Premonition Of "The Night"

"The Night" by Max Beckmann 1918-19, Kunstsammlung Düsseldorf, Germany

 

My love for fine art caused me to stumble over a potentially tragic irony set against the historical backdrop of the period between WW-I and WW-II. Artists like Max Beckmann, George Grosz, Otto Dix, Ludwig Meidner  and Kurt Schwitters, to name a few, were all 'lefties' to put it mildly. They were all united in their early understanding and predictions of the horrors to come from Nazi Germany. Yet few listened.

Today, all is turned upside down; their ideological heirs are the ones who bury their heads in the sand and pretend Islamofascism doesn't exist, poses no threat to them or indeed to us all. Instead, conservatives are recognizing the dangers ahead of time and suffer the scorn and ridicule for it from the lefties of today. What happened?

It's a big question, and I would like to start by debunking some of the most notorious fallacies with which our Liberal friends lull themselves into a false sense of security or, at times, intellectual superiority. Victor David Hanson, one of my favorite authors, does it best as he takes on the anti-war mongers amongst us. Point by point he refutes the favorite accusations leveled against the Administration:

1. Saddam was never connected to al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11.

2. There was no real threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

3. The United Nations and our allies were justifiably opposed on principle to the invasion.

4. A small cabal of neoconservative (and mostly Jewish) intellectuals bullied the administration into a war that served Israel’s interest more than our own.

5. Saddam could not be easily deposed, or at least he could not be successfully replaced with a democratic government.

6. The architects of this war and the subsequent occupation are mostly inept (“dangerously incompetent”) — and are exposed daily as clueless by a professional cadre of disinterested journalists.

7. In realist terms, the benefits to be gained from the war will never justify the costs incurred.

8. We cannot win.

Hanson doesn't beat around the bush and comes out all guns blazing, "The first six are wrong, the last two still unsettled".

First, notice how the old criticism that Saddam was not connected to al Qaeda has now morphed into a fallback position that “Saddam was not connected to September 11” — even though the latter argument was never officially advanced as a casus belli. [...]

A typical and indicative retreat from the 'Bush lied people died' camp, forever changing the goal post, forever demanding of the President and his Admininstration to admit its mistakes, however never, ever, not even once, admitting any of their own. Double standards throughout, hypocrisy pure; one big smeltering melting pot filled with arrogantly held beliefs of their own moral superiority and emotionally charged righteousness of their adopted cause--the melting pot never changes, just the label; Iraq war today, Palestine tomorrow, environment the day after...

Opponents have retreated to this position because we know that al Qaeda cadres were in Kurdistan, and that al Zarqawi fled to Baghdad, as did a mastermind of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin. [...]

From the slowly emerging Baathist archives, we are learning that for more than a decade Saddam’s agents had some contacts with, and offered help to, al Qaeda operatives from the Sudan to the Philippines.

The documents from the Baathist archives are dismissed, whereas rumors and inuendo are held high as facts. The conspiratorial documentary "Loose Change" defines our opposition's meaning of 'facts' and 'proof'. The time is long gone, where these issues are about realities; this is about ideologies.

But, onward with the relentless effort to bring light and truth to the web of deceit and distortion:

The issue is closed: Saddam Hussein’s regime had a mutually beneficial association with al Qaeda. All that remains in doubt is the degree to which Iraq’s generic support enabled al Qaeda to pull off operations like September 11. It may be that Saddam and Osama, in their views of Islam and jihad, were as antithetical to one another as Japanese and Germans were in attitudes about racial superiority. But in both cases, rogues find common ground in their opposition to hated Western liberalism

Second, we know now that worries over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were both justified and understandable. Postwar interviews with top Iraqi generals reveal that Saddam’s own military assumed that his stockpiles of WMDs were still current — confirming the intelligence estimates from Europe and most of the Arab world.

In addition, Iraqi arsenals of WMDs, in the judgment of both the Clinton administration and the United Nations, were still unaccounted for in March 2003. And even if the stocks were moved or destroyed, the prerequisites for the rapid mass-production of biological and chemical agents — petrodollar wealth, scientific expertise, alternate-use facilities, and a will to produce and use them — were met in Saddam’s Iraq.

Third, the opposition of the United Nations to the invasion lacks any moral significance, given the postwar revelations that the $50 billion Oil-for-Food scandal not only led to thousands of starved Iraqi civilians, but also enriched both Saddam’s family and U.N. insiders themselves. Europe’s opposition may have seemed ethical, but when one learns of French and Russian oil deals with Saddam, and German construction projects that fortified Saddam’s own Führerbunker, European principle too evaporates into nothing.

Fourth, the charge of neocon plotting has now reemerged under a patina of academic respectability in a recent paper by Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Harvard Kennedy School of Government academic dean Stephen Walt. “Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.” At the tip of that Jewish spear was a “band” that was “small,” but of course still “a driving force”: “Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud.” Instead of silly allegations of conspiracy theories, we are lectured ad nauseam that an “Israeli lobby” got us into Iraq. [...]

Fifth, after the three-week victory of April 2003, we have now forgotten the earlier prognostications of millions of refugees, oil wells afire, and thousands of dead that were to follow in Iraq. Twenty-three hundred American fatalities are grievous losses, but must be weighed against three successful elections, and the real chance that such sacrifice might result in the first true Arab democracy emerging in Iraq, with ramifications beyond the Middle East for generations to come. Currently, tens of thousands of Iraqis are the only Arabs in the world who daily risk their lives to fight al Qaeda terrorists — something that just may be in America’s interest.

Sixth, we have not had another September 11. Two-thirds of the leadership of al Qaeda is dismantled. Fifty million people have voted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria is out of Lebanon. The Middle East is in democratic turmoil from the Gulf to Egypt and Libya, not mired in the old autocratic stasis. The Europeans are waking up to the dangers of Islamism as the Western world seeks to deal with a nuclear Iran.

Weigh that success against the behavior of the media that sees mostly American incompetence. At CBS, Dan Rather insisted to us that a clearly forged memo, but one that fit his own ideological agenda, was authentic. Michael Isikoff relied on one anonymous — and unreliable — source about the purported desecration of a Koran that had serious consequences for thousands in the Middle East. CNN’s executive Eason Jordan admitted that his network passed on coverage of a mass-murdering Saddam Hussein — and later he wrongly alleged that the American military deliberately targeted journalists in Iraq.

Now we hear Time Baghdad Bureau Chief Michael Ware, in a drunken, live interview (“In fact, I'm drinking now…I try to stay as drunk for as long as possible while I'm here”) from the heart of dry Muslim Iraq, recklessly throwing around charges that American soldiers are guilty of manhandling Iraqi women (“We've seen allegations that women have been mishandled or roughly handled. That always inflames passions”) and terrorizing civilians (“We've also seen insurgents criticize other insurgent groups, 'cause you're not doing enough to get the chicks out! I mean, that's how important it can be, this is a matter of great honor, and it's a spark”). Ware’s are precisely the lies and fantasies that feed the Islamists.

Indeed, the better example of ineptitude in this war lies with the media that demands from others apologies for incompetence that it will never offer itself. Few professions today ask so much of so many others and so very little of themselves.

