« Early Morning Required Reading | Main | Three Moore Posts in One! »

When The Truth is Found Made out to be Lies

Or, alternately titled, When the truth does not coincide with your world view, call it lie. Last night I posted some thoughts from Iraqi bloggers on the handover. They were positive, joyful thoughts. Someone in the comments wanted to know how I knew these people were really Iraqi bloggers. This is how the left deals with any kind of news that does not fit in with their perspective: it must be a lie. Oliver says: bq. If I was in the Bush administration's communications department, and I knew that things were not going well in Iraq, and I wanted to spin the message my way -- I would set up a number of "Iraqi blogs" and use the information within to sway influential American opinionmakers. However, when I mention in his comments about the typical lefty response being the one where they yell LIE!, he says: bq. Michele, I'm not saying those blogs are lies or anything. I'm just saying that people who can afford to be online in Iraq and writing blogs probably aren't the best representative sample. And if I were running a disinfo campaign, that would be one avenue I would go down. His post and his comment say two entirely different things. I wonder why some people have a hard time believing that there could possibly be any Iraqis pleased with the handover. I know it's not some magic panacea that just cured Iraq of all its ills, but some Iraqis do see it as a step - if a symbolic one - towards their ultimate freedom. Also, the naysayers seem to forget one thing: Saddam is gone. You can bet that most Iraqis are pretty damn happy about that. But that's not enough for those who want to throw cold water on any good news from Iraq. The fact that the torturing, murdering, evil dictator no longer runs their country through fear and intimidation is not enough. And who are they to speak? Who are they to say what Iraqis should or should not be happy with? They add their but onto every sentence (Saddam is gone, but....), never stopping to fully appreciate the enormity of that one part of the sentence. Saddam is gone. That means a lot to the people who lived under his rule. It doesn't take much to figure that out. The new Iraq has a long way to go. I'm not a Pollyana who thinks that yesterday marked the beginning of some wonderful world where everyone in Iraq is safe and prosperous. But it is a beginning. It's more than they had before. It's better than what they had before. So why is it so hard to believe that some Iraqis would treasure that moment, or that some Iraqis are truly thankful to the United States for ridding them of Saddam? This is the kind of thing that happened under Iraq's previous government: bq. "This is when they brought out his wife, who was five months pregnant. One of the guards said that if he refused to talk he would get 12 guards to rape his wife until she lost the baby. Amer said nothing. So they did. We were forced to watch. Whenever one of us cast down his eyes, they would beat us."

"Amer's wife didn't lose the baby. So the guard took a knife, cut her belly open and took the baby out with his hands. The woman and child died minutes later. Then the guard used the same knife to cut Amer's throat." (Read the rest here) This is what the coalition is taking away from Iraq. What they are giving to them is a chance to live in a place where an incident like that would be unheard of. We have sacrificed the blood of our sons and daughters for that, yes. I know that is what some of you are thinking. But doesn't a peaceful Iraq bode well for our own future? Or were we to let them suffer, die and be buried in mass graves for all of eternity, while their leader plotted and planned to kill us as well? It is interesting to juxtapose the left's feelings about Iraq with their feelings about Sudan. After reading through this DU thread about the genocide taking place in Sudan, I was struck by this post: bq. I've always wished that Africa could deal with its own problems. But since it can't(or won't), we have no choice but to intervene here in some manner. I would personally threaten the Sudanese government with war unless they stopped. Threaten them with war? For the crime of killing their own people? But isn't that what Saddam was doing? Remember those mass graves? But the left will turn that around and say, we went to war over WMD and we haven't found those stockpiles yet. So, because we didn't go to war over what you thought was a good reason, the fact that we stopped Saddam from committing even more genocide doesn't matter? Yet, it matters in Sudan. Why? Why make this about your agenda? Why are the tortured, murderered people of Iraq any less important to you than the dying people of Sudan? And if we do go to war with the Sudanese government and our soldiers die in the process, who will you blame? And what about Iran? They are pushing their limits with the U.S., flaunting their disregard for international law and human rights. You can read about the suppression, oppression, murders, tortures and blatant disregard for human life here. That's not even counting the stories about Iran wanting to build up its nukes. But the people reporting and writing those stories are students and activists. Is someone going to ask how we know they are real? How soon before some loony left site comes up with the theory that activistchat.com is just a big lie, run by some Bush cronies in order to build up a war effort against Iran, which is just part of the Bush administration strategy of wanting to be the ruling overlords of the entire world? Oh, I bet it's out there already. Everything that does not fit their agenda is a lie. Find a happy Iraqi, he must be made up. Find some chemical weapons? They were planted. Saddam captured? Nah, got him in a deal ages ago - that whole capture thing was a set up. Yea, just like the moon landing. It's very easy to get discouraged when you post something positive and the negativity soars through the comments like a freewheeling electric current. Perhaps they have no other recourse. I'm not sure why they do it. I am not here to give you all the news that makes the rounds. If, for a day, a moment or the rest of my blogging life - choose to just pick out the good news and good quotes and put them here, that's my perogative. Enjoy it or don't. I just think it's awfully juvenile of someone to come in here and stomp on the joys and hopes of Iraqis by implying that a) they don't really exist and/or b) their joy is stupid, their hope childish. I want to see what happens if/when we intervene in Sudan and/or Iran. I want to see how the left reacts because it seems to me that they pick and choose the beneficiaries of their "good will" at random. The Iraqi people, their lives and freedom don't matter because it is Bush's war. The people of Sudan matter. I have yet to see the left weigh in on Iran, specifically on the way the mullahs are cracking down on any form of dissent. Honestly, I'm not sure what matters to the left anymore. I'm not sure what they stand for, if anything except Get Bush Out of Office. It's interesting to note how they have embraced Michael Moore when just a year ago, they were calling him a fringe element. Anytime I would mention the left and Moore in the same sentence, I would be taken to task for lumping the loonies in with the more moderate lefties. Suddenly, they are all Moore fans and he is their hero. How did he go from being a fringe moonbat to being embraced by mainstream Democrats, even running politicians? And therein lies the answer to my question on what the left stands for. They don't stand for anything, really. They stand against Bush. Moore gave them F911 and it became ok to call Moore one of their own. And even though the Iraqis are walking towards freedom now, the left won't accept that as good because it is not good for them. Remember that quote from Metafilter I highlighted yesterday? Ugh. Now every time Bush refers to the handover, he'll be able to say "accomplished ahead of schedule." Yea. That about sums it up. The hell with everyone else, we just want to see Bush lose. It's a selfish goal, really. I once was on the left, you know. But back then the left was mostly selfless. It's strange to see what they've come to be.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When The Truth is Found Made out to be Lies:

