read (often without attribution), you assume that everyone you encounter must do the same thing.

>and have heard Rush

>Limbaugh mabye 3 times at most in the last 5 years.

This probably makes you one of his biggest fans lately. . . .

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

>and have heard Rush

>Limbaugh mabye 3 times at most in the last 5 years.

This probably makes you one of his biggest fans lately. . . .

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

>>That’s just crap. Of course they have a different perspective

>>from the hawks, but it’s just crap to say they have forgotten

>>or don’t appreciate the enormity of the threat. They simply

>>have a different opinion on how it should be dealt with.

>

>Well then, remind me - other than capturing OBL, what is the

>liberal plan for winning the war we are fighting with Muslim

>extremism?

That would be continued diplomacy and mediation. It doesn’t have the same sizzle as a “get in there and kick their ass” kind of plan, but it is, nevertheless, an alternative approach that does not indicate a lack of appreciation for the events of 9/11. It’s a basic philosophical approach based on the belief that violence only begets more violence.

I supported the war and continue to support its objectives, but only because Iraq had a rogue government who continued to violate the agreements that ended the first Gulf war. I’m a fairly hawkish democrat and believe that there are times when we must exert our authority in order to be taken seriously. Too much of the world has fallen under the impression that we are an impotent power.

However, I have never believed that this was going to help in the battle against Muslim extremists. You don’t eliminate Muslim extremists by creating another generation of Muslim extremists. It is simply counterintuitive. You can’t get people to stop hating you by giving them more excuses to hate you.

When considering the big picture, I do not agree with the doves in my party, but I certainly don’t make the leap that they don’t appreciate the enormity of 9/11 or are soft on terrorism. That’s Ann Coulter’s position and I was happy to read that you despise her as much as I do. She is evil incarnate…but I shouldn’t get started on that topic…it’s a thread all of its own.

>>That’s just crap. Of course they have a different perspective

>>from the hawks, but it’s just crap to say they have forgotten

>>or don’t appreciate the enormity of the threat. They simply

>>have a different opinion on how it should be dealt with.

>

>Well then, remind me - other than capturing OBL, what is the

>liberal plan for winning the war we are fighting with Muslim

>extremism?

That would be continued diplomacy and mediation. It doesn’t have the same sizzle as a “get in there and kick their ass” kind of plan, but it is, nevertheless, an alternative approach that does not indicate a lack of appreciation for the events of 9/11. It’s a basic philosophical approach based on the belief that violence only begets more violence.

I supported the war and continue to support its objectives, but only because Iraq had a rogue government who continued to violate the agreements that ended the first Gulf war. I’m a fairly hawkish democrat and believe that there are times when we must exert our authority in order to be taken seriously. Too much of the world has fallen under the impression that we are an impotent power.

However, I have never believed that this was going to help in the battle against Muslim extremists. You don’t eliminate Muslim extremists by creating another generation of Muslim extremists. It is simply counterintuitive. You can’t get people to stop hating you by giving them more excuses to hate you.

When considering the big picture, I do not agree with the doves in my party, but I certainly don’t make the leap that they don’t appreciate the enormity of 9/11 or are soft on terrorism. That’s Ann Coulter’s position and I was happy to read that you despise her as much as I do. She is evil incarnate…but I shouldn’t get started on that topic…it’s a thread all of its own.

>Of course I know that Clinton was impeached for perjury.

>

>I also know that it arose out of his squalid sexual encounters

>with a White House intern.

You’re right of course. To fixate on the technical fact that it was perjury, as if it doesn’t matter what the perjurous statement was, is pure politics. I thought that intent was an important part of Western legal systems, but that must be my non-lawyer naiveté.

His political enemies engineer a situation where the President is asked completely inappropriate questions about his private sex life. He isn’t allowed to simply tell them it is none of their business, so he has two alternatives: answer a completely inappropriate question or protect his privacy (and, of course, his political well being) with a lie.

It could be naiveté again, but I believe his intent was to protect his privacy and not derail the very foundation of democracy. I also believe that in retrospect most people, (except the irrational Clinton-haters) agree that he should have had the right to protect that privacy.

>Of course I know that Clinton was impeached for perjury.

>

>I also know that it arose out of his squalid sexual encounters

>with a White House intern.

You’re right of course. To fixate on the technical fact that it was perjury, as if it doesn’t matter what the perjurous statement was, is pure politics. I thought that intent was an important part of Western legal systems, but that must be my non-lawyer naiveté.

His political enemies engineer a situation where the President is asked completely inappropriate questions about his private sex life. He isn’t allowed to simply tell them it is none of their business, so he has two alternatives: answer a completely inappropriate question or protect his privacy (and, of course, his political well being) with a lie.

It could be naiveté again, but I believe his intent was to protect his privacy and not derail the very foundation of democracy. I also believe that in retrospect most people, (except the irrational Clinton-haters) agree that he should have had the right to protect that privacy.

>I have probably seen Fox News a total of twice in my entire

>life. I do not listen to talk radio because it's filled with

>imbecilles mindlessly spewing dogma they got from somewhere

>else - sort of like a more sensorily intrusive version of this

>board.

And yet for someone who doesn't listen to the dogma, you are surprisingly adept at regurgitating it

>Ann Coulter is a screeching idiot whom I never read. I have

>never seen or listened to Sean Hannity, and have heard Rush

>Limbaugh mabye 3 times at most in the last 5 years.

>

>In other words, everything you have said about me is

>completely wrong.

Would that be according to the actual defintion of wrong or the Shrub definition?

>I don't blame you, though - not at all. Because you can think

>and form opinoins only be reading propaganda outlets and then

>spewing what you have read (often without attribution), you

>assume that everyone you encounter must do the same thing.

That's once of the Reborglican collective root commands, right?

>I have probably seen Fox News a total of twice in my entire

>life. I do not listen to talk radio because it's filled with

>imbecilles mindlessly spewing dogma they got from somewhere

>else - sort of like a more sensorily intrusive version of this

>board.

