What I Want to Know... What Don't We "Get" About the War on Terror?

Following a link from Atrios, I was reading the list of RNC bloggers from the WSJ Online, available here.  There's a profile of each blogger, and here is blogger Roger L. Simon's reply to the final question:

Which presidential candidate do you plan to vote for in November?

Bush. First time ever for a Republican, but, hey, there's a war on and it seems the Democrats haven't grasped that.

Well, I for one don't grok why Simon thinks we don't grasp it.  But I'm fascinated.. because this piece of rhetoric is one I've encountered many, many times whenever I take a spin around the more conservative corners of the web.  Democrats don't "get" the war on terror.  Democrats fail to understand something fundamental to the war on terror.  Democrats aren't serious about fighting terrorism.  

This question was put more eloquently by Kossack 'tlaura' two days ago, when she asked:

What I don't understand is why self-proclaimed open-minded libertarian-Republicans like Carlson and Glenn Reynolds who are dissatisfied with Bush -- and they ought to be; he's not a conservative and on top of that he's a bungler and a fool -- keep playing this ridiculous "Kerry won't fight the war on terror" nonsense.  

There is simply zero proof that Kerry doesn't take the threat of terrorism seriously, nothing he's ever said, not votes he's ever made (despite the lame-ass, totally unconvincing voted-against-weapons arguments Rove has unsuccessfully pushed.)

So why do they think Kerry won't fight the war on terror?  

Is it..

• A piece of pure intellectual dishonesty used as a smokescreen by diehard GOP partisans who will, in fact, support Bush no matter how badly he screws up?
  
• Related to the Huntington thesis of a "clash of civilizations" and the assumption of many on the right that those who do not accept a highly debatable theory about this conflict cannot be capable of defending the nation?
  
• Related to the fact that John Kerry takes the threat of North Korea seriously as well - instead of shrugging his shoulders like Bush - and therefore, because he doesn't ignore other threats, he doesn't "get" Bush's approach?
  
• Bush "gets" the shaky and shadowy connection links the war in Iraq with Al Qaeda because he made it up, but those who believe in facts are nevertheless taken to task because they just don't get it?
  
• Kerry hasn't articulated a grand theory of how to handle the ever-changing mess in Iraq?
  
• Democrats suck at talking like cowboys?

Help me out here, I'm lost.

•  They're lying.

  Simple as that.

  They are lying sacks of shit. Racist fools, jingoist morons, and plain ol' dumbass shitheads.

  A simple google of Kerry+BCCI or Kerry+Iran+Contra, or a quick look at the wikipedia and disinfopedia pages on Kerry, BCCI, and Iran Contra will very quickly indicate to all but the most asinine of fools that:

  1. Kerry has been fighting the war on terrorism since before most of these fools knew what the fuck terrorism was

  2. Kerry has been more effective, more useful, and more disruptive to terrorist activity than Bush could ever hope to be - by breaking their bank, exposing their connections, and chasing down their links to various cartels, drug lords, money laundering schemes, Kerry helped set back terrorists, dictators, drug barons, and international evil-doers far more than the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan ever will.

  3. As is extremely clear from recent events, the MOST effective way to fight terrorism is with a combination of police work, intelligence collaboration across national boundaries, and money/document/electronic paper-chases. Examples abound, but let's just take a quick look at who has been captured in the last years, and how...Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Gailani? Noor-Khan? ALL the biggest hauls made in the last year - every single one - have come as a result of sleuthing and police work, bank records checks, electronic sniffing, and so on.

  So, they should get their fucking heads out of their asses before they suffocate.

  by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 12:32:44 AM PDT

  •  So right

    I was talking to the last of my friends who still plans to vote for Bush. You mention BCCI to him, and he laughs as if it was just a minor indiscretion at a neighborhood S&L. Iran-Contra? "Just your opinion!" The war on terrorism? "Clinton thought it was just a police matter!" Isn't it? If it's completely a military matter, who are we going to invade and occupy next? "Shut up, you just don't get it!"

    The "just don't get it" line is so popular with all the armchair chickenhawks who, in their mind, are full of steely-eyed resolve to face down this new threat, in stark contrast to all the mealy-mouthed liberals who want to actually understand the enemy and formulate a real counter-strike. Pathetic.

    by clang on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 02:33:16 AM PDT

•  the Iraq mindset thing.

  The mindset insists that Iraq was linked to terror and or 9-11.  Hell cheney still says it, even after the 9-11 commission.

