"The Path To Hysteria"

 

Certain things need to be just left alone and appreciated in their entirety. Cyrus Nowrasteh's response to the rabid crazies in yesterday's Wall Street Journal is one of those essays. He wrote the screenplay for "The Path to 9/11" and lived to regret it.  TigerHawk  aptly concludes, "When conservatives try to discredit somebody by reference to race, religion or other suspect affiliation, the world justifiably howls in outrage. Manifestly liberal newspapers seem to live by a different set of rules. Why?"

So, without further ado, let Cyrus speak:

I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for "The Path to 9/11." I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.

My Iranian parents fled tyranny and oppression. I know and appreciate deeply the sanctuary America has offered. Only in this country could a person such as I have had the life, liberty and opportunity that I have had. No one needs to remind me of this--I know it every single day. I know, too, as does everyone involved in the production, that we kept uppermost in our minds the need for due diligence in the delivery of this history. Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events--and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report.

It would have been good to be able to report due diligence on the part of those who judged the film, the ones who held forth on it before watching a moment of it. Instead, in the rush to judgment, and the effort to portray the series as the work of a right-wing zealot, much was made of my "friendship" with Rush Limbaugh (a connection limited to two social encounters), but nothing of any acquaintance with well-known names on the other side of the political spectrum. No reference to Abby Mann, for instance, with whom I worked on "10,000 Black Men Named George" (whose hero is an African-American communist) or Oliver Stone, producer of "The Day Reagan Was Shot," a film I wrote and directed. Clearly, those enraged that a film would criticize the Clinton administration's antiterrorism policies--though critical of its successor as well--were willing to embrace only one scenario: The writer was a conservative hatchetman.

In July a reporter asked if I had ever been ethnically profiled. I happily replied, "No." I can no longer say that. The L.A. Times, for one, characterized me by race, religion, ethnicity, country-of-origin and political leanings--wrongly on four of five counts. To them I was an Iranian-American politically conservative Muslim. It is perhaps irrelevant in our brave new world of journalism that I was born in Boulder, Colo. I am not a Muslim or practitioner of any religion, nor am I a political conservative. What am I? I am, most devoutly, an American. I asked the reporter if this kind of labeling was a new policy for the paper. He had no response.

The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham's possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father's outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.

"The Path to 9/11" was intended to remind us of the common enemy we face. Like the 9/11 Report itself, it is meant to enable us to better defend ourselves from a future attack. Past is prologue, and 9/11 is merely another step in an escalating Islamic fundamentalist reign of terror. By dramatizing the step-by-step increase in attacks on America--all of which, in fact, occurred--we are better able to see the pattern and anticipate the future. That was the point of the series, its only intention. Call it the canary in the coal mine. Call it John O'Neill in the FBI.

Despite intense political pressure to pull the film right up until airtime, Disney/ABC stood tall and refused to give in. For this--for not buckling to threats from Democratic senators threatening to revoke ABC station licenses--Disney CEO Rober Iger and ABC executives deserve every commendation. Hence the 28 million viewers over two nights, and the ratings victory Monday night (little reported by the media), are gratifying indeed.

"The Path to 9/11" was set in the time before the event, and in a world in which no party had the political will to act. The principals did not know then what we know now. It is also indisputable that Bill Clinton entered office a month before the first attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years then went by, replete with terrorist assaults on Americans and American interests overseas. George W. Bush was in office eight months before 9/11. Those who actually watched the entire miniseries know that he was given no special treatment.

It's good to have come to something approaching the end of this saga, whose lessons are worth remembering. It gave us, for one thing, a heartening glimpse (these things don't come along every day) of corporate backbone in the face of phenomenal pressure--and an infinitely more chilling one testifying to the power and reach of politically driven hysteria. A ripe subject for a miniseries, if ever there was one.

Very much in keeping with this theme is the realization, that "deniability of proxy war has led us to denying that there is a war":

One consequence of the politics of the last five years will be to ensure that such warnings will on no account be taken seriously. 'A sovereign state attacking America through proxies? Don't be ridiculous. Those are stories that neoconservatives tell. If there were secret links between terrorist enabling states and terrorists we would have found out.' Now whether such accusations were ever true in the past is immaterial. They won't be considered true in the future. Not because there is some physical or factual bar to its existence but a political prohibition of its utterance.

But the really harmful consequence of  not recognizing proxy warfare and addressing it openly is that it creates a subterranean world of countermeasures. A black market in defense. The present war is one no one wants to know anything about; that polite society wants to pretend doesn't exist. Viewed from one angle the history of Western counterterrorism is the history of concealment, with counterterrorism nearly as well hidden as their quarry. It is about faceless groups of men in pursuit of even shadowier figures across a secret landscape.

Don't miss reading the entire essay.

Comments

[nofate]

GD: you stated: Dominionism is an apocolyptic theology very similar to the Shia twelvers... oriented toward armageddon, and believing that people should prepare the earth, and even set the conditions for that final confrontation between good and evil.
LOL! And you are trying to associate George Bush with the dominionists. My only response is a question: do you really, sincerely believe there is any chance that a dominionist sect will be taking over this country and exercising the type of power that is routine in Iran? Forcing Jews to wear yellow badges, women to be covered on pain of severe punishment, men to have the absolute last word in any decision of a woman's life? My God, Ghost, there are men and women dying to preserve your right to say these asinine things, and keep the war in foreign lands as much as possible, and you belittle them with your alternative patriotism.
As I said before, no one is forcing you to convert to christianity or any other religion at the point of a sword. Yet.

[Darrell]

Kenny,
Rarely do I see your comments approach Ghost's cumulative total. And you don't make Alexandra carry a good portion of Wikipedia on her bandwidth by copying and pasting. Then there's that "responsive" thing... Perry Mason would have a field day with Ghost! "Objection!Irrelevant, immaterial and non-responsive!"

[Kenny]

Darrell,

Don't give the Ghost too hard a time over the length of his comments or I won't be able to comment, either...but of course that might well be a good thing.

[Darrell]

Ghost, I think I've found your problem...One of them, anyway. You are a COMMENTER here, not a POSTER. Get yourself a blog, pay the bills and post to your heart's content! What's the matter? Don't you think anyone will come to your "wedding"....er.. blog? Alexandra is much too tolerant with you. She must believe she's doing the world a favor by keeping you off the streets, or some such. I can't fault her generosity. As for you, Ghost, head for the light...

[Ghost Dansing]

"So, if I understand you correctly, which is doubtful, you are saying that Bush, et al, as proxy for the U.S. is the Christian equivalent of The Twelvers???"

You know, I thought so once... but Dubya has been talking "moderation" and "diplomacy" lately... really quite a change from the "axis of evil", "bring 'em on" days.