And yet for someone who doesn't listen to the dogma, you are surprisingly adept at regurgitating it

>Ann Coulter is a screeching idiot whom I never read. I have

>never seen or listened to Sean Hannity, and have heard Rush

>Limbaugh mabye 3 times at most in the last 5 years.

>

>In other words, everything you have said about me is

>completely wrong.

Would that be according to the actual defintion of wrong or the Shrub definition?

>I don't blame you, though - not at all. Because you can think

>and form opinoins only be reading propaganda outlets and then

>spewing what you have read (often without attribution), you

>assume that everyone you encounter must do the same thing.

That's once of the Reborglican collective root commands, right?

Here's an excellent, concise online debate about Howard Dean's viability as a candidate. Some great arguments on both sides:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=chaitcohn072403

Here's an excellent, concise online debate about Howard Dean's viability as a candidate. Some great arguments on both sides:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=chaitcohn072403

>>Well then, remind me - other than capturing OBL, what is the

>>liberal plan for winning the war we are fighting with Muslim

>>extremism?

>

>That would be continued diplomacy and mediation.

I'm genuinely fascinated by this proposal.

So, you and Howard Dean believe that the way to settle our two-sided dispute with the Muslim terrorists is to "mediate" with them? You mean, now that they attacked our country and killed thousands of citizens over many years in multiple incidents, we should reward them by sitting down with them, finding out what they want and giving it to them?

Don't you see how utterly reckless and dangerous that proposal it? We are going to signal to the world that if they have a grievance against us, what they should do is attack us - as violently and frighteningly as possible - because then we will sit down and negotiate with them and give them what they want, so that they won't do it again.

If Howard Dean's strategy for dealing with the war on terrorism which we are fighting is - as you report - to advocate that we should not fight the terrorists, but instead "mediate" with them, his candidacy is even more doomed than I realized.

I would also love to know the basis for assuming that these murderous Muslim terrorists are rational and amenable to reason? Have they ever demonstrated any such thing? Don't their actions eliminate any doubt as to their utter and complete irrationality? The very notion that we could effectively "mediate" with them - independent of whether we should - is the by-product of patently naive fictions that all of the electorate, save its most extremely liberal wing, will be completely unwilling to rely upon in deciding how to win the War on Terrorism.

It doesn’t

>have the same sizzle as a “get in there and kick their ass”

>kind of plan, but it is, nevertheless, an alternative approach

>that does not indicate a lack of appreciation for the events

>of 9/11. It’s a basic philosophical approach based on the

>belief that violence only begets more violence.

Your view that we should compromise with facist, violent movements (on the ground that we shouldn't fight them, because "violence only begets violence") has been repeatedly discredited by history. It's called Appeasement, and that philosophy was one of the most discredited of the last centuries, right up there with Communism and Fascism. Running on the dual prongs of "mediation" and "appeasement" as one's plan for dealing with terrorists will not just guarantee defeat, but will guarantee a landslide.

>I supported the war and continue to support its objectives,

>but only because Iraq had a rogue government who continued to

>violate the agreements that ended the first Gulf war. I’m a

>fairly hawkish democrat and believe that there are times when

>we must exert our authority in order to be taken seriously.

>Too much of the world has fallen under the impression that we

>are an impotent power.

Precisely. The War against Iraq was totally justifiable on that ground alone. It was vital that the world know that we are willing to fight wars, sustain casaulties, and WIN. Terrorists and their supporters needed to see that there would be real consequences, not UN resolutions, for plotting and waging war against America. The war in Iraq made huge progress on that front.

That is yet another reason why a candidate's adovcacy that this strategy be abandoned - and replaced with our prior caution and restraint - is a completely unteable political position if winning a national election is the goal.

>However, I have never believed that this was going to help in

>the battle against Muslim extremists. You don’t eliminate

>Muslim extremists by creating another generation of Muslim

>extremists. It is simply counterintuitive. You can’t get

>people to stop hating you by giving them more excuses to hate

>you.

Will you acknowledge that one major reason that so many Arabs hated the United States is because we have spent decades supporting and propagating totally oppressive autocrats which suppress the Arab populace and blindly support the U.S., in exchange for aid given by the U.S. to keep the autocrat in power?

If you acknowledge that premise (and I think it's pretty incontestable), then going into Iraq, eliminating a dictator who cruelly suppressed the Arab populace, and then aiding them in building a genuinely Iraqi-run democracy with voting and other civil rights will constitute huge progress in eliminating this catalyst for exactly the "next genration of Musim extremists" that you say you are worried about. Isn't that the exact kind of "mediation" of their grievances that you favor - undoing the harm we did in the Middle East?

>When considering the big picture, I do not agree with the

>doves in my party, but I certainly don’t make the leap that

>they don’t appreciate the enormity of 9/11 or are soft on

>terrorism. That’s Ann Coulter’s position and I was happy to

>read that you despise her as much as I do. She is evil

>incarnate…but I shouldn’t get started on that topic…it’s a

>thread all of its own.

You're mixing two completely distincts concepts. One can accuse liberals of having an insufficient appreciation of the gravity of the War on Terrorism (as I believe it is justifable to do) without calilng into question the patriotism of such liberals. The issue is not that they are deliberately harming the United States, but rather, that their beliefs will result in harm to the United States as a result of their fundamentally faulty judgment regarding the threat that the United States faces.

Ann Coulter goes one very significant step further - actually, she goes to a different, ugly level- than this argument by accusing anyone who has different policy views of being treasonous and deliberately harming the country.

She believes, repugnantly, that it isn't just that liberals are wrong about the best thing for America. To her, they are actually not wrong in their judgment; to the contrary, they know exactly what they are doing, which is harming the United States, as that is their core goal.

There is a great irony here. Criticizing liberals for sufficietly appreciating the gravity of the War on Terrorism is an absoultely proper and reasoned form of argument. That this substantive criticism be voiced and heard is vital.