  And therefore to them, if you don't recognize that Saddam was the head of Al Queda (as Stewart once joked), then you don't realize....

  by Al Rodgers on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 12:37:21 AM PDT

  •  right, right

    the ambiguous "mindset thing," that's how it looks to me.  I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt, aside from the snark in my original piece.. and to really ask, what is intrinsic to this mindset - presuming that some of the people who have it are not 100% blind-faith-based Bush supporters?

    by daria g on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:11:08 AM PDT

    •  Re: right, right

      "what is intrinsic to this mindset - presuming that some of the people who have it are not 100% blind-faith-based Bush supporters?"

      There is a coherent argument to be made that the Iraq war was part of the WoT.  On balance, I think this argument was wrong, especially when you factor in that the execution of the war was so badly bungled.

      But I don't think the basic notion was nearly as insane as many on our side would have.  I think the fact that the administration sold the war on lies, and used it to partisan advantage in the '02 elections, is a large part of the reason that we don't see what valid merits that mindset might have had.

      by NoDissentAllowed on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:27:48 AM PDT

      •  Really?

        There is a coherent argument to be made that the Iraq war was part of the WoT.

        You really believe that?

        OK, put your cards on the table and make the case.

        Sell me.

        I will destroy you.

        by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:32:14 AM PDT

        •  Re: Really?

          "OK, put your cards on the table and make the case.  Sell me."

          I also said I believed that argument on balance to be wrong.  I'm not trying to sell you anything.

          by NoDissentAllowed on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:37:45 AM PDT

          •  You said that you thought

            the argument was wrong - granted.

            But you also said that the argument was coherent - or at least that there was a coherent version of it.

            I dispute that.

            I do not think that there exists one single coherent argument, wrong or right, that could in any way present a logical or reasonable way to link the Struggle Against Terrorism with the Invasion of Iraq.

            Not one.

            by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:49:59 AM PDT

            •  a logical challenge

              well, I think this is wronger than either of you but I can make logical arguments that'll melt ice in alaska (it involves a space heater), so:

              The argument that could be made for the Iraq War is based on it's geographic locate central to the middle east, the home of the strongest anti-american terrorists.  It's a geographical argument.  

              by pyrrho on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 02:11:09 AM PDT

              •  But, see, even that's lame

                Not all the bad guys are in the Middle East. They're in Madrid, they're in Lisbon, and New York, London, Paris, Munich...and a swingles apartment complex in San Diego.

                Can we bomb those places? Hell, no.

                Even bombing Baghdad didn't do much. We killed a lot of innocent people and probably zero terrorists.

                We don't need Patton for this; we need Elliot Ness.

                by hamletta on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:09:58 AM PDT

                •  of course

                  the challange was to make an argument, even if it was wrong headed.

                  by pyrrho on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 11:58:37 AM PDT

                  •  The challenge was to make

                    a coherent argument.

                    THere simply is none.

                    by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 03:31:32 PM PDT

                    •  that was coherent

                      you don't understand geography?  It's wrong because it's far from the best plan, it's far from efficient, and it's far from achieving the goal.

                      But it IS coherent, because it makes sense in terms of coherence... it does not contradict itself.  It's an old military principle of putting your bases close to the source of the action.  

                      Plus controlling their oil is a strategic issue, also a coherent reason.  

                      If not, define coherence.

                      by pyrrho on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 03:35:48 PM PDT

                      •  Geography

                        has very little to do with terrorist activities.

                        Kashmir, Chechnya, Indonesia, Thai, Malaysia, Sudan, Somalia...and many other regions have very important, significant ties to and supporters of and participants in terrorist activities, planning, and funding.

                        The reason your argument is not coherent is because the action - invading Iraq - has little or no logical connection to the supposed target of that action - terrorists and terrorism.

                        Oil is a different matter, but I fail to see the coherence of an argument for stabilizing and/or gaining strategic control over oil supplies that involves having a war on top of them.

                        by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:04:56 PM PDT

                        •  intellectual excerise

                          disclaimer: as I said to start, I feel it's a stupid strategy in that it wouldn't work... going into Iraq is exactly the wrong way to go, it's a waste of resource in terms of reducing terrorism.

                          So it's sort of a word game or intellectual game I'm playing, I took that as a challenge.  

                          A coherent argument is one that is not self-contradictory, to put it as simple as possible.

                          That is, an argument which is not wrong because of evidence or miscalculation.  For example, the idea that supporting the troops means supporting the war... that's incoherent... you can't support troops by sending them to a war that is a bad idea.  To support the troops you have to judge the value of the war.  The geographic argument is antiquated... you make a good point against it but to my way of seeing it you didn't not show it was incoherent, just ill advised, because you have pointed to other geographic hot spots in addition to this one.