» Like Kryptonite to Occam's Razor from protein wisdom
Oliver Willis: "Happy 'Iraqis'* Really Just Republican Operatives; Real Iraqis Express Bitterness at Freedom, Withhold Joy Until US Presidential Elections, Hoping Teresa Heinz Kerry Will Buy Them Eat a Tasty Snowcone" **** h/t asv... [Read More]

» The Road Not Taken from Babalu Blog
I'm not going to comment on the article in the following link. Im just going to tell you that it is required reading. Thank you Deb, for turning on the lights in this darkness. UPDATE: This entry over at Michele's... [Read More]

» Happy from Beth's Contradictory Brain
If you're not happy for the people of Iraq, and even just a little bit excited that an entire nation [Read More]

» Civility Does Not Ensue from Wizbang
Michele Catalano publishes some positive messages on the turnover from Iraqi bloggers. Oliver Willis switches in and out of narrative and basically says all those Iraqi bloggers could be Bush plants. There is debate about whether this is a position... [Read More]

» No Blood for Sesame from King of Fools
Michelle is a bit frustrated (understatement) about the knee-jerk (quite literally) response which immediately labels any good news from Iraq as a fabrication. She deals with the issue quite nicely and then pens this little gem: It is interesting to... [Read More]

» A Parallel Universe from Potomac Ponderings
Basically, if we can take him at his word (a dodgy proposition, to be sure), we would most likely still be in Iraq right now. The invasion might have occurred later, but we'd still be there now. Alternatively, imagine that someone other than Al Gore, s... [Read More]

» roulette from roulette
In your free time, check out some information in the field of roulette [Read More]

Comments

And it looks like Soros is up to his shennigans, too. I don't have the print edition of the NYTimes, but listening to the radio this morning, looks like MoveOn and Soros have purchased a full page ad in the NYTimes that claims the early handoff is both a sham and "it's not a handoff but a fumble."

There it is...the new Leftist meme ... the handoff was just more proof of GW's evilness and incompetence ...

I'd be angry, but I realize these koolaid drinkers are not swayed by anything resembling reality.

You know, if I were the Democratic National Convention, really intent on sabotaging the freedom of Iraq, I would set up a bunch of blogs in America that would constantly question every positive word as a lie of the Bush administration and then - when called to provide some sort of evidence - would say "but that's not what I'm saying." How do we know Oliver isn't just a DNC blogbot?

All they have to do is throw out the assertion for it to stick with their public.

" But back then the left was mostly selfless."