And yet - what you did is eerily similar to what you complain about in Coulter. You group together - as though you see no distinction - all reasoned, rational critics of the liberal foreign policy view (who believe that liberals insufficietly appreciate the importance of the War) with the Coulter-led sickness that any person with liberal political views is treasonous. Merely because I said that I thought liberals insufficiently appreciated the importance of this war, you accused me of being the same as Coutler by questioning patriotism, even though I did no such thing.

That's just what Coulter does - she looks at all liberals and Democrats and thinks there are no differences between, say, Howard Dean liberals and Josef Stalin. Just as you apparently see all conservatives as Ann Coulter crazies merely by virtue of the fact that they disgaree with liberals about what to do in Iraq.

Maybe you shouldn't be so hard on Coulter - you seem to be learning from her well!

>>Well then, remind me - other than capturing OBL, what is the

>>liberal plan for winning the war we are fighting with Muslim

>>extremism?

>

>That would be continued diplomacy and mediation.

I'm genuinely fascinated by this proposal.

So, you and Howard Dean believe that the way to settle our two-sided dispute with the Muslim terrorists is to "mediate" with them? You mean, now that they attacked our country and killed thousands of citizens over many years in multiple incidents, we should reward them by sitting down with them, finding out what they want and giving it to them?

Don't you see how utterly reckless and dangerous that proposal it? We are going to signal to the world that if they have a grievance against us, what they should do is attack us - as violently and frighteningly as possible - because then we will sit down and negotiate with them and give them what they want, so that they won't do it again.

If Howard Dean's strategy for dealing with the war on terrorism which we are fighting is - as you report - to advocate that we should not fight the terrorists, but instead "mediate" with them, his candidacy is even more doomed than I realized.

I would also love to know the basis for assuming that these murderous Muslim terrorists are rational and amenable to reason? Have they ever demonstrated any such thing? Don't their actions eliminate any doubt as to their utter and complete irrationality? The very notion that we could effectively "mediate" with them - independent of whether we should - is the by-product of patently naive fictions that all of the electorate, save its most extremely liberal wing, will be completely unwilling to rely upon in deciding how to win the War on Terrorism.

It doesn’t

>have the same sizzle as a “get in there and kick their ass”

>kind of plan, but it is, nevertheless, an alternative approach

>that does not indicate a lack of appreciation for the events

>of 9/11. It’s a basic philosophical approach based on the

>belief that violence only begets more violence.

Your view that we should compromise with facist, violent movements (on the ground that we shouldn't fight them, because "violence only begets violence") has been repeatedly discredited by history. It's called Appeasement, and that philosophy was one of the most discredited of the last centuries, right up there with Communism and Fascism. Running on the dual prongs of "mediation" and "appeasement" as one's plan for dealing with terrorists will not just guarantee defeat, but will guarantee a landslide.

>I supported the war and continue to support its objectives,

>but only because Iraq had a rogue government who continued to

>violate the agreements that ended the first Gulf war. I’m a

>fairly hawkish democrat and believe that there are times when

>we must exert our authority in order to be taken seriously.

>Too much of the world has fallen under the impression that we

>are an impotent power.

Precisely. The War against Iraq was totally justifiable on that ground alone. It was vital that the world know that we are willing to fight wars, sustain casaulties, and WIN. Terrorists and their supporters needed to see that there would be real consequences, not UN resolutions, for plotting and waging war against America. The war in Iraq made huge progress on that front.

That is yet another reason why a candidate's adovcacy that this strategy be abandoned - and replaced with our prior caution and restraint - is a completely unteable political position if winning a national election is the goal.

>However, I have never believed that this was going to help in

>the battle against Muslim extremists. You don’t eliminate

>Muslim extremists by creating another generation of Muslim

>extremists. It is simply counterintuitive. You can’t get

>people to stop hating you by giving them more excuses to hate

>you.

Will you acknowledge that one major reason that so many Arabs hated the United States is because we have spent decades supporting and propagating totally oppressive autocrats which suppress the Arab populace and blindly support the U.S., in exchange for aid given by the U.S. to keep the autocrat in power?

If you acknowledge that premise (and I think it's pretty incontestable), then going into Iraq, eliminating a dictator who cruelly suppressed the Arab populace, and then aiding them in building a genuinely Iraqi-run democracy with voting and other civil rights will constitute huge progress in eliminating this catalyst for exactly the "next genration of Musim extremists" that you say you are worried about. Isn't that the exact kind of "mediation" of their grievances that you favor - undoing the harm we did in the Middle East?

>When considering the big picture, I do not agree with the

>doves in my party, but I certainly don’t make the leap that

>they don’t appreciate the enormity of 9/11 or are soft on

>terrorism. That’s Ann Coulter’s position and I was happy to

>read that you despise her as much as I do. She is evil

>incarnate…but I shouldn’t get started on that topic…it’s a

>thread all of its own.

You're mixing two completely distincts concepts. One can accuse liberals of having an insufficient appreciation of the gravity of the War on Terrorism (as I believe it is justifable to do) without calilng into question the patriotism of such liberals. The issue is not that they are deliberately harming the United States, but rather, that their beliefs will result in harm to the United States as a result of their fundamentally faulty judgment regarding the threat that the United States faces.

Ann Coulter goes one very significant step further - actually, she goes to a different, ugly level- than this argument by accusing anyone who has different policy views of being treasonous and deliberately harming the country.

She believes, repugnantly, that it isn't just that liberals are wrong about the best thing for America. To her, they are actually not wrong in their judgment; to the contrary, they know exactly what they are doing, which is harming the United States, as that is their core goal.

There is a great irony here. Criticizing liberals for sufficietly appreciating the gravity of the War on Terrorism is an absoultely proper and reasoned form of argument. That this substantive criticism be voiced and heard is vital.

And yet - what you did is eerily similar to what you complain about in Coulter. You group together - as though you see no distinction - all reasoned, rational critics of the liberal foreign policy view (who believe that liberals insufficietly appreciate the importance of the War) with the Coulter-led sickness that any person with liberal political views is treasonous. Merely because I said that I thought liberals insufficiently appreciated the importance of this war, you accused me of being the same as Coutler by questioning patriotism, even though I did no such thing.