                          Just to be clear, I still stand by my idea of what coherence means... but I also think that invading Iraq is the worst thing we could have done in the "war on terror" for several reasons.

                          by pyrrho on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:30:34 PM PDT

•  This is the same crap David Brooks was spouting...

  .. during the Democratic convention.

  I think it's a talking point.  Period.  But guys like Brooks use it based on their other Republican predilections, particularly on social issues.

  It also is a cover for those who supported the war and are now desperately trying to justify that position in light of the massive mistakes of the administration.

  Hell, Friedman was essentially using this argument before he went on his book sabattical.  (He hasn't been missed, has he?)

  by Bob Johnson on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 12:51:43 AM PDT

  •  yeah

    ...that's three different people now.

    bob, you're up late.

    by Al Rodgers on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:02:02 AM PDT

    •  actually at least 4

      this guy, Baghdad Brooks, instacrap, and Tuck.

      by Al Rodgers on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:06:07 AM PDT

•  Its the Cornered Right Winger's Mythology...

  Pure and simple.

  When all else fails... point and cry 'He's a total pussy!!!"

  (forgive the term. Especially after all that deep intellectualism you delved into. But vularity aside... its the truth.)

  Republicans have traditionally claimed they have been the party of small government, limited taxation, and christian values...

  but being that President Bush has "wantonly expanded the size and intrusive power of the Federal Government more that any U.S. President since the administration of Lyndon Johnson" (Heritage Foundation barb), will end up spending hundreds of billions of tax dollars on a wasteful war of choice in Iraq, and didn't openly support Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument boondoggle or denounce his removal from the bench, he has some serious baggage against him for God and Country GOPers if they are allowed to focus their attention anywhere else.

  So... what does a Bushie have left?

  Simple:

  "Vote for Bush, or... or... or that other guy will get in... and he'll let you die. He will let people kill your children. He hates what America really stands for. He eats French cheese, drinks French wine, and even speaks French. Why, I even hear that 'some people' say he even scratched himself to get a medal!"

   

  by LeftHandedMan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 12:56:58 AM PDT

•  Democrats and War

  "Help me out here, I'm lost."

  Traditional GOP advantage on national security.

  A reasonably successful Republican effort to play the Iraq war as a wedge issue, forcing Democrats into an anti-war stance.

  A desire for moral clarity in the face of complex issues.  The Clash of Civilizations bullshit plays nicely into this.

  ---

  For a similar paradox, see the '72 election when McGovern's anti-Vietnam war stance was a liability in the face of a war a large majority of Americans already saw as a failure.

  by NoDissentAllowed on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:06:56 AM PDT

•  All of the above

  but I think the fundamental (appropriate word choice) failing of the right is that they believe in a process rather than an outcome. They have a worldview that says A, B, and C must be true (eg Iraq has WMD or an Al Qaeda connection or is just plain evil), and if we follow course X, Y, Z (overthrow Sadaam, democritize Iraq, use overwhelming military force), the results will fall into place automatically. It makes no difference if you can objectively prove they're wrong about the outcome, because they know the One True Way. It makes no difference that Iraq and terrorism aren't objectively connected, because they believe that they are.

  The important point though is that in their view, we have to follow the correct process - if the outcome we want is achieved by some other process, it's not valid (or moral, or whatever). If it wasn't "terror" it would be something else. It doesn't matter that Kerry and Dole were both wounded; what matters is their motivation for being on the battlefield or how they lived their lives after they got their medals.

  You can look at other issues the same way: it would be cheaper to abolish capital punishment in favor of life without parole. The result is the same but capital punishment is the only "right" method.

  Similarly, if you want to strengthen families, gay marriage is a pretty good idea, but gay marriage is simply "wrong" no matter what beneficial results it might produce. You can even invent imaginary negative consequences to prove it's wrong.

  You'll see the same attitude at work in fundamentalists or atheist right-wing libertartians - it's not the sole provenance of the fundies.

  It's not that the left doesn't have it's share of the same kind of people (Marxists and dialectic for example), but the left tends to focus more on people's real problems (jobs, healthcare, peace) rather than moral or philosophical failings. Pragmatism has always been more of a left-leaning philosophy that abjures a corner on the ultimate truth, but wants to agree on what we want to accomplish, and it's a truely American philosophy that reflects how a majority of Americans feel.