The things he's been saying recently, I actually agree with. He labels the enemy Islamic Extremism versus Islam. He says the extremists are against the forces of Democracy and moderation, and we are not attacking Islam...supporting the Islamic voices of moderation and tolerance.

"This is the great ideological struggle of the 21st century -- and it is the calling of our generation. All civilized nations are bound together in this struggle between moderation and extremism. By coming together, we will roll back this grave threat to our way of life. We will help the people of the Middle East claim their freedom, and we will leave a safer and more hopeful world for our children and grandchildren."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-4.html

The parallel to the Shia "twelvers" comes from Dubya's political heritage. You see, Dubya's political job in his Daddy's administration was to court that sliver of pseudo-christianity known as the "christian right".

The "christian right", includes amongst it's numbers not only fundamentalists and evangelicals, but denominations and sub-denominations that have incorporated dominionist theology into their beliefs. Dominionism is an apocolyptic theology very similar to the Shia twelvers... oriented toward armageddon, and believing that people should prepare the earth, and even set the conditions for that final confrontation between good and evil.

In order to court this political sector, Dubya either aped their language, or whole heartedly converted to their theology.

His comments and rhetoric in this vein continued through his campaigns and his career as President.

Read Kevin Phelps... but there are many other articles on the subject, and, yes, I think Dominionism is a dangerous theology, if it is allowed to have the power structure of our government to implement its ideas.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3084

The results of such a condition we see in Iran. The fact that America is a Secular Liberal Democracy is what prevents Dominionists from dominating... the checks-and-balances keep them in check, and trust me... any Dominionist politician that articulated their "true beliefs" to the American People during a campaign would scare the bejeezus out of them.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

"The First Prince of the Theocratic States of America"

"It happened quietly, with barely a mention in the media. Only the Washington Post dutifully reported it.[1] And only Kevin Phillips saw its significance in his new book, American Dynasty.[2] On December 24, 2001, Pat Robertson resigned his position as President of the Christian Coalition."

"Behind the scenes religious conservatives were abuzz with excitement. They believed Robertson had stepped down to allow the ascendance of the President of the United States of America to take his rightful place as the head of the true American Holy Christian Church."

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

But lately, Dubya has actually sounds pretty moderate... reality set in in many ways... he can't kill them all and he knows it... and even Pat Robertson who tacitly passed the crown to the new "christian" leader of the world began to distance himself from the debacles, as failures piled upon failures.

But I do believe the theologies of both Dominionism and the Shia "Twelvers" are equally heretical, and equally dangerous... and another good reason why the trully Christian notion of tolerance for other religions (at least in its modern rendition) that led to the an ideal of Church-State separation within a Liberal Democracy, is probably best identified as trully inspired by God.

[nofate]

GD: if you allow our "christian" dominionists, and their "twelvers" to run the show, we'll probably have a self-fulfilling prophecy on our hands... because both sides are gleefully looking for the final reckoning, and think it must happen for the return of their respective messiahs.
Personally, I would prefer to let God decide on the whole armageddon thing, and not be one that helps it along
So, if I understand you correctly, which is doubtful, you are saying that Bush, et al, as proxy for the U.S. is the Christian equivalent of The Twelvers???
I'm about to give up on you Ghost. You are either purposely obtuse, or so far lost to the other side that only a severe trauma is going to get your attention. You remind me of a close relative by marriage, who when I stated that I thought George Bush was an honest, caring man who was doing what he thought best for our country, stated that she had just lost all respect for me. I just smiled and went to get another coffee. We can only lead you to the water Ghost. No one is forcing you at the point of a sword. Yet.
This conflates two separate issues. If you make it that way in your mind. Better minds than mine that know the legal ins and outs have determined that the FISA courts are useless when it comes to evolving, real time development of intelligence. Judges are political. Duh! As was pointed out for the whole country to see, in your favorite movie, The Path to 9/11, gathering and using real time intelligence by committee, doesn't work, whether arbitrated by judges or otherwise.
There was no melding of issues there, the statement stands as is, It is to admit that there are far greater dangers to our freedoms than terrorist surveillance programs and chilled members of al Qaeda. All it says is, there are larger issues. I don't see the nuance there, when playing with the nuance means accepting the right of murderous thugs to the same rights as american citizens. His job is to try to protect us. As far as I am concerned, they should be subjected to severe psychological torture, removal of korans, all religious paraphernalia, waterboarding etc. Let the professionals get the information. Deal with their poor little islamofascist, jihadst egos later.

[Ghost Dansing]

nofate, I was reading a bit more on a former post of yours... you intalicized:

"To admit the dangers of the intertwining of Iranian nuclear weapons development with a radical and apocalyptic eschatology is to admit that President George W. Bush is correct in his determination to prevent Iran from developing the ability to effect a religious nuclear war. It is to admit that there are far greater dangers to our freedoms than terrorist surveillance programs and chilled members of al Qaeda."

This conflates two separate issues. Dubya and company did not have to break with the Constitution to implement counterterrorist surveillance. FISA provided him with all the legal tools he needed to do surveillance legally... including 72 hours to surveil without a warrant. Not to mention, if he would have gone to Congress with any specific modifications needed, they probably would have granted it. At any rate, the FISA Court approved surveillance at a rate of nearly 99percent to begin with.

The same is true of the issue now with detainee procedures. If you watch closely to what is happening with the "compromise" between Dubya and the "Rebel Republicans", you'll see that it is a case of "Oz never did give something to the Tin Man, that he didn't already have". What Dubya will end up with is a legal way to do what he was doing anyway... but chose to circumvent the law.

[Ghost Dansing]

"GD: do you ever get dizzy from spinning?
In all the folderol from Chavez, it seems to be lost on the antique media what the real main event was, i.e. the threats by Ahmadinejad:
During Iran's President Ahmadinejad's address to the UN in September of 2005, 'Ahmadinejad called for the reappearance of the 12th Imam.' and said later he felt bathed in a green light as spoke to the world leaders."

Nofate, I wasn't spinning anything. We were talking about plagiarism, and then mac pointed out Chavez was actually using an old comedy schtick.

I know amahdinijad is a twelver... he evidently thinks armageddon is happening soon. I've said a number of times, if you allow our "christian" dominionists, and their "twelvers" to run the show, we'll probably have a self-fulfilling prophecy on our hands... because both sides are gleefully looking for the final reckoning, and think it must happen for the return of their respective messiahs.

Personally, I would prefer to let God decide on the whole armageddon thing, and not be one that helps it along.

Make no mistake, amahdinijad is a scary guy... and scary guys in power are even more scary.