That's just what Coulter does - she looks at all liberals and Democrats and thinks there are no differences between, say, Howard Dean liberals and Josef Stalin. Just as you apparently see all conservatives as Ann Coulter crazies merely by virtue of the fact that they disgaree with liberals about what to do in Iraq.

Maybe you shouldn't be so hard on Coulter - you seem to be learning from her well!

>So, you and Howard Dean believe that the way to settle our

>two-sided dispute with the Muslim terrorists is to "mediate"

>with them? You mean, now that they attacked our country and

>killed thousands of citizens over many years in multiple

>incidents, we should reward them by sitting down with

>them, finding out what they want and giving it to them?

Why are you deliberately responding to things that are not written? You seem like a pretty bright guy so it can’t be a simple lack of comprehension. Did you parse this before reading the whole post?

I know that the thread started about Dean, but in this tangent we long ago stopped talking about him. I was responding to one concept.

Your words:

>>>Most liberals have forgotten about 9/11 - they see it as a

>>>sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs

>>about,

>>>and that it would be good to capture the specific

>>>perpetrators.

My only point (and I think it was clear and correct and that is why you didn’t respond to it) is that just because these liberals you are talking about have a different point of view on what the response to 9/11 should have been, it does not mean that ”they see it as a sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs about.” You are dismissing their lack of agreement as a lack of understanding or a short memory, (which implies a lack of caring) and I say again, that’s crap.

>Don't you see how utterly reckless and dangerous that proposal

>it? We are going to signal to the world that if they have a

>grievance against us, what they should do is attack us - as

>violently and frighteningly as possible - because then we will

>sit down and negotiate with them and give them what they want,

>so that they won't do it again.

I can see why people get shrill if this is typical of the type of argument from you and yours. I talk about dealing with a rogue government and you trot out the terrorist card. I’m sure the government of Iraq was supporting terrorism, but so are half the governments in the Middle East. Don’t we negotiate with them? For Christ’s sake, we even negotiate with Iran these days. You can’t selectively use the Holy Grail of terrorism to justify any action you want to take against a foreign government.

>I would also love to know the basis for assuming that these

>murderous Muslim terrorists are rational and amenable to

>reason?

I thought we were talking about the secular government of Iraq?

>If you acknowledge that premise (and I think it's pretty

>incontestable), then going into Iraq, eliminating a dictator

>who cruelly suppressed the Arab populace, and then aiding them

>in building a genuinely Iraqi-run democracy with voting and

>other civil rights will constitute huge progress in

>eliminating this catalyst for exactly the "next genration of

>Musim extremists" that you say you are worried about. Isn't

>that the exact kind of "mediation" of their grievances that

>you favor - undoing the harm we did in the Middle East?

You assume that everyone is going to be better off and live happily ever after. I hope so but I seriously doubt it. There will be a whole group of the former elite who will not be better off and will resent America. There will be a whole different group who are proud people and will resent America for deciding that we know what is best and forcing something on them. It doesn’t matter what it is. Even something as wonderful as democracy will be resented because it was forced on them.

There is also the very real possibility that our government will respond to this incessant war of attrition with force and restrictions that will cause further resentment. We can quickly go from liberator to true occupier and they will hate us for it.

>Merely because I said that I thought liberals

>insufficiently appreciated the importance of this war, you

>accused me of being the same as Coutler by questioning

>patriotism, even though I did no such thing.

Where are you getting this shit? If I were the type to get angry over Internet discussions, this ridiculous statement would be the cause. I accused you of absolutely nothing. The topic was appreciating the importance of 9/11 – not the war. Nobody said anything about patriotism.

The reference to Ann Coulter was regarding accusations about not understanding the importance of 9/11 and being soft on terrorism. I guess if you share that belief, there is a comparison to be made, but I thought that acknowledging the fact that you are not a Coulter fan actually went the opposite direction.

>So, you and Howard Dean believe that the way to settle our

>two-sided dispute with the Muslim terrorists is to "mediate"

>with them? You mean, now that they attacked our country and

>killed thousands of citizens over many years in multiple

>incidents, we should reward them by sitting down with

>them, finding out what they want and giving it to them?

Why are you deliberately responding to things that are not written? You seem like a pretty bright guy so it can’t be a simple lack of comprehension. Did you parse this before reading the whole post?

I know that the thread started about Dean, but in this tangent we long ago stopped talking about him. I was responding to one concept.

Your words:

>>>Most liberals have forgotten about 9/11 - they see it as a

>>>sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs

>>about,

>>>and that it would be good to capture the specific

>>>perpetrators.

My only point (and I think it was clear and correct and that is why you didn’t respond to it) is that just because these liberals you are talking about have a different point of view on what the response to 9/11 should have been, it does not mean that ”they see it as a sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs about.” You are dismissing their lack of agreement as a lack of understanding or a short memory, (which implies a lack of caring) and I say again, that’s crap.

>Don't you see how utterly reckless and dangerous that proposal

>it? We are going to signal to the world that if they have a

>grievance against us, what they should do is attack us - as

>violently and frighteningly as possible - because then we will

>sit down and negotiate with them and give them what they want,

>so that they won't do it again.

I can see why people get shrill if this is typical of the type of argument from you and yours. I talk about dealing with a rogue government and you trot out the terrorist card. I’m sure the government of Iraq was supporting terrorism, but so are half the governments in the Middle East. Don’t we negotiate with them? For Christ’s sake, we even negotiate with Iran these days. You can’t selectively use the Holy Grail of terrorism to justify any action you want to take against a foreign government.

>I would also love to know the basis for assuming that these

>murderous Muslim terrorists are rational and amenable to

>reason?

I thought we were talking about the secular government of Iraq?