Seventh, we won’t know the ultimate judgment of costs and benefits in Iraq until its parliament convenes and the executive government is formed and operates. If we leave now and a Lebanon follows, then, of course, the invasion was a costly mistake. If we secure the country for a constitutional government that brings freedom, order, and prosperity to its long-suffering people, then it will be the most welcomed global development since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Had the British and Americans quit in 1943 — after Pearl Harbor, the fall of Singapore and the Philippines, the Kasserine Pass, Tobruk, and other assorted disasters — then the carnage of 1939 to 1943 would have properly been seen as a tragedy that led not to emergence of a free Europe and a reborn Japan, but as needless sacrifice against the unstoppable juggernaut of Asian and German fascism.

As for the eighth complaint that we cannot win (or “the war is lost”), the verdict is still in the future and depends mostly on us.

Our military cannot be defeated by either the Islamists or their autocratic supporters. We have the right strategy of hunting down terrorists, securing the homeland, and insidiously, but carefully, promoting democratic reform in the Middle East (an impossible notion, by the way, with the sinister presence of an oil rich and genocidal Saddam Hussein, given his history of attacking four of his neighbors.)

We have even articulated, at last, an exegesis of the dangers of radical Islam — why it hates Western freedom and how it thrives on the oil, misery, and dictatorship of the Middle East.

There remains this last unknown — how well can a liberal democracy, in its greatest age of affluence, leisure, and self-critical reflection, still fight a distant war against emissaries of the Dark Ages who seek to behead apostates, blow up democrats, and silence with death writers, journalists, and cartoonists. It is not just our democratic values versus their IEDs, but whether our idealism still has the resilience to defeat their nihilism.

Or put more directly: Can Western enlightenment and power, embedded in deep cynicism, still prevail over ignorance and self-inflicted pathology energized by fanaticism?

Amen!

Cynicism isn't the problem, as you can see from their art of the early part of the 20th Century. It is full of cynicism and irony. But what is it then? What is causing our Liberal friends to miss the writing on the wall this time round? Lack of information, it cannot be. Anyone with a will to find the truth, will find the truth. It's practically shouting at us. You tell me.

Speaking of history, I direct you to another brilliant must read article, by Gerard van der Leun @ American Digest, entitled "On The Return Of History".

Linked to Wizbang Carnival, Stop The ACLU,

Comments

[DavidByron]

When in Rome....

[Charlie (Colorado)]

There was never a link between Iraq and 9-11
There never were any WMDs in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was never a threat to America.

Hilarious. Not even an attempt to argue --- just assertion.

[North by Northwest]

Gerard,

you've got him sussed. Nowhere did he show his addiction of engaging in dispute for the sake of mere shock value than on the various Israel threads. Fascinating too is the heavily overstated use of "morals" in utterly immoral context.

David,

It's time to put up or shut up. You need to provide links to your sources for the following assertions because we clearly disagree on the veracity of your assertions. If you are serious about your claims and beliefs, back them up:

"There is no doubt and there was no support of Al-Qaeda by Saddam,"

What are your 2002/3 sources to support this assertion?

"Iraq has never supported the jihadists

What are your 2002/3 sources to support this assertion?

"[Iraq] has no history of funding, arming, training and supporting them."

What are your 2002/3 sources to support this assertion?

"All three things were known to be false in 2003"

Listed below are those three assertions. What are the sources to support these repeated claims:
(a) Iraq did not aid Al-Qaeda;
(b) Iraq did not have WMDs;
(c) Iraq was not a threat to America.
Make sure the dates of your sources confirm your claim "I recall arguing this back before the war on the basis of the publicly known evidence".

"We knew these statements were lies"

How so? What are your sources?

"..we knew Bush knew they were lies."

How so? What are your sources?

Hanson wrote: "...we know now that worries over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were both justified and understandable. Postwar interviews with top Iraqi generals reveal that Saddam’s own military assumed that his stockpiles of WMDs were still current — confirming the intelligence estimates from Europe and most of the Arab world.
Byron: "None of this is true."

How do you know that? What are your sources?

"Nobody thought Saddam had WMDs."

Who is 'Nobody'?

"No intelligence agency said Iraq had WMDs either."

Were are your sources for this assertion? Remember, dates matter 2002-3;

Hanson wrote: "...Iraqi arsenals of WMDs, in the judgment of both the Clinton administration and the United Nations, were still unaccounted for in March 2003."
Byron: "[...] it doesn't mean the weapons existed"

Why not. Where does it say that it doesn't mean that? Your sources prior or on or around March 2003 please not your personal causal deliberations.

"...or that anybody ever thought they existed."

Your sources during 2002-3 to support this assertion please.

[DavidByron]

Patrick: Just because you say this is what republicans believe does not make it so. I have NEVER met a republican who says that Saddam is responsible for 9-11.

You should introduce yourself to some of the other Republicans in this thread then. But obviously I am refering to polling data not your highly dubious anecdotes.

What proportion of Republicans did you THINK believed all this? For the overall population it's still something like 40%. Are you claiming that 40% is all represented by Democrats or something? These figures are well known in the reality based community. I have no intention of doing a Google search for this stuff when you won't take the slightest notice of it anyway. If you take the effort to Google it for yourself you might actually beleive it but you certainly wouldn't if I did that.

This is one of the questions polls ask and they often split the results by political party.

Saul Davis asked for the source on Bush's faux pas where he was asked a question along the lines of "We went into Iraq because of reasons and they all turned out to be false --- WMDs, Iraq's contribution to 9-11......." and Bush interrupted the questioner and said, "I was very careful to never say that Iraq was behind 9-11". Keith Olbermann (spelling?) had it on his TV show. I don't watch TV but it was all over the blogosphere..

Again I simply can't be bothered to look this up for you. It was all over the blogosphere just a couple of weeks ago. Bush does hardly any non-scripted question sessions anyway. Shouldn't be hard to track down.

It's pointless me doing this for you. The attitude towards facts here is so negative that it would be a complete waste of my time. I'm sorry but that's the way I feel. If people actually showed any indication that discovering facts would make a difference I might be inclined to make the effort. As it is I doubt you'd believe a word I have to say even if God Almighty came down on a cloud and confirmed it.

So let's face facts and not pretend that you guys are going to act any differently if I did source the comments I make. Truth is are ability to communicate simply isn't within light years of that sort of level of trust. As it is I genuinely beleive that my providing a link or something would simply make people here LESS likely to consider a factoid.

We have to continue to rely on the small amount of facts that are common ground. The problem is that even those facts are routinely denied by Republicans if they think they can score a cheap point. You guys don't even make sincerely held arguments.

Look at the way Alexandra argued that Palestinians have no right to their own land because (she alleged) the UN gave it away to Israel. This from a woman who despises the UN and would never in a million years accept that they have the legal authority to give away a sovereign nation's land.

I'm sick of all the fake arguments and trick attempts to score points. This diary is defending the idea that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were linked. It is defending the myth that Saddam caused 9-11, or as 80% of the US soldiers in Iraq beleived, that the war in Iraq was revenge for 9-11. yes, another poll result that was recentl;y mentioned at various places in the blogosphere including the front page at dKos which you guys really ought to at least scan if you want to keep up to date with current affairs.