  I think that makes conservatives easier to manipulate by corporate interests or demagogues, who can (like Bush) pretend to believe in the "principles" but are ultimately interested only in money or power or their own perceived entitlements. It's harder to be manipulated when your real concern is that people have jobs or healthcare and you measure results by the ends and not the means.

  by badger on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:08:52 AM PDT

  •  Goddamnit

    will you people lay off the smears on Marxists?

    I am a Marxist, and I am hardly blind, dogmatic, fundamentalist, or unwilling to absorb or consider variations, viewpoints, or opinions outside my own.

    So, politely speaking, fuck off!

    by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:23:00 AM PDT

    •  Re: Goddamnit

      "Goddamnit will you people lay off the smears on Marxists?"

      Perhaps you're not aware that Marxism was fatally co-opted by Lenin.

      These days, the preferred nomenclature is 'socialist'.  That way folks know you're in favor of democratic elections, free speech, and regulated private property.

      Of course, you're free to continue calling yourself a marxist, but don't act surprised at the "smears".  Given the history of the 20th century, I don't think they're unjustified.

      by NoDissentAllowed on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:35:45 AM PDT

      •  Oh Bullshit.

        How about you do a bit of reading and research and get back to me when you know what you're talking about.

        If one wants to point at a "coopter" of Marxism, then one should be pointing at Stalin, not Lenin.

        Given the history of totalitarian state capitalism in the twentieth century, then one should rightly condemn such tendencies - Stalinist, Maoist, European, and American.

        Given the History of Capitalism in the last 300 years, or of Christianity in the last 1000, perhaps one should expect to be smeared for adhering to those credos as well...

        Fact check, petey.

        I am growing to like you - and because I like you, I am willing to crush you like a bug in this argument.

        by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:53:10 AM PDT

        •  Are you defending Lenin?

          You're not saying that Lenin was largely true to communism as defined by Marx, are you?  Soviet communism was Marxism in little more than name only.  The corruption of Marxist thought began long before Stalin grabbed the reins of power.  Stalin may represent the nadir of Soviet communism, but the soil was poisoned by Lenin.  Russia was an immature state, not ready for socialism, which is why it wound up with totalitarian perversion of Marxism.

          by Bragan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:22:56 AM PDT

          •  He was

            way closer to Marx than Stalin ever was. Truth in advertising: I am not a Russian historian, and the October Revolution is not something I have studied in depth. (I'm much more knowledgeable about Russia's role in the two world wars, since that's my major area of interest. But you can't really study that and not pick up at least a little something about the political history of the time.)

            My suspicion is that Russian communism would have looked vastly different had it been born at another time. When Lenin moved in on the power vacuum, he had an insurmountable pile of problems on his plate. Russia was deeply involved in a disastrous war that had been poorly contested for years, and which had polarized the populace. Russia was industrially, socially, and politically backward, and it was so huge in extent that centralized government had never really worked there. He also had restive non-Russian populations to contend with. There were food riots and all sorts of civil unrest (some fomented by his own Bolsheviki) to quell. Plus, the revolutionary movement had a history of being thoroughly penetrated by the tsarist secret police, and lifelong attitudes of suspicion and casual murder to protect oneself are hard to overcome.

            The result: Lenin more or less let things fall apart while he went to work solidfying his hold on power. Once his new government took power with blood on its hands, there was a certain legitimacy to that approach. Eventually, that led, by a more or less direct route, to the Stalinist cult of personality--and by the time Stalin shuffled off this mortal coil, there was no way to make the kind of fundamental changes in the Soviet system that would have been required to take it back to true Marxism.

            All that said, I will say that I think Marxism is fundamentally too narrow and distortive a lens through which to look at all of history. It has some important contributions to make in terms of the dynamics of class and power, but I wouldn't go much further with it than that.

            by musing85 on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:07:39 AM PDT

            •  You're going way too easy on Lenin

              Saying that Lenin was closer to Marx than Stalin was isn't saying much in that Lenin is much closer to Stalin than Marx.  Both Lenin and Stalin were brutal opportunists.

              Sure, conditions were terrible in 1917 Russia, but you almost make it sound like Lenin was a victim of circumstances rather than a prime factor in the development of the degenerate, inhuman Soviet state.

              by Bragan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:50:49 AM PDT

              •  Sounds to me

                as if you're arguing from your conclusion ("the Soviet state was degenerate and inhuman") and trying to find premises to support it.

                Lenin was not perfect in any respect. He was not a perfect Marxist. Neither was he a perfect human being. Yes, the system he set in motion was fundamentally flawed, as evidenced by the fact that it no longer exists.