>If you acknowledge that premise (and I think it's pretty

>incontestable), then going into Iraq, eliminating a dictator

>who cruelly suppressed the Arab populace, and then aiding them

>in building a genuinely Iraqi-run democracy with voting and

>other civil rights will constitute huge progress in

>eliminating this catalyst for exactly the "next genration of

>Musim extremists" that you say you are worried about. Isn't

>that the exact kind of "mediation" of their grievances that

>you favor - undoing the harm we did in the Middle East?

You assume that everyone is going to be better off and live happily ever after. I hope so but I seriously doubt it. There will be a whole group of the former elite who will not be better off and will resent America. There will be a whole different group who are proud people and will resent America for deciding that we know what is best and forcing something on them. It doesn’t matter what it is. Even something as wonderful as democracy will be resented because it was forced on them.

There is also the very real possibility that our government will respond to this incessant war of attrition with force and restrictions that will cause further resentment. We can quickly go from liberator to true occupier and they will hate us for it.

>Merely because I said that I thought liberals

>insufficiently appreciated the importance of this war, you

>accused me of being the same as Coutler by questioning

>patriotism, even though I did no such thing.

Where are you getting this shit? If I were the type to get angry over Internet discussions, this ridiculous statement would be the cause. I accused you of absolutely nothing. The topic was appreciating the importance of 9/11 – not the war. Nobody said anything about patriotism.

The reference to Ann Coulter was regarding accusations about not understanding the importance of 9/11 and being soft on terrorism. I guess if you share that belief, there is a comparison to be made, but I thought that acknowledging the fact that you are not a Coulter fan actually went the opposite direction.

Well, I really, really, really hate to agree with Doug69, but if this guy is the best the Democrats can come up with, then resign yourself to yet another 4 years of Shrub, Jr. As Doug69 implies, he stands about a snowball's chance in Hell of carrying the South.

You've become a little confused by the discussion and how it evolved, so - merely in order to unburden you of the anger you are apparently experiencing, if for no other reason - allow me to clarify:

>>So, you and Howard Dean believe that the way to settle our

>>two-sided dispute with the Muslim terrorists is to "mediate"

>>with them? You mean, now that they attacked our country and

>>killed thousands of citizens over many years in multiple

>>incidents, we should reward them by sitting down with

>>them, finding out what they want and giving it to them?

>

>Why are you deliberately responding to things that are not

>written? You seem like a pretty bright guy so it can’t be a

>simple lack of comprehension. Did you parse this before

>reading the whole post?

>

>I know that the thread started about Dean, but in this tangent

>we long ago stopped talking about him. I was responding to

>one concept.

Here is what actually occurred: I asked you what the liberal plan was for winning the war on terrorism - not for dealing with Iraq - but for winning the war on terrorism.

You answered: "diplomacy and mediation." Therefore, I went on to explain why advocating that we mediate with terrorists is one of the most dangerous and inane ideas ever.

The idea that we should mediate with terrorists came from you - you said that this was the liberal plan for dealing with terrorists. Why are you now pretending that it was about something else? I responded to exactly what you said.

>My only point (and I think it was clear and correct and that

>is why you didn’t respond to it) is that just because these

>liberals you are talking about have a different point of view

>on what the response to 9/11 should have been, it does not

>mean that ”they see it as a sad, discrete little event that is

>nice to write songs about.” You are dismissing their lack of

>agreement as a lack of understanding or a short memory, (which

>implies a lack of caring) and I say again, that’s crap.

Do you believe that we are actually at war with terrorists, and that it should be fought as a war? Do most liberals think this?

>>I SAID: Don't you see how utterly reckless and dangerous that

>proposal

>>it? We are going to signal to the world that if they have a

>>grievance against us, what they should do is attack us - as

>>violently and frighteningly as possible - because then we

>will

>>sit down and negotiate with them and give them what they

>want,

>>so that they won't do it again.

>

>YOU SAIDI can see why people get shrill if this is typical of the type

>of argument from you and yours. I talk about dealing with a

>rogue government and you trot out the terrorist card. I’m

>sure the government of Iraq was supporting terrorism, but so

>are half the governments in the Middle East.

Again, your recollection is totally inaccurate. It was in response to my question about what liberals want to do about terrorism - not Iraq - that you answered "mediation." Therefore, you said that liberals want to mediate with terrorists, and my statement was directly responsive to what you said.

>You assume that everyone is going to be better off and live

>happily ever after. I hope so but I seriously doubt it.

>There will be a whole group of the former elite who will not

>be better off and will resent America. There will be a whole

>different group who are proud people and will resent America

>for deciding that we know what is best and forcing something

>on them. It doesn’t matter what it is. Even something as

>wonderful as democracy will be resented because it was forced

>on them.

Yes - the idea that making people mad is something to be avoided is, as I suggested, the princple at the heart of Appeasment ("we better not go to war in Iraq because there will be people who will be mad about it if we do" - "we better not challenge the German's invasion of Czechoslovakia because if we do, they will get even angrier and it will make things worse").

It's very easy to sit in your comfortable home and have all sorts of rights that Iraqis can't even dream of (look at what is said about George Bush on a daily basis here; think of what would happen to the person who said such a thing about Saddam Hussein in the old Iraq) and be dismissive about how significant a blow we struck for the liberty of those people. But I don't think that the majority of Iraqis, suppressed viciously for decades, consider it to be a bad thing, nor do I think that the majority of people in the Arab world consider it a bad thing that we freed 25 million Muslims from one of the most brutal tyrants ever. Quite the contrary.

Look at what happened in Eastern Europe. We fouhgt a cold war with those countries for over 40 years, and when we finally succeeded in freeing the populations there of the tyranny which ruled them for decades, they had nothing but gratitude for the United States and those countries have now become some of our most dependable and loyal allies.

After we occupied Germany and Japan, we aided those countries in becoming law-abiding, prosperous citizens of the world, who also went from being our most hateful enemies to our allies.

Don't you think that repeating that scenario in Iraq is a good thing for our war against terrorism?