I find this entire questioning of these poll results to be another such fake argument. What's the point in continually going on about Saddam and Al-Qaeda if you are not trying to perpetuate the propaganda lie that Iraq was behind 9-11? Why can't Republicans just be honest about their own views?

Cut the crap out; I really wish you all would. I cannot tell if you are just playing dumb or if it's no act. Do you really think Saddam was behind 9-11 just as Alexandra appears to honestly specualte that Iraqi WMDs were smuggled into Syria or something? Or is this a big dumb act?

What is it with Republicans and acting dumb? Why do you all feel it is better to look like a moron than admit you were wrong about something? Just like Bush. What is game playing and what is your real views? Or do you just not have any principles to begin with? Is it really all about party politics 100% of the time? if so wjht's the point of it all? Is it all about money and power and nothing else with you guys? or are you the "useful idiots"?

What is the sense in pretending to be outraged that I would say that a poll says most Republicans believe Saddam was behind 9-11 when at the same time most of you are actively "catapulting" that same propaganda by artificially and deceitfully linking Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?

Republicans have a serious image problem. They are seen as 100% crooks and liars these days. Alway about image, always about the politics, always the photo op and mostly this is because Bush is the face of the Republican part and two thirds of the country see him as an incompetent liar and a crook.

I'm here looking for some kernel of principle from you guys and I might as well be looking for a needle in a haystack. I quite honestly don't even get the impression you actually beleive the words that come out of your own mouths most days. It's 100% "politics".

Sorry for the rant.
At any rate that is why I feel it's pointless to quote sources. It would be running before we can even crawl.

[Saul Davis]

Mr. Byron: A number of commenters have requested bona fide sources for your purported statements of facts; in prior posts I had asked for bona fide sources for your purported statements of facts; I am waiting almost a week, or is it over a week now for your sources; but forget my request; please provide us with bona fide/reliable sources for your statement that:
"As I said the majority of Republicans believe that Saddam was behind 9-11. That is the position that this diary is supporting in effect although some here would try to pout it in a more sophisticated manner than the hoi poloi. . . .
This is not surprising because the Bush administration spun this lie every chance they got, while being "very careful" not to say it in so many words. Bush himself said he was "very careful" to not say it in so many words."

I have examined the President's speeches and Administration statements on numerous occassions. I do not remember anything close to these assertions. I do remember reading about a Saddam/Al Queda connection; that fact has been clearly demonstrated with the minute number of Baathist that have been translated to date.
see for example:

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/35-42674.asp

http://obsidianorder.blogspot.com/2004/10/saddam-and-al-qaeda-timeline.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004760/posts

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/terrorism/alliance_of_evil.htm

I do not know of the reliability of these sources, but I do know that ABC News is not exactly pro-Prsident Bush, so the following link should be quite informative:

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/20050/

Mr. Byron PLEASE provide us with your sources.

[Van der Leun]

All I would add in answer to "You tell me" is to point here:

"Clipped from Safari (http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/because-i-said-so.html):

Polemicists come in both their religious and secular varieties. They too proclaim that "I have come into the world that I should bear witness to the truth." How to tell the difference?

The energy that animates the polemicist is from the serpent. It is always horizontality masquerading as verticality. It is full of antagonism, of the pitched battle of controversy rather than the fusion of conversation. Furthermore, being that it is of the serpent, it engages in a two-front battle, against both horizontal and vertical enemies.

The Antichrist is a skillful polemicist. Take, for example, Adolf Hitler. Was he not surrounded by horizontal enemies, but at the same time, waging war on the vertical by trying to replace it with a completely naturalistic substitute? The false prophet is a human beast, equal emphasis on both terms: human + beast. For humanness reduced to its horizontal dimension is mere bestiality. It is actually lower than the noble beasts of nature.

At the same time, if you study the matter closely, I believe you will see that the Antichrist, in whatever form it appears, is intemperate and intoxicated, or angry, excited, and apparently stoned. This is the impression formed if one delves into the world of dailykos or huffingtonpost. Please, try it for yourself. Do you not smell the intoxication? How can you argue with a righteously indignant person stoned out of his mind with truth? "

And I would note that this observation finds its examples in some of the comments above and, no doubt soon, below.

[Michael van der Galien]

Oh and before people start jumping down my throat for not making myself clear enough, with this:
Come on dude, that's high school material
and this:
Even wikipedia is probably able to tell you that...

I meant this:
in Europe liberalism equals conservatism

[Michael van der Galien]

Haha Byron do some research.

"Micheal, I'm not American and I think you're a conservative too. You are a conservative, even by American standards, let alone European."

Now... think for a second or two. What does European liberalism almost equals?

That's right... conservatism.

and... socialists are... prógressive!

Wow... what a revelation.

Come on dude, that's high school material.

The only difference is that although in Europe liberalism equals conservatism, in the US what's called liberalism is almost the opposite of conservatism.

Even wikipedia is probably able to tell you that...

[Patrick]

David,

Just because you say this is what republicans believe does not make it so. I have NEVER met a republican who says that Saddam is responsible for 9-11. What is the source that supports this belief?

[Stefan]

*yawn*

[DavidByron]

LOL. Stefan is pulling Bush's line now. "I never said that. I was very careful to avoid saying that."

Don't worry Stefan. I am not saying you slipped up and actually said that Saddam was behind 9-11 in so many words. Just that you are propagating, sorry, "catapulting", the propaganda. Now if you want to deny you were doing THAT too, why then we'd have something to discuss. =)

[DavidByron]

Turning to the fascism thing.
NNW: David, I expected you to come out and proclaim that America is a greater threat, more likely to disintegrate into fascism. But, you are still being intellectually untidy. You speak of what the US might come to, yet you ignore the daily reality of those living under Islamofascist rule right now, today, not at some unspecified point in time in the future.

Well Alexandra was talking about what might happen not what is happening. Besides, your statement is just false. Iran is not a fascist state. Iraq was a better target for that label but of course you want to link Islam to fascism so that example doesn't help you. Really you are just flinging the word fascism around as if it meant nothing. Just like the Bush administration calling everyone Nazis and Hitler to justifyt their criminal wars. Of course Clinton did that too. I've already noted the irony of calling the Serbs "Nazis" in the 1990's.

So everyone does this; but if you want to talk about actual fascism then read the two diary series I linked to above and get back to me then for a serious discussion. "Fascism" doesn't mean "not a western liberal democracy".

You also keep saying, that you knew it all back then. Well, I remember only too well discussing the looming war with Iraq in 2002 with staunch pacifists.

Yes. We were correct and you were fooled. Wrong. Absolutely proven wrong. Known to be wrong then and even more so now.

My position was, that a military conflict is the only option, that it is impossible to predict the outcome, that many mistakes are going to be made based on the impossibly intricate situation on the ground, politically, religiously and tribally. But that virtually any outcome was preferable to maintaining this status quo. Now, in your eyes, that makes me a blood thirsty warmonger, I know, but I remain convinced, history will prove me right and prove you wrong. We just have to leave it at that for the time being and agree to disagree.