                But to ignore the press of circumstances under which he set that system in motion is the wrong way to approach the problem. None of us operates in a vacuum, and if you treat people as if they do, you're missing large chunks of the picture.

                I'm not trying to paint Lenin as a saint, or to suggest that he was not responsible for his actions (at least to the extent that any human actor is). But I won't accept the hypothesis that Lenin was some kind of evil genius bent on destruction simply because it gave joy to his corrupted little heart--because that characterization distorts the available evidence beyond recognition just as much as the first one does.

                by musing85 on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:34:42 AM PDT

                •  Far beyond imperfection

                  To say merely that Lenin was neither a perfect Marxist nor a perfect human is tatamount to excusing George W. Bush's wide range of misconduct by saying he is not a perfect fundamentalist Christian (and perfect human).  

                  But I won't accept the hypothesis that Lenin was some kind of evil genius bent on destruction simply because it gave joy to his corrupted little heart
                  I never explicity or implicity stated such a hypothesis. I also noted that Russia was in terrible shape when he took control.  My point is that he made things worse.  Lenin was a reactionary given to extremism and driven, as most dictators are, by a thirst for personal power and with little concern for the welfare of others.   One need not look much further than the hundreds of thousand of "liberated" peasants(just as Bush liberated the Iraqis) that were killed and otherwise perished as a result of his brutal policies.  

                  What evidence do you suggest supports the notion that Lenin's intentions were mostly good even though the consequences were mostly horrible?  

                  by Bragan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:10:33 AM PDT

                  •  Land. Peace. Bread.

                    That was the Bolsheviki motto in the Revolution, as best I recall. Land for those who didn't have it. Peace for those who were tired of a stupid foreign war that was being grossly mismanaged at the cost of tens of thousands of Russian lives. Bread for those who were starving.

                    That doesn't sound like a very radical policy stance to me. True, thousands more died in the chaos that followed the Revolution. But as I pointed out in my original comment, Russia was (a) huge, (b) a multi-national empire rife with internal strife, and (c) traditionally incapable of being centrally governed.

                    Do I think Lenin wanted thousands of people to starve to death? No. I just don't think there was much he could have done about it that would have made any difference. Ergo, he chose to concentrate on what he could control and could fix.

                    by musing85 on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 11:03:53 AM PDT

                    •  Mottos don't make good policy

                      Like the Soviets, the Bush administration has a special talent for "up-is-down" slogans -- lipstick for policy pigs. But of course we know that "Clear Skies" doesn't mean the best policy for reducing air pollution, or that No Child Left Behind means that thousands of children won't suffer the consequences of the ill-considered, inflexible, poorly funded policy.

                      Thousands of people didn't just starve to death under Lenin, thousands were also imprisoned and killed under Lenin (the Gulag system began under Lenin, not Stalin).

                      by Bragan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 11:51:03 AM PDT

          •  You just engaged

            in this long, long exchange (I was sleeping here in Japan, sorry I could not participate) about Russia, Lenin, the Civil War, a bit about the World Wars, you touched on the Kulaks, collectivization, NEP, 5 year plans, and on and on and on...

            You condemn Lenin, call him a brutal, totalitarian, bloodthirsty opportunist, and while you DO allow for some mitigating factors in the sense that Russia was such a disaster by the time of the overthrow of Nicky, you seem to me to be leaving out something rather...ahem...important.

            Something so important and so decisively devastating, particularly targetted on the structure and integrity of what remained of the Russian state's coherence, something funded and supported, engaged in and staffed by domestic and foreign foes of the Revolution.

            You mean to tell me that you entered into a discussion of the Russian Revolution and you didn't even see fit to mention the civil war and its impact on the development of the state?

            You mean to tell me that you are attempting to discuss the evolution of the Russian government and political structure without discussing the presence of as many as 17 foreign armies on Russian Soil for up to 4 years?

            And yet you feel yourself qualified to condemn Lenin?

            That's pretty lame.

            by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 03:30:26 PM PDT

            •  Re: You just engaged

              "And yet you feel yourself qualified to condemn Lenin?"

              Dictatorships have a bad name, whether they're dictatorships of the proletariat or not.

              And justifiably so.

              As someone with better wordsmithing skills than I once opined:

              But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
              You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

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

              "I was sleeping here in Japan..."

              A very tangential story you might enjoy:  I was reading a history of Zengakuren in my local family restaurant, and when the mom & pop saw the book, they nervously questioned me and almost kicked me out.

              by NoDissentAllowed on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 05:44:25 PM PDT

              •  Facile

                extremely so.