[nofate]

More on the Ahmadinejad speech and the virtual antique media blackout at Newsbusters by Bob Owens. He points out that Ahmadinejad gave a speech with similar overtones last September, also at the U.N. In these speeches he is praying for the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. He also points out that Ahmadinejad belongs to a sect that was banned by the Ayatollah Khomeini because of it's extreme radicalism. They believe it is their mission to bring about the death and destruction necessary to bring about the second coming of the Mahdi. Amir Taheri states that Ahma... believes he was appointed president of Iran to bring about a clash of civilizations. The man believes that he was radiating a light during his U.N. speech last year and that the members that were present were taken by his presence.
If I'm not reading too much into it, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, second in command of al-Qaeda, also thinks the group he is part of is a little goofy: We see the 12-Imam Shiites as a group who have brought about heresy in Islam... Whoever believes in these claims after they were proven wrong is an apostate from Islam (more here).
It seems that the antiques are afraid to talk about these developments because to do so, they would have to admit to the "clear and present" danger that this absolute, but not stupid, nut presents.
To admit the dangers of the intertwining of Iranian nuclear weapons development with a radical and apocalyptic eschatology is to admit that President George W. Bush is correct in his determination to prevent Iran from developing the ability to effect a religious nuclear war. It is to admit that there are far greater dangers to our freedoms than terrorist surveillance programs and chilled members of al Qaeda.
Admit George Bush is correct? "Say, did you hear what that Hugo Chavez said over in Harlem this morning? He was really laying on ole Bush in a charming sort of way, don't you think?"

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

jess1dering, Hi there!

I learned a long time ago just to ignore Al Gore / Ghost Dansing (I once or twice ignored my own advice, and ..... the troll must feed!!).

Thank goodness for the scroll button, but I think Al is onto this, hence making his posts longer and longer, hoping we give up on the scroll button, or get cramped fingers, and get stuck in one of his meandering, boring, endless pieces of Al Gore-ish waffle. Kind of like taking the wrong turnoff on the New Jersey turnpike, and getting stuck in the middle of, well, nowhere.

So, it is much better to just develop a quick eye for Ghost-speak, as I have, and you can avoid much of this nonsense. Of course, if Alexandra charged a penny per character for a post, Al Gore would quickly smarten up.

On second thoughts, he wouldn't, he'd just, er.... yup, keep going after manbearpig.

So, on down the freeway of cyperspace we hurtle, keeping a sharp eye out for the wrong exits, the ones marked "Ghost-speak"

[nofate]

GD: do you ever get dizzy from spinning?
In all the folderol from Chavez, it seems to be lost on the antique media what the real main event was, i.e. the threats by Ahmadinejad:
During Iran's President Ahmadinejad's address to the UN in September of 2005, 'Ahmadinejad called for the reappearance of the 12th Imam.' and said later he felt bathed in a green light as spoke to the world leaders.
In his recent letter to President Bush, Ahmadinejad states that "changes happen fast and come at a furious pace" and that "the world is gravitating toward faith in the Almighty and justice." Read in light of Ahmadinejad's purported subscription to the esoteric, apocalyptic return of the 12th imam, the epistle to Bush appears menacing indeed.

Regime Change in Iran reported back in October of 2005 that

The most important contemplating issue is that a large number of Ahmadinejad's close allies are talking about preparing the grounds for the hidden Imam's imminent manifestation and seriously and explicitly relate it to Iran's nuclear program. Based on informed sources in their conservative inner circles, they believe that resisting the international pressures and insisting on Iran's right to have nuclear capabilities will help the manifestation of the 12th Imam.

(emphasis is theirs)

And more importantly,

they actually believe in the spread of tyranny and oppression. They argue that if the Lord of All Ages is to appear when the world is full of oppression and tyranny, then we ought to help spread evil, tyranny and oppression in order to facilitate the coming of the 12th Imam, Mehdi.

Twisted but rational?
From The Cool Blue Blog.

[Ghost Dansing]

Sheesh...even the neo-commies can't be original! mac, that sounds like something Bob Hope would say at a USO show..."goodness, what a smell of sulfur!"

Chavez should have had the band go 'ba boom' at the punch line. Everybody's a commedienne.

[mac Brachman]

News of the day: Sr. Chavez, the imminent Pres. of the Republic of Venezuela, earns himself much press and attention by referring to GWB as "El Diablo" at the podium of the UNGA, and then, copping Billie Burke's lines (as Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, in the film version of the Wizard of Oz) when she comments on the Wicked Witch of the West's (Margaret Hamilton) smoky exit: "goodness, what a smell of sulfur!" Ha ha; as Jackie Gleason would say, a regulah laff riot. Later in the day, the esteemed Chavez earns plaudits, including a standing ovation, from the herd of independent minds that calls itself the New York intellectual elite when he calls Bush a "war criminal" in a speech at Cooper Union. What sort of reception do American diplomats get when they visit Caracas?

Shalom and Shanah Tovah to all, Mac Brachman

[Ghost Dansing]

"I don't believe for one moment that we are in Iraq for altruistic reasons. I believe we are there in an attempt at self-defense through trying to create " a new kind of Middle East" It seems to me , that only a fool would ignore a wild fire headed toward his home just because the flames weren't yet licking at his ankles."

Jess, you read Ghost Dansing just fine. What draws most flak in my direction is the insistance that the firefighters be effective, and not misdirected.

I sense sometimes that people resent me because I don't "debate", per se. Debate is a good thing... however, for many it is not so much the veracity of content, as it is a bag of tricks used to "win". There has to be a "winner" and an "loser"... in formal debate, as we know, there are points assigned by judges, mainly on form. In formal debate of this nature, the actual content becomes almost irrelevant... the style of one-upsmanship is what get's the points, and "wins" the debate. The "winner" can have content that is wholly garbage...and still win.

Interestingly, I found some comments on the Right Wing News, under "Stupid Debating Tricks -- 9 Of My Least Favorite Debate Tactics".

The Author, John Hawkins says:

"As you'd expect, I've spent a lot of time arguing with left-wingers. As a result of those discussions, I've learned a lot of the little tricks the left -- and yes, sometimes those on the right -- like to use when arguments are going against them. Here are some of those techniques..."

1) Attack The Messenger: Instead of addressing the argument that has been made, people using this method attack the person making it instead. This is particularly easy for many delusional people on the left who believe that almost everyone on the right is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Fascist who longs for the return of the Confederacy and is planning to start throwing leftists in prison camps if they let their guard down for five minutes. The charge made doesn't even have to be accurate, in fact it's better in some ways if it's off target. That's because the more whacked out the charge is, the more compelled your opponent will feel to spend his time defending himself while you continue to make your points.

2) The Bait & Switch: When a claim is made and your opponent refutes it, don't try to respond, simply change the subject. Example,

Lefty Debater: I think we all know what kind of job George Bush has done with the economy. Right off the bat, he got the economy into a recession.