Your position is in support of aggression which is outlawed. Your position is that of Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait or for that matter Hitler when he invaded Poland. The laws which Bush breached were enacted as a response to Hitler's actions so the comparison is legitimate and correct here. Yes of course you are a war monger.

And your justification is artificial. You don't support a law that generally holds that any country can attack any other country as long as they don't have solid proof that the other country is no threat whatsoever. Your justification is absurd. You sound more ridiculous for having made it than if you'd offered no justification at all. And there is no justification for your warmongering. You simply support war of aggression by your own country and denounce it when other countries do the same thing. It's nothing but violence married with self-interest and no morals.

[Stefan]

Boy David,

I’m sorry to say but your basic reading comprehension skills are pathetic. I never said for one second that Saddam’s potential future relationship with al Qeada had anything to do with 9-11 so you wasted that paragraph chasing your own tail. Your lack of ability to see beyond your own nose is really quite amazing.

[DavidByron]

Micheal, I'm not American and I think you're a conservative too. You are a conservative, even by American standards, let alone European.

After they read my opinions for a while, quite a lot of Americans told me they "do not concider" me "liberal, but moderate or even conservative" (especially when talking about Islam and economics).

[DavidByron]

Patrick asks, Where has anyone claimed that Saddam was behind the 9-11 attacks?

As I said the majority of Republicans believe that Saddam was behind 9-11. That is the position that this diary is supporting in effect although some here would try to pout it in a more sophisticated manner than the hoi poloi. Also a recent poll of US soldiers sais over 80% of US soldiers felt the reason they were in Iraq was to take revenge for 9-11 (I think the poll allowed for multiple answers to the question).

This is not surprising because the Bush administration spun this lie every chance they got, while being "very careful" not to say it in so many words. Bush himself said he was "very careful" to not say it in so many words.

But is this diary really that sophisticated? The diary says:

Saddam Hussein’s regime had a mutually beneficial association with al Qaeda. All that remains in doubt is the degree to which Iraq’s generic support enabled al Qaeda to pull off operations like September 11.

This is of course utter nonsense. There is no doubt and there was no support of Al-Qaeda by Saddam, quite the opposite. Unlike America, Iraq has never supported the jihadists and has no history of funding, arming, training and supporting them.

So he we are three years after the big lie. Even the corporate Republican media and the Bush administration itself has quit spinning this lie and yet even sophisticated Republicans continue to spread it. What hope is there for people who are this willfully blind?

There is no question that Saddam was not behind 9-11 so the only interesting question left is why on earth supposedly intelligent people continue to insist this was so, or that Iraq aided Al-Qaeda and might have been behind 9-11, or continue to insist that Iraq had WMDs or that Iraq was a threat to America.

All three things were know to be false in 2003. I recall arguing this back before the war on the basis of the publicly known evidence. We knew these statement s were lies and we knew Bush knew they were lies. In the case of the Al-Qaeda link Bush was being "very careful" to NOT say "in so many words" that Iraq was behind 9-11 or that Iraq had nukes, while implying it as often as he could. The corporate Republican media assisted.

But that was three years ago. Why do the useful idiots continue with the lie?

Some examples of the unprincipled deception spread by Republicans in support of lies:

Nathan:"There never were any WMDs in Iraq." Really? tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians.

Nathan here is trying to shore up the iodea that Iraq had WMDs in 2003 by refering to the 1980's when Iraq was a US ally. Now he knows, I know and everyone here knows that this is a dishonest "argument". So why is he fool enough to make it? The dishonesty here is blatant. So blatant it only goes to underline stereotypes of Republican deceit and no-think. It's quite the desperate tactic. Why?

Stephan also insists that Saddam was behind 9-11 has merit: I must say that we have no idea how Saddam’s flirting with al Qaeda might have become a courtship of mutual interest had he succeeded in getting sanctions lifted. We all know he was on the home stretch because of the duplicitous behavior of our “allies” on the Security Council who were working full steam to parole Iraq. The 9-11 success of al Qaeda was still a very new development and you know damn well Saddam was working up a stratagem in which he could use them for his own ends (he is staggeringly arrogant remember). It makes no difference if they were ideological adversaries because their mutual hatred of the West was common ground enough. They may have both had ulterior motives in such a relationship and had it in for each other in the long term, but in the short term the corpses would have piled up.

So Stephan's argument is basically that a lot of stuff maybe might could happen and therefore Bush was correct to say it did happen. At least he's honest enough to admit that factually he's wrong. Iraq wasn't behind 9-11. Iraq didn't support Al-Qaeda. And so on. But it's all about TRUTHINESS isn't it? It's not so important that Iraq wasn't behind 9-11. What's important is that they are the sort of people who would be behind 9-11. So for Stefan although every fact in the matter says he's wrong, he's really right.

Saul Davis is also in this vein: Historical facts are not developed into reality after 1 year, 5 years, or even after a decade or two; some facts may only become recognized as indisputably developed many decades after they occur; disputes over important facts may temporarily clarify reality, but the facts are not fully developed from an historical perspective, until well after their occurrance;

So Saul defends the idea that Iraq had WMDs and a link to Al-Qaeda not because there is even a shred of evidence for it but despite the fact that all evidence denies it. Once again the capacity to deny reality is complete. it's fine to keep in mind new evidence might come to light but if you insist on ignoring everything we already know more and more evidence will do nothing.

Going back to the main article for more idiocy: we know now that worries over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were both justified and understandable. Postwar interviews with top Iraqi generals reveal that Saddam’s own military assumed that his stockpiles of WMDs were still current — confirming the intelligence estimates from Europe and most of the Arab world.

None of this is true. Nobody thought Saddam had WMDs. No intelligence agency said Iraq had WMDs either. The Republican has been had. A useful idiot he assumes everyone else must be as big an idiot as he was.

Iraqi arsenals of WMDs, in the judgment of both the Clinton administration and the United Nations, were still unaccounted for in March 2003.

LOL. The dupe still doesn't understand the card trick. Don't you get it yet? the WMDs are still not "accounted for". Most of my wages every month are "unaccounted for". Darned if I know where it goes. It doesn't mean anything. It's a phrase designed to sound good and frightening to useful idiots but it means squat. it doesn't mean the weapons existed or that anybody ever thought they existed. It's an Enron-style accountancy trick to make them able to come out with a statement that while true technically is completely deceitful.

Three years on and you guys still don't get it do you?

How should a rational observer react to all this? How should I react to the idea that most Republicans hold steadily to known falsehoods like "Saddam was behind 9-11" and "We found WMDs in Iraq"? At what point do I have to admit to myself that communication on the basis of reason is impossible and psychological rationales must be sought to explain the opinions held by Republicans?

It doesn't help that the few sane Republicans who know that Saddam wasn't behind 9-11 refuse to let their useful idiot brethren in on the secret. On the contrary they seem to skirt the issue and enforce the delusion --- as NNW did here for example. You don't think this stuff makes you look bad? It does. It makes you all look like idiots. It makes you all look like brainwashed partisans. Some of you realise this even while clinging to the wreckage of the spin. Someone even questioned my source for the fact that the majority of Republicans still beleive this stuff ---- even while supporting the same myths!!!