                While I certainly am open to and have willingly engaged in criticism of Marxists from Marx on down the line, your one-off one-liner is just shallow.

                by RedDan on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 01:45:37 AM PDT

                •  Re: Facile

                  Facile perhaps, but it really is the core of the matter...

                  Spout a political label that implies opposition to democratic elections, free speech, and regulated private property, and be prepared for some well deserved derision.

                  What's wrong with wanting to be Sweeden instead?  Democratic Socialists of the world, unite!  You have nothing to lose but your lack of guaranteed health insurance and decent vacation time!

                  by NoDissentAllowed on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 01:58:11 AM PDT

•  If I yell "Tacitus"

  in a crowded blogosphere will someone from the right show up here & lay down some knowledge?

  by daria g on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:14:26 AM PDT

  •  You actually have to

    Light up the Tacitus signal.

    by Slade on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:18:14 AM PDT

  •  Head on over

    to tacitus for a minute, and take the time and effort to try and read through the tripe that passes for so-called reasoned argumentation over there...

    Facts mean nothing.

    Impeached and unreliable witnesses mean nothing.

    It's stunning, really.

    What can you say in the face of blatant, willful, knowing, and obliging stupidity and blindness?

    Example:

    I diaried about John O'Neill's recently revealed conversation with Nixon..."I was in Cambodia on a Swift Boat" in contrast to his recent statements on the TV circuit and from his book..."I was never closer than ~50 Miles from Cambodia"...now contrasted with his MORE recent "clarifications" of the apparent contradiction "I was never closer than 100 yards"...

    The response to this?

    "Can you prove that O'Neill was never in Cambodia?"

    My jaw dropped and my eyes glazed over - it's really amazing.

    Here's the link Stunning stupidity at Tacitus

    by RedDan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 01:30:40 AM PDT

•   Democrats suck at talking like cowboys?

  That's close enough.

  It's all euphemistic about having morals and being squimish about killing... "we need a berserker!!!!"

  I understand terrorism.  It's a police action but on a military scale.  That makes it special operations.  Train Rumsfelds high tech army... why did he want to use that to take over a country... nation states are so 18'th century.  They are incompetent at their goals, and for that we can be thankful.  But what you need to fight terror is the ability to go in and arrest terrorists instead of bombing their whole neighborhood.  

  That, and you have to live with it to the degree you have to live with it to keep vital freedoms... some freedoms are important to americans and they are willing to die for them, like driving 85 MPH and eating fast food.

  by pyrrho on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 02:04:57 AM PDT

  •  Still not right

    While you're right that countering terrorism requires police action, that's still just a response to the malady.  Terrorism is more like a disease than a "war".  Armed conflict is like harsh chemotherapy -- it may stop the disease but it will also like hurt the patient.  Better to act proactively, practicing preventive medicine; e.g., treat the environmental conditions (an equitable solution to the I/P conflict, truly act as an agent of democracy by not supporting corrupt regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, don't invade an occupy sovereign countries, etc.) that give rise to terrorism.
    

    by Bragan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:33:20 AM PDT

    •  of course you are right

      I am for dealing with the cause, which is oppression.  Oppression is the cause of 90% of crime... in my defense I was talking about how you fight it after it occurs.  At which point you need police remedy.  

      still, you're right, it's better to always mention prevention first.

      by pyrrho on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 11:56:47 AM PDT

•  My take...

  
  Daria G, thanks for quoting me.

  I think it's basically a partisan mindset.  Republicans love to think Democrats are liberal wimps and Kerry is a bonafide liberal ergo he must be weak-on-defence.  If you protested the Vietnam War and support abortion, you must not get the big defence issues... doesn't matter if you exposed the BCCI or wrote a book on international crime or supported the Clintonian humanitarian intereventions.  Since a lot of those on the right side of the blogosphere -- and the Barneses and Lowrys and Goldbergs -- have deep anti-liberal sentiment against protesting and abortion, I think they extrapolate those aspects of Kerry to his record as an internationalist.  It's irrational, but how much of politics really is rational?  The question to me is whether there's anything Kerry could do once in office to change their minds?  I'm sceptical.

  Oh yeah, and since you quoted him, I just want to say that Roger L. Simon is perhaps "I'm too much of an enlightened liberal to vote for today's angry, hate-filled Democratic Party" jackass on the net -- Bush can have him.  Simon makes Andrew Sullivan sound like Josh Marshall.

  by tlaura on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 02:08:52 AM PDT

•  major differences of opinion

  Republicans think that 911 was a delcaration of war against the US by radical Islam and the war on terrorism needs to be fought along those lines.  That means removing people who support terror tactics even if they didn't have anything at all to do with 911.  Democrats tend to think that Osama bin Laden is pretty much the major threat to the US and effort should be focused somewhat exclusively on al Qaeda.  If you think there is a larger war on radical islam and you don't think that Kerry understands that, you will not support him under any circumstances.    