Conservative Debater: Excuse me, but you're incorrect. The recession started under Bill Clinton, not George Bush.

Lefty Debater: Well what about his tax cuts? They're for the rich, the rich I tell you!

Conservative Debater: What about getting rid of the marriage penalty and increasing the child tax credit? Are you arguing that only rich people get married and have kids?

4) Enter The Strawman: Tremendously exaggerating your opponent's position and then claiming to fight against a position they don't hold is always a great way to dodge the issues. In all fairness, this is a technique often used by the left & right. But still, the right can't hold a candle to the left in this area. I mean how many times have you heard, "Republicans are going to take your Social Security away," "The GOP wants to poison the water and the air," "Republicans want to take away your Civil Rights" etc, etc?

5) History Will Be Kind To Me For I Intend To Write It: The technique is similar to using strawmen in some respects. What you try to do is to rewrite history, to claim that a debate in a previous time was different than it actually was. Here's an example of how this is done,

Mother: I told you to be back by 11 PM and you're just getting in at 1:30 AM!

Teenage Daughter: I don't think I remember you mentioning that...

Mother: I told you 3 times to be in by 11, I left a note reminding you on the dinner table and snuck one into your purse, I called you on your cellular phone at 10:30 and reminded you to make it home by 11 and I even told your boyfriend he'd better have you back in time.

6) I'm Not Hearing You -- La La La: Just totally ignoring what your opponent has to say and going on to something else is another technique often used by politicians of all stripes, but no one, and I mean no one, can hang with Yasser Arafat and company when it comes to totally blowing off any uncomfortable questions that are asked. For example...

Moderator: So Mr. Arafat, are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad?

Arafat: The Israelis want to kill me! They are causing all the problems! We want peace, but the Israelis don't!

7) Motives Matter, Results Don't: Oftentimes when people on the left are losing an argument or can't explain why they seem to be so inconsistent on certain issues, they start questioning the motives of their opponents. For example, if you favored going to war with Serbia based on nothing more than humanitarian grounds, then logically you should also be in favor of invading Iraq for exactly the same reason. But of course, that's not how it works for a lot of people.

8) That Context Is On A Need To Know Basis: Stripping away the context of a situation is a favored technique of people who hate the United States. They talk about something the United States has done without discussing the reasoning behind it, the actions that provoked it, or other things that the United States might have also done that would place us in a more favorable light. It's very easy to make someone look like a bad guy if you simply don't include every detail that doesn't support your case.

9) That's Mean, Mean, Mean! When it comes to certain subjects, ordinarily rational people turn into complete bubbleheads. For example, you could probably put together a bill that called for nuclear waste to be dumped in every Walmart in America and as long as you called it the, "Feed The Children For A New Tomorrow Bill" about a 1/3rd of the American population would support it. So naturally, some people take advantage of this and claim that certain policy proposals are "mean". Once you say that, results, logic, how expensive the project is, etc, etc, goes out the window and the argument becomes over whether someone is "mean" or not." (end quote)

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/stupiddebate.php

These are but a few. John Hawkins, of course, uses the classic "lefty" themes that he hates to illustrate. But the point is that most "debate" of this nature has degenerated in a circular back-and-forth that simply regurgitates the same themes over and over again... and people get more and more angry... more and more sore.

I've had a couple references here by posters that are angry at other posters on the Democratic Underground or KoS, or wherever... and they're pounding on me like a bobo doll because of a bad experience elsewhere.

Actually, my opinions here have been pretty clear. I'm moderate and Liberal...and I believe Liberalism breeds moderation, and moderation is the remedy for extremism of all types. I believe the Republican Party was once a good political party... Some great Presidents like Eisenhower. "Good", of course, in my framework means moderate and pragmatic. Unfortunately, the ruling wing of that Party has pushed so far to the right, that even right-of-center moderates, from both parties, are habitually referred to as "leftests", and "the militant left". I've said before, I agree with Huey Long:

"If fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag."
"Of course we will have fascism in America but we will call it democracy!"
He also said:
“Don’t say I’m working for niggers. I’m not … ‘Every Man a King’ means every man, niggers along with the rest, but not especially for niggers.”

At any rate, you'd pretty much have to go to a museum to find serious Communists in the United States these days... it is a little different in Europe, and it seems that South America will soon give us some Commies to worry about again.

I've challenged hyperbole, straw dog arguments, and my favorite, where someone wants to engage in "debate" but "they" get to set the rules and determine the format. I call that the "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" approach to "debate"... where you have to tacitly assume all the other guy's assumptions and propositions before you begin "debating".

Typically my posts are more or less "factual" and encyclopedic in nature. Yes, encyclopedias can be wrong... but they tend to suffer more scrutiny than one's individual opinion.

Often I have the sensation that, like, and entire chunk of history is being omitted from the discussion... that actually happens quite frequently... even in the discussion of the Pontif's remarks. Greek philosophy DID influence Islam... but there are different schools of thought in Islam, just as there are in Christianity and Judaism and Buddhism and Hinduism, etc.

I was listening to the BBC this morning, and a commentator interpreted the Pope's remarks as meaning Christianity cannot dialogue directly with Islam because for Christians God is reason, and the Muslims didn't have that Greek influence... well, I think he's wrong. Everybody has the right to be wrong. I don't think the Pope wanted to incite a firestorm at all, and a proper reading of his lecture would suggest that he was actually trying to open the door to reasonable dialogue.

Anyway... I don't debate in the style of the little flame-wars that jumped from internet USENET areas into the BLOGOSPHERE... and as Kenny once pointed out, I am seldom trying to argue a particular point of view... being a Liberal I see many and have toleration for many points of view.

Oh, and plagiarism is a serious thing... but not so much in this context... it is an acadmic and commercial issue. Nobody commenting on weblogs conscienciously and consistently exercises proper format and attribution for either the specific words, or ideas of other authors. I'm able to do it, and when everybody else does, I will too... but then we'd be posting finished academic papers, and not just throwing ideas around... I suspect the comment section would slow down considerably, and we'd probably have to have a footnote capablity, and a section for our references and bibliographies.

Keep in mind plagiarism is not illegal, and there are already many instances in which even the most academic collections and compilations are excused...see for example: American Historical Association, "Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct" (2005)] regarding textbooks and reference books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

Plagiarism is not an issue when organizations issue collective unsigned works: since they do not assign credit for originality to particular people,[1], there is no question of taking credit for someone else's work. Many reference books, textbooks and encyclopedias do not cite their sources.

Technical manuals routinely copy facts from other manuals without attribution, because they assume a common spirit of scientific endeavor in which scientists freely share their work. The Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications Third Edition (2003) by Microsoft does not even mention plagiarism, nor does Science and Technical Writing: A Manual of Style, Second Edition (2000) by Philip Rubens.