[epaminondas]

Incorrect on the facts...
"There is a deeper wave than this...that you don't understand. The United States had more to do with the creation of al qaeda and the tragedy of 9/11 than Saddam ever did."

It's always stunning to see that americans are more ignorant than arabs about these things. The two major books which deal with Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda are both by what might be stereotyped (at a minumum) administration opponents. These books are "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll, Washington Post, and "Charlie Wilson's War" by George Crile, producer for 60 Minutes.

Both investigations, make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the aid WE CONTROLLED went 2 places. Shah Massoud, killed by a suicide killer on 9/9/2001 by Al Qaeda, and the ISI the bulk of whose aid (they talk about) went to Gulbudin Hekmatyar. Our differences with the ISI became so great that it appears THEY organized an attack on our consulate which got americans killed, and took the Pakistani army from morning until mid afternoon to respond to.
Both investigations make it clear that the Al Saud engineered a huge 'zakat' effort creating financial mechanisms to get their aid to saudi mujahideen, like OBL. This was in parallel to any efforts of the US >> Massoud, and ISI>> Hekmatyar.

Assertions that america created Bin Laden are pure PROPAGANDA, and if someone has documentation otherwise, post the URL's otherwise it's just gas. IF people want to make assertions, that's fine, but do the work to back them up. It's called academic prudence and actual work to show that what you believe is anchored in objective reality.

Statements and assertions devoid of documentation are just claims.
You know, like ,"proving Saddam has WMD's will be a slam dunnk" (Tenet, I believe)

URL's are the LEAST we can provide. Let's see what people USE to make judgements on. No one here is challenged ... it takes 30-60 seconds to find the 'thing' which anchors your opinion. A few minutes if it's tough to find.

Today we see dribbling out suggestions that AT A MINUMUM Al Qaeda had much more involved with Saddam than we thought. Does this mean Iraq was involved tactically and strategically? Not yet, maybe never. And if they did, we may never find a smoking gun, anyway, which is what it would take at this late date.

It's now IRRELEVANT anyway.
It's Abbasi and Khamenei, and Ahmadi-nejad that should occupy our thoughts. Iran is no Iraq, and even if all our men and women were home, and waiting, 200,000 wouldn't come close to what we would need for an occupation. Think we could take Iran on with Saddam and 130,000 republican guards active on the Kuwaiti, and Saudi borders?

[Michael van der Galien]

Stefan and Raimondo, thanks for answering.

I must say that this is a topic which I find to be extremely interesting. When people ask about my political beliefs I tell them I am a European Liberal (learned to put that 'european' in front of it the hard way). After they read my opinions for a while, quite a lot of Americans told me they "do not concider" me "liberal, but moderate or even conservative" (especially when talking about Islam and economics).

Firm believer in liberalism as I am, I try to point out to them what liberalism stands for. After a while they explain to me that, indeed, liberalism in Europe is not liberalism in the States. So after a while I figured out that those who call themselves liberals in the US would be regarded socialists in Europe.

But it's highly fascinating as the 'why' and 'how'. I am quite sure liberalism was once, the same in Europe and the US. For instance, your Constitition is a real liberal Constitution as in European liberalism. Becáúse that is traditional American 'thinking' / politics, conservatives in America, share great resemblance with European liberals.

I am believing more and more that european liberalism quite equals american conservatism.
Ánd that European socialism, equals American liberalism.

For my liberal heart, it is difficult to accept such a rape of the meaning of the word liberalism though...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Something interesting about terrorism:

The Dutch intelligence agence (AIVD) released a report a couple of days ago about terrorism and extremism in Europe, better said the Netherlands.
Some interesting points were:
- people who become extremists are mostly quite young: 15 years old
- The AIVD speaks of an European Jihad: This means that those who are involved are not immigrants themselves but who are the 2nd or 3rd generation living in The Netherlands
- with most of them their parents are from Morocco
- Al-Qaeda is not the 'mastermind' behind terrorist attacks anymore
- - Radical ideas are not just 'ideas' anymore. They switched to the real use of violence. In the other parts of Europe this violence is mostly directed at, for instance, public buildings, so called 'soft targets'. In the Netherlands this is not so. Here the use of violence is aimed at certain persons
- The AIVD is watching several hundred young extremists
- In the Netherlands a relatively large part of the extremists willing to commit terrorist attacks are women. The director of the AIVD said, ironically: "Maybe they did learn something from the liberal climate in The Netherlands"
- The AIVD regards these extremists as a real and acute threat
- The most important tool for these young extremists to meet and talk to eachother is the internet
- They unite themselves in certain groups / networks, again mostly through the internet. In The Netherlands 15 to 20 extremist groups, willing to commit terrorist attacks, exist.

Just some info about Europe and terrorism...

[Patrick]

Ghost,

Just a few points...

"They are also culpable for politicizing the individual soldier by repeatedly sending the message that to criticize policy equates attacking the soldier -- an allegation that is simply not true." What do you believe of the US soldier? When Senator Kerry characterizes military operations as terrorizing the women and children of Iraq, is he criticizing policy, or is he attacking the soldiers? What, in your opinion, is legitimate partisan, oops, political criticism that doesn't have an effect upon our troops prosecuting the will of the US government (elected in accordance with the law of the land).

"There was an argument for regime change in Iraq, but it was a totally separate issue from Islamic religious extremism and the forces that produced al qaeda. It had to do with invading a neighboring country, and defying the UN." Hear, hear...
Our LEGAL authority sprang from this. The question is, after more than 10 years of him violating agreements, only to cave after once again the US spending millions of dollars to deploy our troops on the border, just to have him back down temporarily, when do you follow through? How about after America is attacked by terrorists? No. How about after this "leader" continues to pay rewards to the families of terrorists executing horrific attacks in other countries? No? How about after intelligence reports of contacts between him and the very terrorist group who did attack the US? No? I know that most people on the left actually believe the drivel in Hollywood movies that the American government sees all and knows all. Just because we find that two of our enemies meet, we shouldn't assume that their discussion had anything to do with us, should we? {sarcasm intended}

"There is a deeper wave than this...that you don't understand. The United States had more to do with the creation of al qaeda and the tragedy of 9/11 than Saddam ever did." I cannot believe that you think that those innocent civilians got what was coming to them. Where has anyone claimed that Saddam was behind the 9-11 attacks? But wait, with an interesting (liberal interpretation) You are 100% correct. If the United States did not exist, we would not have been targeted. I have definately entered the twilight zone. Pray tell, what did we do that caused us to be attacked? Althought there is method to this maddness. If you step back in time, Saddam actually did lead to the 9-11 attack. UBL himself said he attacked the Great Satan because we defiled the sacred soil of Islam and it was an abomination that unbelievers were defending Saudi soil. I guess we emasculated him when the Saudi government turned down his offer to defend the borders when Saddam invaded Kuwait, and accepted our help instead(read a little). Because we stayed in the region to do what the islamofacists themselves couldn't do, we defiled their soil and he would do anything to cleanse the shame. He attacked US targets in the region repeatedly, but only the military died and that is what we get paid to do, Right? He only moved onto civilian targets because noone paid attention to our pain. Would that be a reason for Saddam to be responsible for 9-11? If I lived in the anti-American insanity zone, the logic would be acceptable, but not really since evil America is still responsible for all the ill in the world. We never send vast amounts of food and money to those who spit upon us because we cannot stand the thought of the children living in the abject poverty their parents create and continue to propagate. We just steal from the rest of the world. {once again, sarcasm is intended}