NOPE. Bit of revisionit history here M.

The Left has been pimping totatalitarians for the last 200 years.

Open your eyes. It is still the same Left.

"How do we know Oliver isn't just a DNC blogbot?"

I came to that conclusion several months ago.

Iraqis hate America: The coalition's own poll results prove it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122794,00.html

And the majority of Americans now agree with the anti-war movement that the War in Iraq was a mistake:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9950375%255E1702,00.html

There's little doubt that the Iraqi's are happy that the U.S. has turned over even the limited ammount of sovereignty that we've "given" them. Duh. This is like askiing a victim of robbery if she is happy that the thief has returned a few of her less-precious items while keeping the rest. Its a stupid question, and one doesn't have to cruise the Iraqi blogosphere to figure this out.

Iraq is better off with Sadaam gone. But this is setting the bar pretty low, Michele. The fact remains that all of the other wonderful things that you and the rest of the war supporters said would happen after this war have NOT happened, and, in fact, have gone in the OPPOSITE direction:

- the US is less safe from terrorists
- our alliances are in tatters
-Iraq is a breeding ground for al-Qaeda now, it was not before
- no WMD's
- Democracy in the middle east is further away than before, not closer
- The possibility of democracy in Iraq hangs by a thread
- The Kurds will probably bolt ASAP.

So take solace in what you have, but your own archives on this blog prove you;ve been wrong about almost everything else.

Finally, after all that negativity, cut the shit about the left not being for anything. Here's what the left is for:

http://www.counterconvention.org/index.php?name=rising

Which famous member of Hitler's entourage was it who said that if you tell the lie often enough, eventually, people will come to believe it? So it is with the left - making up lies about lies. Your opening quote is priceless: "When the truth does not coincide with your world view, call it lie." Pretty much sums up the Soros/Moore crowd

say two entirely different things
Well that's just a lie Michele. I said in the post and in the comment that you should take these Iraqi blogs with a grain of salt, meaning a healthy dose of skepticism.

I'm not a Pollyana who thinks that yesterday marked the beginning of some wonderful world where everyone in Iraq is safe and prosperous.
Could have fooled me. You guys have been buying the spin by the poundful.

So, because we didn't go to war over what you thought was a good reason, the fact that we stopped Saddam from committing even more genocide doesn't matter?
Stopping Saddam Good. Lying to get there Bad. Is this so hard to get?

Honestly, I'm not sure what matters to the left anymore.
And I wonder what the right is about. Certainly doesn't seem like they care about bringing real democracy to Iraq or the rest of the mideast. It seems to boil down to "re-elect Bush and stop pointing out that the emperor is naked".

I am so fed up with Moore and that ultimate jackass Kerry. I never thought I would be a republican.......

Another beheading today. This region is for shit and wish to God we never went to Iraq. Tell me again why Iraq was a bigger threat then Iran or N.Korea?

Thanks, Michele. I love it: "When the truth doesn't suit, give it a boot."

It's as good as Ann Coulter's "For liberals, history started this morning."

Like most lefties, Toolshed believes truth depends on polls, and cites ill-formed opinion as examples of "facts".

Toolshed:

the US is less safe from terrorists--Gimme a break. Less safe compared to what? pre-911? If you can't grasp the concept of killing the enemy and liberating 50 million people, then "war" has no meaning for you.

our alliances are in tatters--What alliances? Name one that was a net benefit to the US. Bonus question: set a deadline and exit strategy for getting US troops out of Bosnia, Kosovo, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines...i.e., when will we stop our military "occupation" of Europe?

Iraq is a breeding ground for al-Qaeda now, it was not before--(ie, history began this morning) and when we prove you wrong, you'll say you meant that Abu Nidal and Al-Zarqawi didn't actually father children while in Baghdad.

no WMD's--Lie. WMD's used, stockpiled, found, moved out of Iraq (while we waited months for your "alliances" to get it up). What really angers you is that none were used on our troops, right?

Democracy in the middle east is further away than before, not closer--there you go ignoring history again.

The possibility of democracy in Iraq hangs by a thread--when it was impossible before.

The Kurds will probably bolt ASAP--where? And what's your point? Have they ever not wanted to bolt ASAP?

Others will surely respond better than me. Truth be told, I should have ignored you, tool, but it felt good replying.

Thanks again, Michele.

P.S. Oliver: stop revising the history of your own accusations. Not only did you question the validity of Iraqi blogs, you accused the GOP of planting them.