  The other major difference in opinion right now is of course iraq.  Republicans think that whatever the rationale for war was and whether it was worth the money and loss in life of our soldiers, the Iraqi people are better off now that Saddam is gone.  That basically the people there were freed from slavery, and trying to say that the Iraqis are worse off now would be the same as saying blacks were worse off after the civil war.  Most Democrats think that the Iraqi people would have been better off if the US had just left Sadaam in power.  

  These are not minor differences in opinion and they are going to profoundly affect how you view different candidates.  Kerry has a real problem in that if he presents clear plan to "finish the job in Iraq the right way" then he will alienate many of the former dean supporters who don't want to be in Iraq at all.  If he says he will pull the troops out, then people who think he is not serious about fighting the war on terrorism will think he is not a suitable president.  So Kerry is caught trying to play both sides of the aisle at the same time and in my opinion it is hurting him.

  by Damon on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 05:51:03 AM PDT

  •  Part of the story

    What the warbloggers believe is that, not only should we just attack "all" terrorist-supporting regimes (except the ones who didn't have their militaries decimated by earlier wars and the Clinton administration), but that the end justifies the means in a Manichean conflict.  If any law stands in the way of killing terrorists, ignore the law, or the Constitution.  Any law.  Any liberty.  Any moral principle.

    It would be one thing if the warbloggers were at least consistent in their approach, and took North Korea seriously, and didn't crow when Bush took countries off the list of terrorist-supporting nations for political reasons.  But they aren't.  In the end, it really is all just self-justification for becoming a Republican.  People like Roger Simon and Michael Totten who pretend that anything more noble is at stake are self-delusional and/or liars.

    by DelRPCV on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:35:54 AM PDT

  •  Yes and no

    I think you're painting with an overly broad brush and the color is definitely not right in places.

    If you think there is a larger war on radical islam and you don't think that Kerry understands that, you will not support him under any circumstances.
    This sentence doesn't make sense because "radical islam" and Iraq were largely antithetical.

    Conservatives and other Americans who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq did so because they wanted to believe in their leader in a time of crisis and/or because striking at Afghanistan wasn't satisfying enough for them (as Tom Friedman believed, we needed to smack the Arab World again to teach them a lesson).

    Most Democrats think that the Iraqi people would have been better off if the US had just left Sadaam in power.

    This isn't accurate either.  I doubt there are many Democrats who truly believe this.  What I think most Democrats and most of the world believes is that the price for removing Saddam Hussein, particularly in the way Bush went about it, was way too high.

    by Bragan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:46:10 AM PDT

    •  iraqi's better off

      I thought the same way that you did.  THat for the most part democrats thought that iraqi's were better off but it wasn't worth the price.  But there have been many quotes on here from people saying that they wanted the iraqi soccer team to talk about how much better off they were under sadaam.  Or that George bush needs to apologize to the iraqi people for invading even though there were no WMD's.  Even leading up to the war you could see the dichotomy.  Antiwar protesters were talking about how it wasn't fair to the children of iraq to invade their country where pro war people were saying how it wasn't fair to leave those children under saddam.  I am not saying the difference is cut and dried and absolute, but I think it is a tangible difference between the 2 parties.  I think if you asked your friends whether the iraqi people were better off with sadaam that a surprising number would say they were.

      by Damon on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:51:39 AM PDT

      •  Funny

        but I don't recall ever having seen a quote here suggesting that the Iraqi soccer team was better off  under Saddam. Quite the opposite, in fact. Care to provide a link?

        by musing85 on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:54:23 AM PDT

      •  They'll possibly (probably?) be better off...

        in the long run.  Or, maybe not-- after all, there's still a strong possibility of civil war & the rise of new dictators and/or warlords, although that also could very well have happened after Saddam's death.  I think we need to clarify what we mean when we say the price was too high, though; my sense is that the loss of US life is bad, but nowhere near as bad as the long-term ill will we will bear, because no one's going to be thanking us if & when Iraq finally does stabilize.  

        by latts on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:51:06 AM PDT

        •  Iraq war, the very costly mistake

          "price too high" = US troops dead & injured + all other allied dead & injured + dead & injured Iraqis + years of instability and strife in Iraq + increased resentment and hatred of US worldwide + strengthening rather than weakening fundamentalist militant Islam + lost US credibility + increased development of WMD by states such as North Korea and Iran to defend themselves against US + overextended US military + negative impact on world economy + billions drained from US Treasury.  And no doubt I'm leaving out many other costs.