"Defeating Saddam did nothing to defeat Islamofacism, or highlighting the threat therein." It caused some to realize how great the divide is between the posturing champions of the islamic world and the true professionalism of the capitalist. So many on the left think of it as a Islam vs Christian fight when they fail to realize the "opponent" has a vote in his own world view. Theirs is "Islam" or soon to be Islam through intimidation or butchery. They are strong in their faith. I know your mother always told you it takes two to fight. She was correct. If you decide not to fight, and he does, it really isn't a fight is it. It is just a brutal attack. Who is the world's policeman that will arrest the thug. I would really like to know. I don't have his phone number.

"Al qaeda is a Cold War artifact." It appears to be alive and kicking. Just because I label them "deadenders" doesn't mean they are.

"Oh, yes...I'll say again the only difference between extreme rightism, and extreme leftism are the excuses they use for their degenerate oppressive governments." Extremism is extremism. Are you claiming that the US is a degenerate oppressive government? I think you need to leave your bunker and travel a little. You might want to see a little more of the real world.

[Saul Davis]

Alexandra: My thanks for an excellant post again; most of the comments are on point, as usual, others do not require a response as they repeat the same tripe; I would only note one observation: Historical facts are not developed into reality after 1 year, 5 years, or even after a decade or two; some facts may only become recognized as indisputably developed many decades after they occur; disputes over important facts may temporarily clarify reality, but the facts are not fully developed from an historical perspective, until well after their occurrance; the minute number of Baathist and Saddam files, less than 1% of the files known to exist, are only now beginning to shed some light on the truth; Victor Hanson, you and other commenters have properly commented on the documents that have been disclosed; we will not know the complete truth until many decades from now; what is clear though, is the "Bush Lied . . . " mime is tripe; those espousing that mime either have failed to acknowledge the complete grounds for the Iraqui invasion enunciated by the President, and high officers of the cabinet, or have intentionally disregard the bases enumberated on numerous occassions by the Administration; as we proceed with obtaining more and more evidence of the historical facts, more of the bases for the invasion of Iraq and the liberation of its oppressed people is proven valid; not all of the bases for the liberation of Iraq has been proven historically valid -- but a sufficient number have been, which in turn completely justifies our conduct. We do not need 100% proof beyond a reasonable doubt; we only need to know that over 25million people have been liberated from an unusually oppressive regime, and the vast majority have been provided the first opportunity in decades to form their own government. As history porceeds, the WMD issue may or may not be proven correct -- it remains open in my opinion, because it is very difficult for me to believe that virtually every intelligence agency of every major country was wrong in their beliefs and statements that Iraq had WMD. The Al Queda connection has been clearly proven with historical fact, even though the MSM refuses to publicize the facts developed by the blogosphere. The MSM is not the final arbiter of historical facts, nor are we -- and especially not those such as Mr. Byron.

[Stefan]

The Democrats are truly the masters of defending a shifting ground. They will assert one thing and when it is proven wrong they pretend like it never happened or something along the lines of “it was a forgery but it is still relevant to the story.” The reason (to answer your question Michael) that there are few if any Democrats who come out strong against terrorism or Islamism is not because there aren’t any who love this country and its Constitution but rather, because their party has been hi-jacked by the Moveon.org crowd and they are afraid to speak out of turn. They are politicians so they have tested the wind and found that it is blowing strongly Left so they tumbleweed along in order to keep supporters. The Republicans (for all their many faults and shortcomings) at least have a basic set of principles on key issues which keep them anchored (for the most part) against tides from Left and Right. When the President is down and the Democrats are sounding their unrelenting drumbeat of failure; the liberal Republicans get cover and fawning profiles and articles in the NYT and the Washington Post. This onslaught is the reason why the heart of the Party must keep itself anchored firmly and steadfastly to focus on the goal: hope for the Middle East. It is a funny irony that the Democrats, who profess to be the party of tolerance and love for all peoples around the world, are the party that in the position of saying that those in the Middle East are hopelessly backward. It is conservatives that think they have a fighting chance if they are given window of opportunity, which is being held open now in Iraq by the US military.

Again, I must say that we have no idea how Saddam’s flirting with al Qaeda might have become a courtship of mutual interest had he succeeded in getting sanctions lifted. We all know he was on the home stretch because of the duplicitous behavior of our “allies” on the Security Council who were working full steam to parole Iraq. The 9-11 success of al Qaeda was still a very new development and you know damn well Saddam was working up a stratagem in which he could use them for his own ends (he is staggeringly arrogant remember). It makes no difference if they were ideological adversaries because their mutual hatred of the West was common ground enough. They may have both had ulterior motives in such a relationship and had it in for each other in the long term, but in the short term the corpses would have piled up.

[MT]

...and a sincere thanks to the proprietor of this fine establisment for the honor of being on the roll.

MT

[MT]

I don't know if it's just a difference of genetic/chemical make-up or something...it's unexplicable. Al Frankin, for example, will have a meaningful turnout in MN when he runs for office...it's unexplicable. Howard Dean is a visionary to some...it's unexplicable. Ted Kennedy will be a virtual lifer in the Senate...it's unexplicable. Republicans lead the way for minority participation in government and yet are continuously pegged by the plantation-owner Dems like Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, etc... as elitist...it's inexplicable.

[Ghost Dansing]

Hanson provides a long-winded rehash of all that has been said before in defense of Dubya's casus belli for Iraq, but never overcomes the persistent problems.

This Republican administration orchestrated a war with Iraq that has destroyed national consensus for the war on terror. They are also culpable for politicizing the individual soldier by repeatedly sending the message that to criticize policy equates attacking the soldier -- an allegation that is simply not true.

Interestingly, this Republican administration has also muddied the water in the specific area ATB is trying to highlight; specifically the threat of Islamofascism.

Saddam was many things, but an Islamofascist he was not. He was a secular, pan-Arabist Baathist. His kind was threatened by Islamic Extremism...he cynically manipulated religious ferver out of necessity; self-protection and to keep his enemies at bay.

There was an argument for regime change in Iraq, but it was a totally separate issue from Islamic religious extremism and the forces that produced al qaeda. It had to do with invading a neighboring country, and defying the UN.

There is a deeper wave than this...that you don't understand. The United States had more to do with the creation of al qaeda and the tragedy of 9/11 than Saddam ever did.

Defeating Saddam did nothing to defeat Islamofacism, or highlighting the threat therein.

Al qaeda is a Cold War artifact.