Oliver:

You've just been caught in a near-lie. First you throw out, based upon nothing, the Michael Moore-like conspiracy theory that all pro-American Iraqi bloggers are RNC plants. Then, you weasel out of that to say that that's not really what you meant, you just thought that they should be taken with "skepticism" (unlike other media sources?). So, you advance an speculative conspiracy theory, and then lie about having done so in the first place, and yet you presume to lecture other people about their truthfullness.

Pathetic.

Oliver probably thinks Anne Franks' Diary was planted by Bush's grandfather as propaganda to validate WWII.

Deocratic Underground, Kos, Oliver Willis, etal. Its all one big conspiracy after the other with them. Maybe the paranoia is causing them to lose sleep and thus the old brain cells arent fully functioning. Know what I mean?

The Left always supports the war, it just never happens to be the one we're fighting. If we'd gone into Sudan, instead of Iraq, they'd be wailling about the horrible plight of the Iraqis.

Time to take Toolshed to the toolshed.

- the US is less safe from terrorists

Really? We're "less" safe? Has there been a serious attack on US soil since 9/11? We're approaching the third anniversary of that day, and we haven't seen anything of the sort since.

We're most certainly NOT "less safe." I think it would be more accurate to say we are somewhat safer.

But, hey, since you've got the answers, let's hear what YOU would do to make us safer.

- our alliances are in tatters

In other words, France and Germany.

Fuck them.

-Iraq is a breeding ground for al-Qaeda now, it was not before

I'd like to see your EVIDENCE that's it's a "breeding ground" for aQ, as opposed to a TARGET. Humor me.

- no WMD's

Oh, you mean big obvious stockpiles of WMDs, right? Because Saddam was so stupid he'd leave those things just lying around after years of inspections.

In any case, evidence of the WMD programs HAS been found. You just don't want to admit it.

- Democracy in the middle east is further away than before, not closer

Now THAT is an example of "the big lie" if I've ever heard one. A fascist dictator is removed from power, and somehow democracy is further away because of it.

Wow. Just wow.

- The possibility of democracy in Iraq hangs by a thread

And what was the possibility of democracy in Iraq BEFORE Saddam Hussein was removed from power, Toolshed? Here's a hint: it starts with "z," ends with "o," and has "er" in the middle.

I keep seeing this same damned argument from the anti-war types. Iraq suffered for decades under a brutal dictator, has no real experience with consentual government, and you think we're going to turn the country into Switzerland in a year? These things take time. It may not work. There are no guarantees in life.

In any case, they're already having local elections, Toolshed. There's a long way to go, but I would hardly call it "hanging by a thread."

- The Kurds will probably bolt ASAP.

Thanks, Nostradamus. I'm sure no one was familiar with the Kurdish question.

Y'know, what grates at me is the anti-war side's relentless pessimism. Nothing is ever good enough. Nothing ever counts as progress. The US efforts are always doomed. If things go right, there's never any sort of "we were wrong" message from people like you. If elections turn out to be successful, Toolshed, you won't be back here saying you were mistaken. Someone just like you will be here moving the goalposts even further. "Well, sure they had elections, but there was some electoral fraud."

I really, really hate how the WoT became some left/right political code thing. Seriously. They--the Islamic bad guys--wish death upon us all. Democrat or Republican is not something they will explore on that day when they finally get through again.

And they will get through again.

Is this payback for the Monica Lewinsky/Clinton impeachment thing?

Read Oliver Willis' comments as the best example of this. He has some degree of fame--and a job actually--based upon his work in a 24/7 Bush Sucks meme factory. And he's actually a fairly sober representative of his political set. And so he--and "it"--goes.

BTW, and FWIW, planting and manufacturing blogs would be the stupidest--the absolutely dummest--thing an RNC shop could do. Oliver needs some sense of math based risk-reward analysis in his background before he blogs further.

If caught, it would be Nixon part II. If successful it would influence no one or anything substantial.

I respect opinions that are wholly different than mine. it sharpens my own beliefs and keeps me humble. I mind opinions that are entirely unsullied by thought.

And I hate Oliver's weak, sissy like trial balloon conspiracizing.

Breeding ground, and target, are often the same. Why breed elsewhere, and then constantly move a stream of foreign militants in, when you can move some foreign militants in, and breed from the locals, who are pissed off enough?

As for whether the Iraqi blogs are real, I don't doubt the ones you reference are real. But I do agree to some degree with the idea that anyone who can blog REGULARLY is probably in a much better position than others.

The Iraqi blog I read doesn't blog so often. It's not that she's living in a shithole, just that her electricity is often down. And she's more skeptical of all parties, Iraqis, Americans, etc, than anti-American.