>>Merely because I said that I thought liberals

>>insufficiently appreciated the importance of this war, you

>>accused me of being the same as Coutler by questioning

>>patriotism, even though I did no such thing.

>

>Where are you getting this shit? If I were the type to get

>angry over Internet discussions, this ridiculous statement

>would be the cause. I accused you of absolutely nothing. The

>topic was appreciating the importance of 9/11 – not the war.

>Nobody said anything about patriotism.

You accused me of copying Ann Coulter's form of argument merely because I contend that liberals don't have a sufficient appreciation of the gravity of 9/11 and the war on terrorism. And I therefore pointed out that to slime someone's argument by comparing them to Ann Coulter merely because they question whether liberals appreciate the seriousness of 9/11 is to copy the very tactics she uses which you decry.

>Well, I really, really, really hate to agree with Doug69, but

>if this guy is the best the Democrats can come up with, then

>resign yourself to yet another 4 years of Shrub, Jr. As

>Doug69 implies, he stands about a snowball's chance in Hell of

>carrying the South.

Actually, it's not just the South that is the problem for Dean. One could easily make the case that none of the Democrats has any real chance of carrying any more than 1 or 2 Southern states - at most. And while Dean would likely get slaughtered in the South much worse than a lot of the other Democrats, the electoral college makes it irrelevant if you lose a state by 1 vote or by 1 million.

But the Democrats don't really need Southern states to win a Presidential election. As long as they attract a lot of working-class and suburban voters, particularly male, in the "swing states" in the industrial Midwest and Southwest, and then win California, New York, and Florida, they can win without the South. Had Gore won Florida, this is exactly what would have occurred.

The problem is not just that Dean is and always will be totally unpalatable in Southern states. He will be, but even more destructively, he is just as unpalatable to the heartland working-class voters without which the Democrats can't possibly win.

Like Dukakis, virtually all of Dean's support is coming from white, highly educated, affluent professionals. He reeks of Northeastern liberal intellectualism. His vehement anti-war posture irreperably feeds that picture.

Ultimately, regardless of anything else, any Democrat who is perceived as being soft on terrorists - i.e., not willing to fight them aggressively - has absolutely no chance of winning this election. Showing requisite toughness on terrorists is now a threshold test one must meet before one can be taken seriosuly as a politically viable presidential candidate.

Of all the top-tier Democrats, Howard Dean fails that test most resoundingly. The best candidate in the field right now for the Democrats (which isn't exactly an illustrious title, given the competition) is John Edwards. All of the attention Dean is getting is obscuring this fact, which is yet another reason - along with the fact that it is splltting the Democratic Party - why Dean's candidacy is being celebrated most enthusiastically by Karl Rove.

>Here is what actually occurred: I asked you what the liberal

>plan was for winning the war on terrorism - not for

>dealing with Iraq - but for winning the war on terrorism.

>

>You answered: "diplomacy and mediation." Therefore, I went

>on to explain why advocating that we mediate with terrorists

>is one of the most dangerous and inane ideas ever.

No. We were very specifically talking about the war in Iraq and the possibility that continuing casualties will make it a political liability for Bush by the next election.

You said:

>He is SCREAMING at Democrats that if they continue to do what

>they are doing on Iraq, they will be perceived as completely

>anti-American, rooting against the U.S., and as being totally

>partisian, petty and filled with rage. That is all one hears

>now from the Democratic Party.

Not the nebulous “War on Terrorism” but the actual and specific war with Iraq. In the same post you made the following statement that I disagreed with:

>Most liberals have forgotten about 9/11 - they see it as a

>sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs about,

>and that it would be good to capture the specific

>perpetrators.

Which I responded was a load of crap. Still talking about the specific war with Iraq and not terrorism in general.

That’s when you started talking about the extremism that I assume you believe is synonymous with terrorism.

>Well then, remind me - other than capturing OBL, what is the

>liberal plan for winning the war we are fighting with Muslim

>extremism?

I was still talking specifically about Iraq and I think that was very clear in everything that I said in that post. I guess I should have just considered my point made, or for the sake of clarity, acknowledged that you asked a question that had nothing to do with my original point on 9/11 and the WAR IN IRAQ.

>Do you believe that we are actually at war with terrorists,

>and that it should be fought as a war? Do most liberals think

>this?

I have no idea what most liberals think. I personally don’t think the “war” on terrorism is any more real or accurate than the “war” on drugs. You fight wars with sovereign powers – not groups of criminals. Active governmental support of terrorism, such as the training camps in Afghanistan, might lead to an actual war, but I do not believe our response to terrorism can or should be fought as an actual war.

>Look at what happened in Eastern Europe. We fouhgt a cold war

>with those countries for over 40 years, and when we finally

>succeeded in freeing the populations there of the tyranny

>which ruled them for decades, they had nothing but gratitude

>for the United States and those countries have now become some

>of our most dependable and loyal allies.

Refresh my memory. Which country did we invade during the cold war to free them from tyranny? Oh yeah, that would be none. Perhaps the fact that we did not bomb their country and kill their people (even for a noble cause like democracy) explains their gratitude and loyalty. It’s hardly a good comparison to what is happening in Iraq.

Doug, you have made up your mind without researching the facts. Dean is not a pacifist and if you read up on him and where he stands on the issues (instead of continuing to repeat the same misconceptions), you would see that.

>Ultimately, regardless of anything else, any Democrat who is

>perceived as being soft on terrorists - i.e., not willing to

>fight them aggressively - has absolutely no chance of winning

>this election.

How can being against Operation Iraqi Freedom be equated with being soft on terrorists? Since when has there been a proven connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

Since you haven't done your homework, I'll do it for you. This is from Howard Dean's website:

"Homeland Security starts abroad. Governor Dean would increase military, intelligence and police focus on offensive operations against terrorists operating overseas. With increased support of our allies, Governor Dean would provide a multi-layered defense to deter and defeat such attacks. Hand in hand as an integral piece of our overall national security strategy, homeland security "prevention" efforts abroad would be designed to ensure that no terrorist ever reaches the U.S. homeland and that all terrorists are denied access to any WMD capability.