Also, the charge of "plagiarism" is also used as a last-ditch attack when the ideas or facts conveyed are difficult to refute.

I try to pay some diligence to attribution... but I'm not obsessed by it... I'm not publishing anything for money, nor am I seekin academic credit or degree.

I'm just posting on a blog.

[jess1dering]

"..........and an infinitely more chilling one (glimpse) testifying to the power and reach of politically driven hysteria."
This line is what grabbed me. SOO true.
*******************************************
Steve ,
Your observations were very well put , indeed.
For some reason it is crystal clear to the few, but oh my goodness, the inroads the liberal media is making in the "many".
I am so relieved to see that Bush is speaking up a bit.

To All,
I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but I never read Ghost. My thoughts are sometimes faltering and faulty, but at least they are mine. I cannot abide plagerism. I also find it tedious to read and consider what someone has written , and to respond to that writing only to be dismissed or ignored. I probably would keep reading him ( or her ) if there was a pattern of respectful response to the inquires of ANYONE, but alas, that is NOT the case. People warned me about this when I first encountered GD. ANYWAY...............
I don't believe for one moment that we are in Iraq for altruistic reasons. I believe we are there in an attempt at self-defense through trying to create " a new kind of Middle East" It seems to me , that only a fool would ignore a wild fire headed toward his home just because the flames weren't yet licking at his ankles.

[jess1dering]

"..........and an infinitely more chilling one (glimpse) testifying to the power and reach of politically driven hysteria."
This line is what grabbed me. SOO true.
*******************************************
Steve ,
Your observations were very well put , indeed.
For some reason it is crystal clear to the few, but oh my goodness, the inroads the liberal media is making in the "many".
I am so relieved to see that Bush is speaking up a bit.

To All,
I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but I never read Ghost. My thoughts are sometimes faltering and faulty, but at least they are mine. I cannot abide plagerism. I also find it tedious to read and consider what someone has written , and to respond to that writing only to be dismissed or ignored. I probably would keep reading him ( or her ) if there was a pattern of respectful response to the inquires of ANYONE, but alas, that is NOT the case. People warned me about this when I first encountered GD. ANYWAY...............
I don't believe for one moment that we are in Iraq for altruistic reasons. I believe we are there in an attempt at self-defense through trying to create " a new kind of Middle East" It seems to me , that only a fool would ignore a wild fire headed toward his home just because the flames weren't yet licking at his ankles.

[igout]

Every few centuries the islamix go beserk, and it's only our national narcissism to think that we caused their latest outbursts. The Neocons, who are idealistic liberals with guns, attempted a noble experiment: to inject the patient with democracy. Maybe it'll take, maybe not. If not there's always the good old Western therapy of prodigious slaughter, whifch wouldn;'t break my heart. But I still think it's worth sounding out the oil-needy nations about taking over the whole nuthouse and taking the oil.
signing off for a while. Keep the faith, we'll get through this.

[Michael van der Galien]

Stop making money. Start posting.

;) :p

[Ghost Dansing]

condecension = condescention
Try the tactic again and the caps drop buddy :P

[Ghost Dansing]

I gave you my personal views RR, and you asked for a referenced papers... arrogating to yourself that you are somehow my mentor. There was everything in those references to answer your questions, and more... even the dissenting views.

The Project for a New American Century is a neoconervative (and there is a difference between neocons and conservatives) that has well documented positions.

The position on Iraq is exemplified by a 1998 memorandum to Clinton... arguing for the necessity of invasion. There was a complete corpus of ideology behind that memorandum, well represented by the rhetoric, intentions and actions of Paul Bremer, when he was appointed head of head of the Coalition Provisional Authority. He reported only to the U.S. Secretary of Defense and exercised authority over Iraq's civil administration. He served in this capacity from May 11, 2003 until limited Iraqi sovereignty was restored on June 28, 2004.

The administration was forced to abandon that strategy a in a comparitively short time due the insurgency, primarily, but other facts on the ground.

Neoconservative ideology was a gadfly academic point of view who's adherents had been trying implement in government foreign policy for years... at least going back to George H. Bush.

The ideology was embraced by Dubya's administration after 9/11, and was a radical departure from the foreign policy and world view that he had articulated during the 2000 campaign.

Specifically on the issue of Iraq, after all the original, public "reasons" for going into Iraq began to unravel, only one has survived the test of time, at least in rhetoric. That one reason was the classically PNAC, neoconservative, reasoning that the Iraq intervention would result in a secular, democratic, captitalist government (also Liberal, but neocons don't use the term), that would be the envy of the Middle East, creating a catalyst for liberalization throughout the region.

That theory is nothing more than a reverse-domino theory... where a region systematically succomes to waves of democracy, instead of waves of communism (in the old rendition).

Victory in Iraq is still tacitly defined as at least the initial stage of this presumed phenomenon. Specifically, Iraq becomes a Liberal Democracy.

That isn't going to happen anytime soon... rather than stabilize the region, the actions in Iraq have destabilized the region...internally on the verge of Sunni-Shia civil war that has the potential to spill over its borders into regional Sunni-Shia conflict. Even at the roots of Islamic extremism directed at Israel and the West, Iraq has created a condition in which Sunni and Shia governments are competing for leadership in the Muslim world... Saudi Arabia versus Iran, for example... but not to exclude Egypt, Syria and others.

Rather than reduce the potential for global terrorism, the actions in Iraq have established a destabilized "play ground" for international jihadists, just like the Afghan war did during the Soviet period... and to some degreee reestablish a sanctuary where one was lost in Afghanistan.

The redirection of forces from Afghanistan, the original and correct intervention after 9/11, has found now, some years later, the resurgence of the Taliban with its al qaeda clients, and NATO asking for more troops in a shooting war that they didn't expect.

You assume an awful lot RR... your inability to grasp what I was saying originally is either based on some limitation in your exposure to current events and ideas, or it was a deliberate, and disingenous pose of condescention intended to discredit my opinion, without actually addressing it.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[Ann]

An incredible post, thank you.

[RunningRoach]

Hi Alexandra!

Just wanted to acknowledge you and your great post, while, as a guest, I attempt to have a rational debate with another guest. I continue to be an eternal optimist.

Ghost,

When you address me please capitalize my name as I do yours. It’s just a matter of mutual respect, and as you’re elder I believe I deserve it.

Well, let’s see. You addressed my first question with the names Cheney, Wolfowitz and the greatest SecDef ever, Rumsfeld. Ok. So, here we have your neo-cons. Then you said that they urged an invasion of Iraq as part of a larger Middle East policy. By the way I believe the paper(s) you reference was/were a suggested strategy and not adopted as policy unto themselves. Fair enough. I’m sure you didn’t overlook or forget that during the Clinton (happens) administration, he urged congress to enact legislation aimed at regime change in Iraq, which they (congress) promptly and nearly unanimously did. No problemo. The stage was set. Even though it was an act.