Try reading riverbendblog.blogspot.com. Then maybe we can determine if she's a Democrat plant. ;)

You wanna know why we on the Left come up with some of these conspiracy theories about positive Iraqi bloggers?

Anybody remember thsi story from last Fall, when a slew of positive letters were sent to newspapers around the country and it all turned out to be the campaign of one?

Here's the original story
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-10-14-letters-usat_x.htm

"The World doesn't match my perception of How Reality Should Be so I will keep my eyes closed, deny it and scapegoat others for Reality. It is all a Matrix. The World is evil because I am too Good for it. Everything is a conspiracy."

Anon Leftist, June 29, 2004

You wanna know why we on the Left come up with some of these conspiracy theories about positive Iraqi bloggers?

I stopped caring a while ago about where the lefties came up with their conspiracy theories, Brad ol' buddy.

This is how the left deals with any kind of news that does not fit in with their perspective: it must be a lie.

I'm not one that usually agrees with generalities, but the fact is, everyone who I have ever known (Left, Right, Center, and Far Afield) had this basic policy: when you are presented with new information that conflicts with your world view, you question it. It goes against every part of human nature for us to simply accept something which conflicts with our understanding of the world. Now, if you immediately blurt out those questions uncritically, as Mr. Willis has done, is certainly not discerning, but it is a far cry from what you claim. He didn't exactly cry "liar, liar, pants on fire" ... he proposed a simplistic and ultimately stupid hypotheical scenario where the comments might be lies. His defense was, however, definely a pathetic lie.

I think the real test of intellectual honesty is to question things that agree with your world view (to give some really low hanging fruit examples: liberals need to be skeptical about Michael Moore's movie and conservatives shouldn't just quote Rush Limbaugh's statements as fact.)

Personally, Michele, I think it's great you're being positive about Iraq. It made me feel better when I read those Iraqi comments yesterday. Keep up the good work and don't let the tinfoil hat brigade get to you. :)

> Iraq is better off with Sadaam gone. But this is setting the bar pretty low, Michele.

It might be a low bar for Bush, but it's a higher bar than any of the detractors have attempted.

If Bush doesn't achieve perfection, it's a failure. If a Dem/Lefty/Euro fails, they meant well.

Coming in rather late, but I take a cynical view of much I see on the net - until I know it is verified as believable. What is the saying - on the internet nobody knows you are a dog.

If the bloggers are truly in Iraq, more power to them. If they aren't, then why are they pretending they are?

Oliver: stop revising the history of your own accusations. Not only did you question the validity of Iraqi blogs, you accused the GOP of planting them.
Can you guys stop lying? Like for five minutes? I said:
I know this will get me branded as a conspiracy theorist, but whatever.

If I was in the Bush administration's communications department, and I knew that things were not going well in Iraq, and I wanted to spin the message my way -- I would set up a number of "Iraqi blogs" and use the information within to sway influential American opinionmakers.

But that's just me, Fox Mulder.

Seriously though, take all this blog stuff with a giant slab of salt.

Jon Henke, a right-wing blogger, has agreed with me twice on this issue. Apparently he didn't get the memo.

Really? We're "less" safe? Has there been a serious attack on US soil since 9/11? We're approaching the third anniversary of that day, and we haven't seen anything of the sort since.
Why come here when AQ can just kill our soldiers in Iraq?

Why come here when AQ can just kill our soldiers in Iraq?
Uranium has nothing on you in the density department, does it Oliver?

Killing Americans isn't the terrorists' only goal. Destroying our way of life is. If they are busy running for their lives or having to fight for their own necks, it would mean you and I are safer here at home.

And spare us the horseshit about what you did and didn't say. You deliberately used scare quotes and pulled a Howard Dean moment where you state something "is only a possibility" then play innocent when caught spreading a lie.

Oliver:

The issue is whether you are endorsing the full "GOP plant" idea or are simply saying that one should view a given media source with a grain of skepticism (like, duh)? You continue to weasel out of committing to either proposition, yet you condescendingly excoriate those who call you on it. Again, pathetic.

Why come here when AQ can just kill our soldiers in Iraq?

Oliver,

Are you that thick-headed? Did it ever occur to you that this was the plan? Take the fight to them? Keep them out of New York, Washington, and the rest of the 50 states?

Would you rather they come here? You'd be blaming Bush for that too.

I'll never understand the left.

TV (Harry)

I haven't endorsed any idea. I said (quite clearly for anyone with at least a 3rd grade education) that its a possiblity, and that all blogs should be treated with skepticism. For all you know I'm Karl Rove.