"The danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-useable material could wind up in the hands of terrorists or hostile nations and be used against our troops abroad or citizens at home is one of the most serious threats facing our nation. Governor Dean agrees with numerous recommendations that $30 billion is needed over the next 8-10 years to adequately address this threat. Current Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) and related programs with Russia and other former Soviet states have produced impressive results but more must be done. Initial attempts by the Bush administration to cut these programs failed because of alarm spread by Democrats. Now, the Bush Administration - at a time when CTR programs should be significantly increased - is not expected to propose any increases in funding.

"In addition, Governor Dean would bolster key elements of our foreign policy and national security mission to assist with our homeland security goals. He believes that any prevention program must include a long-term vision for spreading the principles of democracy, tolerance, human rights, and equal access for women in countries that have become breeding grounds for terrorism. We must also reduce our over-dependence on Middle East oil. Until we develop alternative sources of energy, we will continue to send billions of dollars every year to countries that finance radical educational systems that teach young people to hate Christians, Jews and Americans. Although these objectives cannot be reached overnight, we must begin to implement an aggressive diplomatic strategy and rational energy policy that will be necessary to achieve success on these fronts.

"A Dean administration would be guided by the notion that CTR and related programs are a more urgent priority than National Missile Defense and would transfer $1 billion per year from the over $8 billion ballistic missile defense budget to CTR and related programs. As President, Howard Dean will increase our intelligence, police and military special forces capabilities abroad to thwart and disrupt terrorist operations. A long-term vision to deal with the societal root causes of terrorism, as well as measures to reduce our over-dependence on Middle East oil that currently funds anti-American sentiment in some countries, will be key tenets of a Dean homeland security policy."

That's "soft on terrorism"??

>I was still talking specifically about Iraq and I think that

>was very clear in everything that I said in that post. I

>guess I should have just considered my point made, or for the

>sake of clarity, acknowledged that you asked a question that

>had nothing to do with my original point on 9/11 and the WAR

>IN IRAQ.

OK - if your answer of "diplomacy and mediation" was intended to explain what the liberals' plan is for Iraq - and not for fighting terrorists - then you still haven't told me what the liberal plan is for fighting Muslim terrorists. Does it involve any wars? If not, what does it involve?

>I have no idea what most liberals think. I personally don’t

>think the “war” on terrorism is any more real or accurate than

>the “war” on drugs. You fight wars with sovereign powers –

>not groups of criminals.

This is precisely my point. Many people see terrorist acts such as 9/11 as nothing more than bad acts perpetrated by - to use your phrase - a "group of criminals." If that's how you see it, then you won't think wars are justifiable, since, as you say, we don't fight wars with "groups of criminals.

But if you see 9/11 as more than merely a criminal act perpetrated by a group of criminals -- but instead, see it as an act of war perpetrated by a coordinated, heavily armed enemy which has, as its core goal, the destruction of our society - then war is the only response which makes sense.

It's funny - you got all upset when I suggested that liberals see 9/11 as nothing more than a discrete criminal act requiring the catpure of the particular criminals who planned it, and yet, when you describe Muslim terrorists, that's exactly how you dismissively refer to them - as being just a "group of criminals," not a REAL THREAT like a whole country using their military against us.

>Refresh my memory. Which country did we invade during the

>cold war to free them from tyranny? Oh yeah, that would be

>none. Perhaps the fact that we did not bomb their country and

>kill their people (even for a noble cause like democracy)

>explains their gratitude and loyalty. It’s hardly a good

>comparison to what is happening in Iraq.

I believe we bombed Japan quite a bit before liberating them from tyranny. We also killed lots and lots of Germans. Thereafter, freed from the tyranny which we crushed, the citizens of those countries became peaceful, prosperous nations and great allies of the United States.

As for Eastern Europe, we may not have bombed them, but they spent 40 years being indoctrinated with the idea that we were the Great Enemy. Their entire foreign policy and military activites were based upon thwarting our influence. And yet, once liberated, they ran to embrace the U.S. due to the role we played in freeing them.

Right now, huge numbers of Arabs hate the U.S. with great vehemence. That helps Muslim terrorists' recruiting efforts. If you don't think that going in and freeing Muslims from repressive regimes and re-building their countries as peaceful democracies is the solution to this problem of Muslim hatred, what do you think is the solution?

>Doug, you have made up your mind without researching the

>facts. Dean is not a pacifist and if you read up on him and

>where he stands on the issues (instead of continuing to repeat

>the same misconceptions), you would see that.

The word "pacifist" is misleading and irrelevant, so I don't understand why you continue to raise this point. Michael Dukakis wasn't a pacifist either, nor was Walter Mondale, nor was George McGovern.

But he is against using the military in order to fight dangerous, anti-American, Arab dictators who have a history of developing and using highly destructive weapons. Most people - espeically after 9/11 - consider anti-American dictators who have a history of developing and using highly destructive weapons to be a very dangerous thing, and thus believe that we must act aggressively to end such threats. That's why most people instinctively fear an Iraqo-AlQaeda cooperation. Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq will thus be viewed, properly, as a reflection of his softness on terrorism.

As I explained previously, and as you ignored, the fact that Dean opposes using our military in the Middle East, where we have multiple, crucial intersets, but favors using the miltiary in West Africa, where we have no national interests, makes him an even more absurd and unelectable figure that he would be if he were an all-out pacifist.

One other thing: did Dean support the war in Afghanistan? Did you?

>How can being against Operation Iraqi Freedom be equated with

>being soft on terrorists? Since when has there been a proven

>connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

The issue is the threat that Saddam Hussein - who President Clinton clearly stated had unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons on the day he left office - would sell or give those weapons to terrorists. Given how evil and destructive Saddam Hussein is, who would want to wait around to see if that risk materializes or not?

As Tony Blair pointed out, if we were wrong about that risk, then the worst thing that could be said is that we ended a barborous, inhuman dictatorship - hardly a crime.