Oh, yes...I'll say again the only difference between extreme rightism, and extreme leftism are the excuses they use for their degenerate oppressive governments.

[David Foster]

davidbyron...this week in America, a major bookstore chain refuses to carry a publication because of fear of violence. And you think the danger to freedom is from the American *right*?

Threats manifest themselves in different ways in different eras. The fact that today's enemy does not possess Panzer divisions does not make them any less dangerous.

[Raimondo]

Alexandra..Congratulations on the good choice of imagery. Beckmann, a great modern master! Great to look at the real thing, where one can really appreciate the sort of Spartan and direct quality of his expression. Great draughstman, with a great ability to use black. Also a great psychological narrator.

They don't make artists like him anymore!

[Raimondo]

Michael....Socialists are to Europe roughly what Liberals are to the US. An entrenched group that has been in power for an extremely long time, dominating many segments of society, especially academia and information. Like any group that has been in power too long it has become infatuated with itself without realizing that "the emperor has no clothes".

The last electoral victory came as a shock to them, precisely proving the point. They are a big monllith that feeds on bankrupt ideas and dubious politiking. They are still amazed that average Americans would be so "dumb" as to want them mostly out of their lives after 9-11. Most Americans want a chance to rethink the nonsense that have been fed for decades, and the return to a political, social, intellectual debate that is more towards the center and less anti Western and anti American. I personally don't think GW is the most amazing thing ever, however he is light years better than what the opposition was offering, which was the same old, same old, America is bad, everyone one else is good including complete crooks like Kofi Annan.

Socialists believe in higher taxes and so do Liberals. Socialists don't believe in trickle down theory and so don't Liberals. Socialists believe that free enterprise should be punished and so do Liberals. Socialists cavort with various dictators around the world and so do Liberals. Liberals are resisting change, and so are Socialists.

Off course there are exeptions to this caricature. But generally as a rule of thumb they are very similar. And in Europe too we are seeing a slow and painful return to normalcy from the lunacy of the left that has ruled for so long.

[Nathan]

I've been reading this blog for a while now - wonderful page. And I've been entertained by this David guy.

But isn't he a little ridiculous. Seems to me, in the same posts accusing Republicans of being duplicitous, he blatantly and clearly claims untruths as facts. If I may quote:

"Bush has many times admited there were no WMDs and no links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam" Where? When?

"There never were any WMDs in Iraq." Really? tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians.

"Saddam Hussein was never a threat to America." Is that a fact? Opinion? Who's opinion?

"Most Republicans still think Saddam was behind 9-11. Most Republicans actually think WMDs were found in Iraq." Where does this come from?

I believe this guy actually believes these things. Rabid idealogues need to believe these facts (even in the face of contrary evidence) in order to justify their most deeply held beliefs. The fact that Bush is evil is so integral to their core psyche that any evidence to the contrary would destroy them. So they need to believe things that are obviously false.

What's interesting to me is how such a concept "Bush is evil" (or variations thereof - you know what I'm talking about) has become so tied to their sense of self. How it generates such passion.

I think it all stems from the 2000 election and the image of Bush being an idiot. I think these people couldn't believe that someone so stupid was elected President. That they were superior to him - and obviously everyone who voted for him. To me, everything flows from that.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Maybe this will be a weird question to all of you, but I am wondering. What do 'American liberals' stand for nowadays? What do they share with European Liberals? And aren't they closer to what we call socialism? It seems to me like they do not wish for a smaller government, but for a larger government (especially economically).

Follow up questions: if they do not resemble European liberalism anymore, how and when did this happen?

[Jeremiah]

Very, very few left-identified have a handle on the depth of the threat to Western Civilization from the Islamic colossus. Paul Berman comes to mind (of "Terror and Liberalism" note). But personally I don't hold my breath, or spend time identifying such minds. Since the baby boom, Americans have been lulled into complacency and entitlement and - as perverse as this might sound - the good that has come out of the 9/11 attacks is that we have begun to fix on the real threat to the survival of Western civilization. I'm not saying that "the sky is falling"; I'm saying that it has fallen, and it may fall again.

Victor Hanson is a national treasure.

Baroness, your application of Western art images is a maravilloso way of bringing us, your readers, into the 21st Century. I can't think of any other blog that does so with such consistency, force and elegance.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

NxN, very true.

The Democrats have, undoubtedly, some politicians who combine a love and respect for the Constitution with an agressive approach of islam extremism. Who are not willing to accept a nuclear Iran.

I think that the best democratic candidate will be someone who is clearly not a neoconservative, but who is willing to fight Islamic extremists 'nonetheless' so to speak.

If I would live in America nowadays, I would probably vote democrat. It would be someone, however, who would secure the Constitutional Rights on the one hand, but fighting extremists like Ahmadinejad on the other.

My question for you is: What democrats fit that description?

[North by Northwest]

epaminondas,

you're right. The labels no longer apply. We as voters have to prioritize and elect who will least likely mess up what is important to us. I was a staunch Bush opponent during the 2000 election, couldn't stand the guy. But couldn't stand Gore either. But there it is. Then 911 happened. Pretty much the first thing out of me in emails, SMS and phone calls was gratitude for Bush and Cheney instead of Gore (not sure about Lieberman). The nation needed a decision maker not a pollster. Someone with convictions and guts to stick to them.

The same rationale will determine my vote in 2008.

[North by Northwest]

how well can a liberal democracy, in its greatest age of affluence, leisure, and self-critical reflection, still fight a distant war against emissaries of the Dark Ages

With great difficulty, Alexandra. I think your choice of Beckmann's "The Night" is brilliant. It contrasts the physical horrors Beckmann and his contemporaries had experienced during WW-I with our mollycoddled generation of, what I call 'champagne communists'. Most Western citizens of affluence, with their creature comforts, have no idea what it's like to be a Christian in Pakistan, what it's like to be a young women in a Muslim family in Birmingham, GB, what it's like to be a wife in Saudi Arabia. To them it's all abstract and maybe even strangely attractive.

And of course, David, I expected you to come out and proclaim that America is a greater threat, more likely to disintegrate into fascism. But, you are still being intellectually untidy. You speak of what the US might come to, yet you ignore the daily reality of those living under Islamofascist rule right now, today, not at some unspecified point in time in the future.

Also, you don't deal with Victor Hanson's article. You just repeat your sound-bites, even to the point where you fall right into the very 'trap', Hanson writes about in this article "First, notice how the old criticism that Saddam was not connected to al Qaeda has now morphed into a fallback position that “Saddam was not connected to September 11” — even though the latter argument was never officially advanced as a casus belli. [...]"

Most important of all, David, you again are refusing to address the critical difference between your 'Bush lied People died' assertion and our claim, not excuse, but claim, that they did not know for certain at the time. It's really that simple, and has been repeated so many times here and every where else: Both Bush and Blair needed to be certain, not guess. That's what I expect of any leader of any responsible nation. Period. Your mantra, "There were no ... there were no..." is not relevant, never has been. Besides, as you read in Hanson's article, there is clearly some major disagreement concerning your version of the 'truth'. You also keep saying, that you knew it all back then. Well, I remember only too well discussing the looming war with Iraq in 2002 with staunch pacifists. My position was, that a military conflict is the only option, that it is impossible to predict the outcome, that many mistakes are going to be made based on the impossibly intricate situation on the ground, politically, religiously and tribally. But that virtually any outcome was preferable to maintaining this status quo. Now, in your eyes, that makes me a blood thirsty warmonger, I know, but I remain convinced, history will prove me right and prove you wrong. We just have to leave it at that for the time being and agree to disagree.