Did it ever occur to you that this was the plan?
Ah, so our soldiers are just target practice, huh? I bet they don't say that at the recruiting office. And if we're taking the fight to them, why are we prepping to cut from Iraq, not doing anything about Saudi Arabia, and diverting resources from fighting AQ in Afghanistan (remember them?).

Oliver:

It's the smarmy, weaselly manner in which you raise your conspiracy theory (without a shred of evidence), but then back away from it, in the classic Howard Dean-like manner: "It's just something I heard (or speculated) or whatever (that Bush had advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attacks), I'm not explicitly endorsing that view. Oh forefend. I'm just, you know, putting it out there." Very lame, but a classic trick of propagandists and conspiracy theorists.

As for the rest of your robotically generated leftist cant:

1. Please give me a single concrete instance on how the liberation of Iraq "diverted resources" from the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan. My understanding was that the fighting on that front was mostly of the cave-to-cave, special-ops variety, and would not benefit from a massive influx of "boots-on-the-ground". Apparently, you know differently. ON what sources do you base your conclusion?

2. What exactly do you propose we do about Saudi Arabia?

3. Personally, as a New Yorker, I would prefer that trained, volunteer soldiers of the US military were confronting terrorists thousands of miles away from me, as opposed to say, me, having to confront them when they fly a plane into my office building. Apparently, you feel differently. Where do you live? If you live in New YOrk or DC, I'd just like to register that not everyone 'round these parts thinks its better to fight terrorists here than there. If you live in some place that's an unlikely target, then please shut the fuck up.

4. Anyway, fuck all that. Regardless of whatever our respective stances on the "issues", such as they are, your behavior here and at other locations has shown you to be a condescending, obnoxious, rude person, in a way that transcends politics.

Big Brother said: Really? We're "less" safe? Has there been a serious attack on US soil since 9/11? We're approaching the third anniversary of that day, and we haven't seen anything of the sort since then.

We're most certainly NOT "less safe." I think it would be more accurate to say we are somewhat safer.

Well, this is what our own government says:

"The State Department announced Tuesday that the number of significant international terrorism episodes rose slightly last year, and that the number of those injured in all international terrorism episodes went up by more than 50 percent. Both trends contradicted earlier findings cited by the Bush administration as evidence that it was winning the campaign against terrorism."

You folks must have an odd definition of "somewhat safer." What is it, exactly?

Ah, so our soldiers are just target practice, huh? I bet they don't say that at the recruiting office

I knew the risk when I joined the Marines. I can't vouch for the other services but it was brought up quite a bit when I was recruited to make sure I wouldn't chicken out at the worst time.

You should be happy that there are people in America with much more courage than you who are willing to pay that price if needed so you can sit in a well air conditioned office and smear them.

Hey Eric the Dreamer,
I live in New York, and was in New York City on Sept 11, and as for your remark,
"Personally, as a New Yorker, I would prefer that trained, volunteer soldiers of the US military were confronting terrorists thousands of miles away from me, as opposed to say, me, having to confront them when they fly a plane into my office building"
...you completely ignore the reality that AQ is not restricted to national boundaries. They are here already. And while it might make you sleep better at night knowing that we're kicking ass in the middle east, this flypaper theory does not make you and I any safer...quite the opposite. Our troops didn't secure any Iraqi sites with radioactive material, nor have we secured our own ports and subways.

I guess you really are a dreamer.

Sharp as a Marble:

What's absolutely amazing is the contemporary left's attitude towards members of the military. It's just so confused. On the one hand, there's that whole "How dare you question my patriotism!? I support the troops." But, then they act as if all of the troops are these unwitting, moronic dupes who were somehow tricked into joining up. They're trying to turn the troops into victims, so they can fit their paradigm.

It seems to not even occur to Oliver, Michael Moore, and his ilk, that having an all-volunteer military means that people consciously chose to do this, knowing the risks involved. Obviously, they think you and your fellow marines are all idiots who are incapable of thinking through a decision.

Their self-contradictory stances are mind-boggling.

Wow, Oliver. A paragraph composed of pure anti-fact. If it ever were to come in direct contact with actual facts...well, let's just hope the magnetic containment fields hold.

1) No, they're not target practice. They're soliders killing the enemy at astoundingly successful rates.

2) Yes, we're taking the fight to them. No, we're not getting ready to "cut from Iraq". We'll probably be there for years, which I'm sure you'll be complaining about soon.

3) I'm not sure what's going on with Saudi Arabia, but I suspect it's far more than "nothing". Likewise Iran. (Of course, if what we did in Iraq was such a huge blunder we should probably just leave them alone, right?)

4) Oh, that's right, Iraq is a "distraction". No, I don't think anyone's forgotten Afghanistan. (Except maybe Ted Koppel, who didn't have time to read any names from that front of the war.) Different kinds of fighting, different kinds of troop delployments.