Then you enlighten me to the premise that many “others” (staff, planners etc.) had broader goals for the middle-east. Wow. That’s news! And that many disagreed with them. Wow! More news! I won’t debate whether there was linkage between Saddam and terrorist organizations, as day by day more evidence is being uncovered that makes moot many outdated lib memes.

Oh, can’t overlook your implication that our objective in the ME is oil. So what? Is that wrong? I subscribe to energy independence. Let’s make Iraq our next state! Screw the rest of the world! Too bad we don’t have the collective gonads to do that. Then we could really be the imperialist nation we are accused of being.

Then you went off on an inexplicable tangent, sometimes known as non-linearity and took me on a serendipitous trip down memory lane with none other than MARGARET WARNER of PBS shame. Barf. Notice the President was as linear, on target, on message and as committed as always. Clarity in the face of BS.

The rest of your quotes and references were of no interest. So,(he starts with a preposition) out of what, 15 questions I asked, you answered only one in standard lib talking points. Wow. Real impressive.

It’s sort of like you asking, “Hey Roach, are you getting any lately?” and I respond by quoting or referencing Wiki on “getting” or “lately”.

I was really interested in your personal views on these issues, and a rational explanation of your position. I guess I was asking more than you are willing or capable of delivering. I must say that I was a bit disappointed, as from time to time the somnambulant Ghost really appears.
Regards to you and our host,

JCC

[Ghost Dansing]

Answer the following…if you can:

1. Who, specifically are the neo-cons you reference, by name? Etc.

Maybe the professor should do his homework before asking strangers to write a paper. Cut and paste the answers, and I'll grade the test roach... oh... by the way, the neocons claim that their is no such thing as a "neocon" is really really lame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#Impact_of_2003_Iraq_War_on_Neoconservative_philosophy_and_influence
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2137208
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html
http://www.shockingelk.com/text/neoconservative/
http://www.theage.com.au/news/robert-manne/how-bush-got-into-this-quagmire/2004/05/30/1085855434740.html
http://ejt.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/3/307.pdf#search=%22theory%20iraq%20%22neoconservative%22%22

Prior to the election of George W. Bush as president, several members of the Bush team, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz wrote urging an invasion of Iraq as part of a larger Middle East policy. One document, published by the Project for the New American Century in September 2000 and entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century", stated, "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."[1]

In the wake of the September 11 attacks and the seeming relative success of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Bush administration felt that it had sufficient military justification and public support in the United States for further operations against perceived threats in the Middle East. The relations between some coalition members and Iraq had never improved since 1991, and the nations remained in a state of low-level conflict marked by American and British air-strikes, sanctions, and threats against Iraq.

Throughout 2002, the U.S. administration made it clear that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a major goal, although it offered to accept major changes in Iraqi military and foreign policy in lieu of this. Specifically, the stated justification for the invasion included Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction, links with terrorist organizations and human rights violations in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government, issues that are detailed below.

To that end, the stated goals of the invasion, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were:...

**Many staff and supporters within the Bush administration had other, more ambitious goals for the war as well. Many claimed that the war could act as a catalyst for democracy and peace in the Middle East, and that once Iraq became democratic and prosperous other nations would quickly follow suit due to this demonstration effect, and thus the social environment that allowed terrorism to flourish would be eliminated. However, for diplomatic, bureaucratic reasons these goals were played down in favor of justifications that Iraq represented a specific threat to the United States and to international law. Little evidence was presented actually linking the government of Iraq to al-Qaeda.**

Opponents of the Iraq war disagreed with many of the arguments presented by the administration, attacking them variously as being untrue, inadequate to justify a preemptive war, or likely to have results different from the administration's intentions. Further, they asserted various alternate reasons for the invasion. Different groups asserted that the war was fought primarily for:...

"...in pursuance of the PNAC's stated strategic goal of "unquestionable [American] geopolitical preeminence"...

For example, U.S. war planners were interested in U.S. military domination of the oil-rich Gulf region, the world's top supply of this most important resource, according to U.S. General Jay Garner, who was in charge of planning and administering post-war reconstruction in Iraq, explaining that the U.S. occupation of Iraq was comparable to the Philippine model: "Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East". "One of the most important things we can do right now is start getting basing rights with (the Iraqi authorities)", "I hope they're there a long time....And I think we'll have basing rights in the north and basing rights in the south ... we'd want to keep at least a brigade", Garner added.

Also, the House report accompanying the emergency spending legislation said the money was "of a magnitude normally associated with permanent bases".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

PBS ONLINE NEWS HOUR, 23 February 2003

"MARGARET WARNER: Last night, Pres. Bush laid out his argument that a post-Saddam Iraq could become a flourishing democracy.

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause) The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause)

MARGARET WARNER: The president further asserted that a democratic Iraq could transform the entire region in a similar way.

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap, so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. From Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause) It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world, or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim, is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Bush also said change in Iraq could be a catalyst for Israeli-Palestinian peace, and he said the U.S. would seize every opportunity to make that happen."

On 20 September, 2006, we've written off Anbar Province, the Kurds in the North and Shia in the South are clamoring for more autonomy. The elected central government is Shia-dominated, pro-Iranian, and is an Islamic Republic with weak control over the rest of the country... and we're building a moat around Baghdad.

So much for delivering the goods.
http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/PRIRAQCLAIMFACT1029.HTM

[nofate]

Saul: same thought here, nearly every single time.
GD: Guess I will never understand the nuance dripping from every undecipherable line of your posts. I've been trying, but you're so far over my head that my flyover mentality can't compute.