But if we are right, then adhering your approach would result in unimgainble devestation to our country and to its population. Americans aren't willing to take the risk which you and Howard Dean want to take just to please the French and to avoid dropping bombs on a sick, murderous dictator.

>Since you haven't done your homework, I'll do it for you.

>This is from Howard Dean's website:

If you think that the best place to get information abotu a candidtae is from that candidtate's website, then it's hard to imagine how you can participate in an adult conversation.

Bush's website says he's a compassionate conservative who has restored integrity to politics, so I guess that ends that debate. His website says so.

>"Homeland Security starts abroad. Governor Dean would

>increase military, intelligence and police focus on offensive

>operations against terrorists operating overseas.

So he's going to spend more money on intelligence and police efforts? I thought you said he wanted to erase the defecit. How is he going to afford to do this and balance the budget?

With

>increased support of our allies, Governor Dean would provide a

>multi-layered defense to deter and defeat such attacks.

>Hand in hand as an integral piece of our overall national

>security strategy, homeland security "prevention" efforts

>abroad would be designed to ensure that no terrorist ever

>reaches the U.S. homeland and that all terrorists are denied

>access to any WMD capability.

This is so fucking stupid it's hard to even read. There is no possibly way to maintain a free society and open borders and think you are going to keep out terrorists who want to come here. Israel has security measures way more extreme than anything we can imagine, and they can't keep out primitive 17 year-old boys who come and explode themselves whenever the mood strikes them.

The only way to stop terrorism is to go where the terrorists are and arrest and kill them and militarily crush their networks. For Dean to say that terrorism can be deterred by having us increase our homeland security efforts and other police and intelligence efforts is total garbage. That's what Clinton said he was doing - and it got us 9/11.

If anyone had said on September 12 than there would be not a single terrorist attack on American soil in the next 2 years, few people would have beleived it. But there has been none. Trying to attack Bush on the ground that he has insufficiently protected the "homeland" is sure to lose, because it's so patently false. If anything, it contradicts the other complaint Dean makes against Bush - that Ashcroft's Justice Department has been too aggressive with law eforcement efforts to stop terrorism.

Which is it? Has Bush been to lax in protecting the "homeland" or too aggressive?

>"The danger that weapons of mass destruction or

>weapons-useable material could wind up in the hands of

>terrorists or hostile nations and be used against our troops

>abroad or citizens at home is one of the most serious threats

>facing our nation. Governor Dean agrees with numerous

>recommendations that $30 billion is needed over the next 8-10

>years to adequately address this threat.

OF COURSE - there's a problem, what's the solution? SPEND MONEY ON IT - Why would anyone think Dean's a liberal?

And here's another $30 billion he wants to spend - how is he going to balance the budget?

>That's "soft on terrorism"??

YES - an unwillingness to fight wars to change the Middle East is tantamount to being soft on terrorism. Any candidate who demonstrates such an unwillingess therefore has no chance to win.

>OK - if your answer of "diplomacy and mediation" was intended

>to explain what the liberals' plan is for Iraq - and

>not for fighting terrorists - then you still haven't told me

>what the liberal plan is for fighting Muslim terrorists. Does

>it involve any wars? If not, what does it involve?

You have to go back quite a ways, but you’ll see that I said that I don’t agree with the doves in my party. My only point – and this is getting repetitive – is that I don’t attribute this disagreement to some kind of lack of understanding on the part of those with whom I disagree.

I can't speak for "the liberals", but I’m actually pretty hawkish for someone with so many traditionally liberal beliefs. I think there is a need to use the military to go on the offensive against terrorist organizations. I don’t know if that’s what you mean by war. I certainly don’t think that we should invade any more countries and topple their governments, but I would support military strikes against specific TERRORIST targets. If those strikes lead to an all out war, I would be prepared to accept that as the price for taking action.

>But if you see 9/11 as more than merely a criminal act

>perpetrated by a group of criminals -- but instead, see it as

>an act of war perpetrated by a coordinated, heavily armed

>enemy which has, as its core goal, the destruction of our

>society - then war is the only response which makes sense.

The problem is…an act of war by whom? Nations commit acts of war, not individuals. That’s why even though I support the invasion of Iraq, I do not do so because of 9/11. They were Saudi’s for Christ’s sake! If we are going to hold a nation responsible for 9/11, why didn’t we attack Riyadh?

>It's funny - you got all upset when I suggested that liberals

>see 9/11 as nothing more than a discrete criminal act

>requiring the catpure of the particular criminals who planned

>it,

Again, what you said was that they had “forgotten” and it “was a nice little event to write songs about” and I’ve explained my issue with that statement in regards to the WAR WITH IRAQ.

>and yet, when you describe Muslim terrorists, that's

>exactly how you dismissively refer to them - as being just a

>"group of criminals," not a REAL THREAT like a whole country

>using their military against us.

I don’t agree that considering them a group of criminals is dismissive. I believe it is a more accurate assessment than it being an indication that a whole country is using their military against us. You’ll have to explain that a little further and help me understand which country, and why if that’s the case, we didn’t invade Saudi Arabia.

>As for Eastern Europe, we may not have bombed them, but they

>spent 40 years being indoctrinated with the idea that we were

>the Great Enemy. Their entire foreign policy and military

>activites were based upon thwarting our influence. And yet,

>once liberated, they ran to embrace the U.S. due to the role

>we played in freeing them.

Yes, a role of resistance – not force. Their governments crumbled and they did not have to embrace people who invaded their country and killed their countrymen. Can’t you reverse the situation? No matter how bad it was here, don’t you think you would resent some country coming over here and toppling our government and telling us how things were going to run? Especially a country that has such different values and you are convinced feels completely superior to you.

>Americans aren't willing to take the risk which

>you and Howard Dean want to take just to please the French

That's too bad. Just last week, Howie and I were hanging out and trying to figure out ways to please the French. All of my suggestions involved me on my knees in a room full of sexy Parisian Arabs but he wasn't biting (neither do I, actually).