Back to the painting: Beckmann witnessed first hand the carnage of WW-I. He witnessed the poverty in post WW-I Germany. He saw the faceless evil of the primitive, murderous helpers depicted in Beckmann's painting both on the far left (hanging the father) and on the right (man with cap, who is blinded by it and is about to throw the daughter out of the window). He saw the crime of the passive bystanders who just watched, or, as the women in the picture, just looked the other way. But the center of Beckmann's criticism and also of the picture (man with tie and pipe), were your ordinary people. His head is bandaged, which is Beckmann's hint to the beaten 'yes-man' who is having his moment of revenge by twisting the arm of the helpless victim for good measure, who eagerly participates in sanctioned violence.

All of this is taking place every day in Islamic nations right now (how can you turn your eyes away from those crimes and justify them as 'cultural diversity'), not in Western democracies. Why then single out the US and not those nations is what Alexandra is asking us. The more I listen to the left and the escalating hatred and irrationality, the more I am losing hope for an easy explanation. Kenny, any idea?

[epaminondas]

What would Harry Truman do?
What would FDR do?

Liberals.

REAL liberals, not crytpo critical-progressives who have pissed all over the word liberal.

That's what Hanson is. Kennedy democrat.

Those who regard america as the future (or current) seat of fascism, if they HAVE any valid criticisms to make, make jokes of them before getting anywhere with such 'america is monstrous from birth', 'private property is evil' delusional and pathetic rants.

Iran is today a fascist theocratic dictatorship (i.e. any VOTE is controlled by the ulema limiting candidates to those who are 'correct'). PERIOD.

I can run out and yell "EFF U" at any Bush function, or to Hillary, or Dean, or Haley Barbour, or anyone I please. I can oppose by activity and money any thing or anyone I please, or support them, without FEAR. AND I DO.

I talk to my arab friends with NO FEAR of the FBI whatsoever.

If anything this administration, by virtue of it's DIFFERENTIATING itself from former american policy towards 'others' like Nicaragua, KSA, etc, where if you were anti communist you were good even if you were an SOB (like Somoza), has turned a LIBERAL page.

There won't be any more Mossadegh's .. but those suffering from Bush derangement sydrome, and vaulting hatred of Jefferson's descendants gloss that over.

REPEAT AFTER ME LOSERS:
Democracy in the world in the BEST ***LONGTERM*** SOLUTION FOR THE SAFETY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The SINGLE war we face is GENERATIONAL and COMPLEX.

Iraq is ONE CAMPAIGN in that war.

Our enemies have already made the call to us to heed the Word.
All the steps which follow, are compulsory to them, and can be read thru the history you hide from.

Start here, and here, and here.

[gringoman]

Sorry, I should have added as a postscript, a little reminder: long-time gringo fave, the bright and beautiful Monica Crowley, debuts her national show on ABC radio today. (details monicamemo.com) Reccommended to liberals who feel battered by Ann Coulter.

[gringoman]

Today's Western emasculato--whether in its Euro or American form--instinctively hunkers in a safe haven. It can tell the difference between a safe enemy and a truly dangerous enemy who will not play by the rules---the rules that permit these "courageous dissenters" to breathe air and keep their polemical heads intact. Some can even manage a facade of cleverness. And in a way some of them, at least, are clever, even psychologically adept. They show us how to sublimate cowardice.

[DavidByron]

Something that struck me on the ocassion of the third anniversary of the war is that Republicans just cannot seem to admit to being wrong about anything. You almost feel embarassed on their behalf because they have no sense of shame. On the issue of the Iraq war Republicans couldn't have been more wrong. Everything they said, and they always say everything with an air of total certainty, was proven totally false. But there's no, "my bad" or "mea culpa" moment.

Like their great leader, George Bush, they cannot think of a single mistake they might have made.

Most Republicans still think Saddam was behind 9-11. Most Republicans actually think WMDs were found in Iraq. Total denial of the real world, just as their Great Leader dismisses reality with his magical thinking. These people appear to have no sense of dignity.

Admiting you were wrong is hard but it shows and builds character. Republicans need to quit all this idiotic pretense and admit they were flat out wrong. Everyone knows they are wrong. It's not convincing anyone anymore to just keep repeating the same big lies again and again and again.

Repeat after me folks:

There was never a link between Iraq and 9-11
There never were any WMDs in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was never a threat to America.

You were all conned. Now you all have Stockholm Syndrome as you run to defend the people who lied to you.

It's very hard for me as someone trying to understand the thinking around here, to get past this huge denial of relaity going on here. It's very hard to see any kind of explanation for what Republicans think other than in psychological terms, not rational terms.

Please. It's time to stop the nonsense.

[DavidByron]

You're like a conspiracy theorist but one who has to dream up conspiracies to _defend_ the government. That's insane. Bush has many times admited there were no WMDs and no links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam but you have to concoct a conspiracy theory to explain why Bush is lying to protect.... no, to _attack_ himself?

Why in your view is Bush lying to undermine his own case Alexandra?

Today, all is turned upside down; their ideological heirs are the ones who bury their heads in the sand and pretend Islamofascism doesn't exist, poses no threat to them or indeed to us all.

The lefties are all over the threat of fascism. They just realise it isn't going to come from Iran but from the American far right. Probably the best site to read for all this stuff is Orcinus. Have you had the opportunity to read his series on fascism?

As I've said before the Iranian president would fit in right at home in the Bush administration. All these religious whack-jobs are right wingers and your natural allies. They agree with the far right in America on all the issues other than US foreign policy. In the case of Osama bin Laden and the Mujaheddin even on foreign policy they have agreed with America as much as disagreed. And now Bush is taking a liking to the proto-fascist fanatical Hindu bunch in India - where the nuclear weapons are named after their deities. Face it; the religious right in these other countries are just like the religious right in America.

The Iranian "islamofascists" are pro-death penalty, anti-gay, pro-traditional women's roles, pro-mixing religion and state, pro-"values" and anti-abortion. They are the Republican party with a beard.

But Iran doesn't have the military / industrial complex necessary to offer a real threat of fascism. America is where the real threat of fascism lies.

Bush, the Nazis and America

Rush, Newspeak and fascism

These are in the form of a series of blog diaries - follow the links. Quite long.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

As a European liberal I can say that not every liberal is ignoring it. In fact, in Europe it are, again, the liberals who are adressing this problem. Ayaan is, for instance, member of Parliament for the liberal party the VVD. The VVD is the party who pushed through some serious anti terrorism laws.

The ones who are / were ignoring the problem are the socialists in Europe, not the Liberals.

[zipper]

rejection of the Creator

willfull blindness

love of death