I defy anybody to find in Lakof or any other critic, where the central argument, or even an ancillary criticism of Dubya and the neocons includes the criticism that "they" (the neocons) are pointing to the employment of proxies where there is none. Sorry, but that's too much to wrap my mind around. I don't even want to try.
Put simply, Lakoff is a useful idiot in an intellectual cloak.
The "terrorists" attacked us, over and over again prior to 9/11, and they have continued to do so, though thanks to the "stupid" antics of George Bush and his administration, attacks have been thwarted so far, in this country. Iraq and other places, it continues. Who cares if they are proxies or not? They are islamofascists that want to kill us and are continuing to try to come up with the methods and means to kill the maximum number of us with any one event.
It has also become apparent that the Muslim religion is not "hijacked". It is written into the early teachings that non-believers are to be given deals that cannot be refused. A great moment int this whole war will occur when our leaders publicly state that Islam has to change it's policies regarding non-believers and, concurrently, the right of Israel to exist. Shari'a should not be a matter of state policy. Turkey got there, sort of, but is being severely undermined by Iran. Bush almost got to that point with his "islamic fascist" statement, but then backed off. Muslims that disagree are routinely slaughtered as well as their families. That is a matter of record. Do we really have to dig that up? (see Islamic Apostates' Tales, a review of a book by Ibn Warraq,an author who uses a psuedonym for fear of retaliation, ala Salman Rushdie) That is why so few of them have spoken up so far. If we cut and run from Iraq and Afghanistan, is that going to give them more courage to stand up? Maybe we should ask Lakoff Rhymes With...
As a caller named Chris (an airborne soldier who has been to Iraq and Afghanistan) stated to Rush: "The way to save American lives is to kill more of the terrorists." Until our policy makers state the equivalent, we are going to be wallowing in PC mush, getting more and more of our guys killed. Maybe you and all the other "Alternative Patriots" who undermine this country should be shipped to Iran to see if you can talk to them. This whole attitude just p****s me off so much I can't even make sense anymore.

[RunningRoach]

Ghost. You wrote, or more likely someone else wrote;
"The neocons are most harshly judged in America for not delivering the goods. They said an invasion of Iraq was going to solve the problem, and instead it has made it worse... none of their predictions came true, and a large part of it was because they proceeded incompetently, undermining any possibility that their "reverse domino theory" would work.
Now they are open to the criticism that even though they continue to insist on some non-defined "victory" in Iraq, they are unable or unwilling to commit the resources to do the job. Estimates run as high as a sustained troop commitment of 3-5 thousand troops, over years, in order to establish the security and stability needed to even give Iraq a chance at Liberal Democracy... a goal that has ostensibly been abandoned."

This is no more than a replay of an old scratchy recording of the endless drone of the leftist, ever-appeasing, elitists B.S. artists, blinded by their own lack of reality or rational sense of the war we find ourselves in, or in the alternative, leftist politicians who find themselves without the means to become something other than obstructionist and mostly irrelevant.
But I could be wrong. So I will give you an opportunity to demonstrate that I am way out there in left field, out of touch with reality and doomed to suffer the woes precipitated by my President, his Administration and the so called neo-cons.

Answer the following…if you can:

1. Who, specifically are the neo-cons you reference, by name?

2. Who in America is most harshly judging them?

3. What, specifically were the “goods” that they failed to deliver?

4. What “problem” was going to be solved by an invasion of Iraq? Was there only one problem that was identified?

5. Which “problem” was “made worse”?

6. What were the “predictions” that were made, and by whom?

7. Please list, with specificity, the instances, both strategically and tactically that were handled “incompetently”.

8. How would you have proceeded differently?

9. Please define the "reverse domino theory" that you reference.

10. Please describe and contrast the “non-defined "victory" in Iraq, with what you would put forward as a defined victory. Show your work.

11. Please establish the basis, in fact, that “they” are “unable or unwilling” to commit the resources to get the job done. What would you advise the President to do differently?

12. Please discuss and contrast the implications of “3-5 thousand troops, over years” in Iraq, as compared to 25-30 thousand troops in both Germany and Japan for 60 years after WWII, and nearly the same number in South Korea since the mid 50’s.

13. Please describe the evidence you possess that leads you to conclude that the goal to give Iraq a chance at Liberal Democracy has “ostensibly been abandoned."

Now if you can put some rational “meat around the bones” of this mini-rant, you will gain much more of my attention and respect than you have garnered in the past.

Regards,

JCC

[saul davis]

GD: Why is it that after reading 1-2 lines of a post (not including any quotes), I know that you are the commenter.

[Ghost Dansing]

**Don't be ridiculous. Those are stories that neoconservatives tell.**

Nobody is saying that. I chose Lakoff because he is a virulent opponent of neoconservatives, and this Republican administration... I defy anybody to find in Lakof or any other critic, where the central argument, or even an ancillary criticism of Dubya and the neocons includes the criticism that "they" (the neocons) are pointing to the employment of proxies where there is none.

"...no account be taken seriously. 'A sovereign state attacking America through proxies? Don't be ridiculous. Those are stories that neoconservatives tell."

In fact, the neocons leveraged the knowledge that such things do happen in order to make the case for an al qaeda-Iraq connection... a case that was unlikely, and didn't hold up under scrutiny... but that the American People would have accepted as a "possiblity" with little or no question, had Dubya and the neocons been effective.

But it isn't true that nobody believes such things (proxies) happen, or that they are not happening now.

The original author was simply setting up a straw man argument to suggest the neoconservatives are misunderstood, prophetic messiahs, martyred on the cross of their opponents doubt.

Not true.

The neocons are most harshly judged in America for not delivering the goods. They said an invasion of Iraq was going to solve the problem, and instead it has made it worse... none of their predictions came true, and a large part of it was because they proceeded incompetently, undermining any possiblity that their "reverse domino theory" would work.

Now they are open to the criticism that even though they continue to insist on some non-defined "victory" in Iraq, they are unable or unwilling to commit the resources to do the job. Estimates run as high as a sustained troop commitment of 3-5 thousand troops, over years, in order to establish the security and stability needed to even give Iraq a chance at Liberal Democracy... a goal that has ostensibly been abandoned.

That's why Dubya and the neocons are being criticized.

[Darrell]

"GD: I have to hand it to you; you certainly know how to play into the hands of those who believe you are a long-winded, smarter-than-thou, pedantic blowhard."

Actually we only believe the last word to be true... I'm exagerating to make a point....we also believe that "long-winded" accurately characterizes Ghost's comments.

Alexandra, great post! You never cease to amaze me and give me hope! That goes for most of the other commenters on ATB, as well. I even hold out hope for Ghost! Been on a horse on the road to Damascus lately? You should try it sometime!

[John Werntz]

Quite simply, Alexandra, thank you 1000 times. This is one for the GEMS file. I would have missed it, but for ATB.

[nofate]

GD: Did you see the planes hit the towers on 9/11/'01? Or did you see the towers blown up by the "Bushies"? Just wondering.

This is a classic straw man argument.
"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position..."

I have a perfect example for you by George Lakoff Rhymes With...(I didn't think of that myself, h/t to Rush), here.
Is al-Qaeda real? Is Hezbollah real? Is the Muslim Brotherhood real? Do these orginizations want to begin a constructive and fruitful dialogue with us? Did a nun get murdered as a response to the Pope attempting to begin a dialogue? Is this also a figment of the neocon's imaginations:

Like the translation of the Qur’an that Al Haramain distributed, one of the themes in Zino’s book was jihad... Zino instructs his readers that children should be indoctrinated in the glories of jihad from an early age: Teach your children the love of justice and revenge from the unjust like the Jews and the tyrants...On a page headed “Act upon these Ahadith,” the hadith being sayings and traditions attributed to Muhammad, Zino’s very first injunction reads: “The Last Hour will not appear unless the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them.”?
At least Lakoff gets one thing: the stupider they think George Bush is, the better off we are. I mean, how stupid was it to go in front of the U.N. and get in the faces (Chirac: "no more deadlines") of those august thugs? How embarrasing for you libs. What will happen to our already declining image in the rest of the world?