A link to the USA Today article dated 4/20/04.

Here's a scanned copy of the USA Today article including a picture.

Interveiwed were the brothers, Omar, Mohammed and Ali, who blog at Iraq the Model, Faisa from A family in Baghdad, and her son Raed who blogs at Raed in the Middle.

Brad:

It's "Deamer" not "Dreamer", unless you were trying to make some clever comment by corrupting my name, which is rather presumptuous since you don't even know me.

Not being an idiot, I understand that AQ is already here, that there are sleeper cells in country, probably right on Atlantic Avenue! etc. That was the case before we went into Iraq, and will be for years to come. However, we are tying up a lot of the organization's energy and manpower in Iraq. We're killing foreign fighters over there every day: Egyptians, Saudis, Yemenis, Checnens, and on, and on. These are people who would be used for attacks elsewhere, possibly here. I think that's a good thing.

As for the rest of it: I'm not sure why you're so worried about "radioactive material" when everyone knows that BUSH LIEDDD!!!!! NO WMDS!!! and yadda yadda yadda.

I don't know what you mean by "securing" the subways. What do you suggest? Each passenger being forced to strip naked? Might slow down the commute.

Obviously, I'd like to see more work done on securing ports, power plants, etc. Everyone would. Are there any candidates with concrete, positive suggestions on these issues, whom I should support?

Eric Deamer,

While I wouldn't presume to answer for Oliver, some of your questions do interest me.

1) That Iraq does draw resources which could be used in Afghanistan is easy to establish. Taking money, specialized troops and spy aircraft, and intelligence resources are all concrete instances of this. Homeland security is also drawing resources from both Iraq and Afghanistan. None of this is really a serious pro or con argument by itself for doing any of these things. If we put everything we had in Afghanistan, it would increase the chances of catching bin Laden by some percentage. If we put them all on Homeland security, it would increase the chances of stopping an attack by some percentage. I don't have enough information to make an informed judgement on what that is or how this increases opportunity costs in other areas. What I do know is that there are trade-offs and I'd like to see some more intelligent discussion of what they entail.

2) Heck if I know. Something! Wish I had a great plan to solve all this. Wish I could say I knew President Bush was on top of this issue. Wish I could say I knew Senator Kerry was on top of this issue. If wishes were horses and all that.

3) The question of here/there is only interesting if you also talk about increased recruitment and the other trade-offs that have been made. The "left" wants to talk about recruitment without mentioning prevention, and the "right" wants to talk about prevention but ignore recruitment, etc. Typically, but uniformly dishonest. As with #1, the question is one of the trade-offs and acceptable compromises.

4) Ask a rude question, get a rude answer ;)

Drew,

You said: Another beheading today. This region is for shit and wish to God we never went to Iraq. Tell me again why Iraq was a bigger threat then Iran or N.Korea?

Why Iraq? Well, they were a state sponsor of terrorism -- they had been on the State Department's list since its inception -- and we had been in a state of conflict with them for over a decade. It made sense to bring that to some sort of conclusion. We were going to be maintaining no-fly zones in perpetuity to keep Saddam from slaughtering Kurds in the north and Shias in the south. Iraq is likewise positioned at the center of the Arab Peninsula and borders Iran, just like Afghanistan.

Why not go after North Korea? You clearly haven't thought this through. Noth Korea has enough artillery on their side of the DMZ to kill tens of thousands of people within days of the outbreak of war. Don't get me wrong -- they would lose in a conflict between us and South Korea. However, the amount of carnage from such a war would horrify most people. We've opted instead to engage them in six-way talks to try to end their nuclear program. Smart move, as I see it.

Why not Iran? We could probably knock out their regime in pretty short order. As we saw in the run to Baghdad, regime change is relatively easy and we could do that if we were so inclined. What we can't do is occupy the country because we don't have enough soldiers. The country is too large and the terrain is too difficult. It would make the Iraqi occupation look like a cakewalk. In addition, there is a growing movement in Iran among the young (60% of their population is under the age of 26) that is opposed to the mullahs and we will have them surrounded once Iraq and Afghanistan are complete -- think ten years from now. In the mean time we can support the student movements and hope for / facilitate internal change.

One of the difficulties of defending an argument is that it takes me 500 words of exposition to defeat 20 words of boilerplate from you.....

You mention that DU finally took notice of the Sudan. Where were they in the 90's, when Khartoum imposed sharia, and the people of the Dafur were being slave raided?