          by Bragan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 08:03:35 AM PDT

  •  Humanitarian Reasons NOT Part of the Reason

    ...BushCo sold this war on.  And I'd bet if you went back to red these chickenhawk bloggers during the runup to the war, they would have been virtually salivating over the business killing people over WMDs.  You won't find any mention of the truely horrific stuff that Saddam did to his people.  You will find that the humanitarian rationale begins to live in the chickenhawk blogger world as the "imminent threat" that this boondoggle was sold on became increasingly an intolerable position.

    The thing about the War On Terror is that you can define it any way you want.  That is how Afganistan could be pretty much abandoned to run after Iraq.  Dems not "getting" it translates into we haven't drunk the Kool Aid that allows the other side to still see some utility in this Iraq business.  We continue to insist on some real homeland security, insist on asking serious questions re: Korea, insist on an accounting of what we've actually gotten for the Iraq investment.  We would remind the groupthinkers that Iraq has nothing to do with the atrocities in Bali, Madrid, Turkey, Jakarta and other places recently -- but al-Queda DID and they have proudly proclaimed that.

    There is something incredibly disturbing about watching as the real enemy continues about its stated and committed path, while your own country insists that the Balis and Madrids are not the problem....

    Yeah, we get it alright -- but we don't have anyone who is articulating the narrative that we tend to see, so we continue to be vulnerable to this "We don't get it" business.

    by cassandra m on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:58:44 AM PDT

•  Conservatives and Insecurity

  Most everyone is insecure sometimes on some aspects of life.  But in general, I think almost by definition conservatives tend to be more insecure than liberals.  For that reason, conservatives gravitate more toward that which makes them feel more secure -- smaller government, more money (taxation bad), people of the same race and belief system, guns, violent responses to perceived threats, leaders who talk tough, etc.

  Part of the typical conservative sneer about Kerry not being serious about the "War on Terror" and the contention (despite all the contrary evidence) that Bush is stronger on national security is often little more that political put down, but I also think that many conservatives believe this because Bush speaks the black and white belicose language that makes them feel more secure.  Conservatives don't trust Kerry because Kerry makes them think of diplomacy and the UN, neither of which they have faith in because that requires trusting outsiders.

  by Bragan on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:03:08 AM PDT

•  Failure to understand nuance

  I think that's fundamentally the problem with the modern Republican Party, and with the Shrubbery in particular. Their world is colored only in black and white. You're either with us or agin' us. You're either good or bad. You're either right or wrong.

  Plus, and this is particularly true of Commander Codpiece, they are very child-like in terms of their response triggers. If you attack them, even mildly or verbally, their immediate instinct is to lash out with everything they've got, even if that is 100% the wrong course of action to take. If someone attacks or threatens us, well, then, get the bombers on the flight line, ratchet up our defensive posture, put the missiles on alert, cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war. Never mind that what we really needed was a cadre of excellent field agents, and a crack team of intelligence analysts to process the findings and pass them along to an equally crack team of prosecutors.

  In their world-view, America is right in all it does because we are on the side of Right--by definition. Doesn't matter what those pussies at the United Nations think. Doesn't matter what our allies think: We're right because we're Amurrika, and because God talks to the preznit. The fact that there can be more than two sides to an issue, and particularly one as complicated as global terrorism, simply doesn't occur to these people. We're right because we're America, we're going to war to defend ourselves, and we don't care if the rest of the world doesn't want to play in our little game. We're right, they're wrong. Never mind that we're going to need their help if we're ever going to catch the bastards who perpetrated 11 September 2001. Never mind that we're going to need logistical support and overflight permission and other kinds of help from our allies if we're going to fight a war of any kind, anywhere on the globe. If they're not with us, they're against us, and they can go screw.

  That, in a nutshell, is what I think we Democrats don't "get" about the War on Terra. But we don't "get" it because we can see in more than two colors, because we do understand nuance, and because we have a tendency to stop and think things through before responding. Once upon a time, the Republicans had that ability, too. But that was before they hitched their little red wagon to a simplistic little man named George, and his crowd of chickenhawk enablers.

  by musing85 on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:18:06 AM PDT

  •  It's the new N word

    They've managed to co-opt that useful word, and turn it into a new term of derision.

    They're dumbasses, but their soundbite strategery to frame the discourse is wily.

    by bumblebums on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:49:34 AM PDT