[mac Brachman]

GD: I have to hand it to you; you certainly know how to play into the hands of those who believe you are a long-winded, smarter-than-thou, pedantic blowhard (I'm not saying I necessarily believe that about you; just that your posts come across this way). Perhaps I am not one to talk; I like to display my smarts and sometimes go on at length as well, but I try, these days, to show a little self-awareness and keep in mind that a) to use a cliche: brevity is the soul of wit and b) the longer I maunder on, the more impatient others get and are willing to vent their bile upon me (justifiably). I suggest you not underestimate the intelligence or knowledge of most of the posters on this blog; your verbose dissertations distract from your arguments; they do not enhance them. Just a word of advice. Shalom, Mac Brachman

P.S. I wouldn't quote Lakoff if I were you. His social-semantics argument may fly in the precincts of Berkeley (my undergraduate alma mater, by the way, back in the '70s when I was a younger, and lefter, and naiver person, trying to escape the stifling influence of my Dallas upbringing, and where Prof. Lakoff has a tenured position), Cambridge, and the UWS of Manhattan, but they don't explain Bush's appeal in what another blogger calls flyover land, which is composed of real human beings and not the abstract, two-dimensional, straw-man (and straw-woman, so I can't be accused of being sexist) constructs of Prof. Lakoff's imaginings. Shalom, MB

[Ghost Dansing]

"One consequence of the politics of the last five yeas will be to ensure that such warnings will on no account be taken seriously. 'A sovereign state attacking America through proxies? **Don't be ridiculous. Those are stories that neoconservatives tell.** If there were secret links between terrorist enabling states and terrorists we would have found out.' Now whether such accusations were ever true in the past is immaterial. They won't be considered true in the future. Not because there is some physical or factual bar to its existence but a political prohibition of its utterance."

This is a classic straw man argument.

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.

Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical."

The examples he uses of al Qaeda and Hizballah are irrefutable examples of proxy warfare... however, in the case of al Qaeda, their capabilities and aspirations probably exceeded those of their Taliban hosts... but there is no doubt the Taliban shared a deep seated philosophy of hatred.

In the quoted paragraph, however, the author tacitly presents neoconservatives as the mistreated prophets of proxy warfare. I think he is trying to tacitly address the problem of the al Qaeda-Iraq link... but I'm not sure.

Proxy warfare is nothing new. All of the "hot battles" of the Cold War involved proxies warfare in one way or another... including Communist-backed terrorist groups.

In the case of Islamic Terrorists, all are proxies of those who support them from the camp of Islamic extremists (Sunni and Shia), whether they are national or transnational supporters.

Everybody knows hisballa is a proxy of Iran and Syria. Everybody knows al Qaeda is the proxy of Saudi, Pakistani and other Wahabist and Salifist supporters and doners around the world.

It doesn't take a neoconservative to point this "proxy" business out.

Criticisms of neocons is all about their ideological framework, and their incompetence, or "competence" in pursuing American goals.

Take a look at this article at "alter.net" to see why neocons are really criticized. It's not because they are poor, misundertood visionary messiahs:

"Bush Is Not Incompetent"
By George Lakoff and Marc Ettlinger and Sam Ferguson, AlterNet. Posted July 3, 2006.
http://www.alternet.org/story/38362/

[Jeremayakovka]

What a lesson in patriotism from Mr. Nowastreh.

[rich]

Green glow watch today at the UN.

As you might remember the last time Ahmadinejad spoke at the UN he saw a green glow.

The green glow shows that pistachios are not the only nuts produced in Iran!

[david foster]

"the death threats and hate mail directed at me"...I'm very concerned about the increasing willingness of the Left to use physical intimidation against their fellow citizens. One of the factors leading to the disintegration of the Weimar Republic was the growth of political street violence.

If there is a serious recession and the Left is able to recruit from among the angry and disaffected, what happens?

[Steve]

I too enjoyed Nowrasteh's piece. It's primary day here in Massachusetts, and I'm reminded of the adage that "all politics is local". It's become even more true I think. The outrage from the left over the mere suggestion that Bill Clinton may have some responsibility for failing to agressively combat terrorism is astonishing, yet expected. The political left now takes positions on every thing, every single issue, based on only one thing, how it will help them win elections. The war on terror isn't about our safety, it's about finding a way to spin to win elections. It's the only possible rationale for the attacks on such things as "agressive interrogation" (spun to be torture) and wiretapping foreigners for intelligence gathering (now some massive infringement of both 4th and 1st amendment rights). Gitmo, exaggerated abuses by our soldiers, it goes on and on. They could care less what actually happens and whether we are actually safe. Those considerations are irrelevant. Facts are irrelevant, it's all about creating "issues" with which to drive liberals to vote. In that context, when ABC suggests that Clinton was partly to blame for 9/11, the left saw one of their biggest falacious political "issues" at risk.

Strange that I should take this away from Nowrasteh's op-ed, but that's what jumped out at me. It highlighted for me just how illusory the "issues" of the left are. The Democrats are like Hallmark, manufacturing issues to sell their candidates and attack the Republicans. That's the ultimate result of a party that caters to interest groups rather than to ideals. I fear the Republicans falling into the same trap. Certainly the softness on immigration is in conflict with conservative ideals, but caters to both business interests and the growing hispanic vote.

[Randy]

Amazing... no other words ... amazing.

[Ernesto Ribeiro]

Guess WHO went to dinner?

Ahmadinejad in Venezuela!...

THE GATES OF HELL OPENED ON SOUTH AMERICA

More than ever, Latin America serves as sewer to the world scum...

THIS TIME nobody hit the streets calling the Iran rat 'nazist' or carrying posters saying "Ahmadinejad = Hitler" not even painted a moustache in his beard. Obvious: Colonel Hugo Chávez don't let. Left-Wing doesn't want.

For porpose: Iran's tentacle, Hezbollah, is in South America on Triple Border - and killed more than 85 victims in 2 bomb atacks against jews in Argentina in 90's.

http://inferno_.blig.ig.com.br/

the complete Islam files

[nofate]

Alexandra, thank you for putting up Nowrasteh's op-ed. That should shut a few people down. Maybe not.
It is alternatively laughable and maddening to be in "polite" intelligent company that insists that there is no war. That will change.