Sorry to rant, even for a minute, on your blog. But I've been sending money and writing letters about the Sudan for almost 20 years, now, and nobody has ever seemed to care. I'm glad attention is being paid, but it's making me slightly wild-eyed, at the same time.

I've always wondered why so many rightish wing bloggers give Oliver a pass. He is nothing more then a mealy mouthed liberal fool. No different then Micah, Kos, DU, etc.

Brad, Toolshed and Oliver:

Lets pretend that it would have zero impact on the November election...can you do that?

You can not possibly be so ignorant that you believe that leaving Saddam in place is better than removing him. I credit you with more sense than that.

If you agree that Saddam gone is an improvement, what price would you have been willing to pay to accomplish that?

What price would you be willing to pay to eliminate suffering in Iran, Syria and end the fighting between the PLO and Israel? What price would you be willing to pay to end the genocide in Sudan?

If you agree that these are worthy goals, how can they be accomplished? It is increasingly looking like military action is the far more effective and less deadly way to accomplish these goals.

What do you think?

--- The possibility of democracy in Iraq hangs by a thread--

1774-1789 then 80 years later we finally settled the question.

You're looking at it from a position of comfort.

Didn't frogistan start attacking our ships when we were barely a year old? We couldn't protect ourselves to a certain degree so we bought our way out of it - the LA purchase.

Ben Franklin was right, - We gave them a country - it's up to them to keep it.

--that its a possiblity, and that all blogs should be treated with skepticism. --

So, Oliver's really a right-wing plant because no one on the left could be that goofy????

"I'm not sure why you're so worried about "radioactive material" when everyone knows that BUSH LIEDDD!!!!! NO WMDS!!! and yadda yadda yadda."

Eric, surely you know the difference between material for a weapon and the weapon itself. But beyond that, how is it you can argue out of both sides of your mouth--if there were WMDs, then we should have secured the sites where they were being made. We didn't. If they weren't there, then we didn't need to go there in the first place.

And what about Saddam? Was it worth the price we are paying to have violated international law, removed him from power and then indefinitely occupy the country. I was never one to argue for the humanitarian casus belli--the embargo worked, and Saddam was contained. There are other, more urgent crises out there that deserve out attention and now we don't have the international credibility, or the military to devote to it--nor do we have enough national guard in this country to assist us when AQ strikes us here.

Here's an article I'm sure you all missed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40059-2003Dec5?language=printer

Saddam could have been ousted by other means. Simple as that.

Isn't Oliver just George Soros' bitch, anyway? So who cares what he writes?

Cordially...

Saddam could have been ousted by other means. Simple as that.
That simple? How. You should be able to write the complete plan in 2 or 3 sentences then since it's such a simple concept.

A tyrant who uses murder and torture to ascend to power then uses mass torture, mass rape, mass murder to remain in power is not just going to walk away from it because someone asks him to. If you were to put a further stanglehold on the Iraqi economy those few remaining funds would have been diverted (as they already were) to Saddams henchmen and the people would have been allowed to continue to starve.

As for containment: Our planes were being shot at daily while patrolling the no-fly zone, Iraqi government officials met with al-Qaeda leadership OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY OF IRAQ. Saddams henchmen were caught trying to assasinate a former president OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY OF IRAQ. Yeah, containment was working REALLY well.

No, Iraqi government officials did not meet with Al Qaeda outside of Iraq. That's a Doug Feith rumor run amuck and has no credibility within intelligence circles. Zarqawi is not Al Qaeda, either.

And as for containment: how many US planes were actually shot down while they were shot at?
Look, even David Kay admits that containment worked. Saddam had no weapons to threaten us. He didn't even have weapons programs. All he had were weapons of mass destruction program activities.

You have obviously subscribed to the ridiculous neocon theories about how removing Saddam and installing a democratic govt in Iraq would lead to peace across the region. This is the default reasoning for Bush supporters now that his initial reasons for invading (WMDs and Sept 11) have now been revealed to be without merit.

Tell you what: let's meet again on this topic in five years, if we're still alive and well. It's not worth it to argue with you now because your heads still too full of idealistic fantasies.

I still think it's a tragedy that liberalism is no longer distinguishable from leftism. At one time, to be liberal was to be anti-left.

And now, much of that Left (illustrated by much of the leftist rhetoric in this comment section and other left-blogs) is living out an old Soviet dissident joke:

In the Soviet Union, the future is known; it's the past which is always changing

I never voted to be under international law.

When was that?

And as for containment: how many US planes were actually shot down while they were shot at?

You're invoking the "No Harm No Foul" clause? Man, that has to top Oliver's idiocy tenfold.

"Your honor, my client may have raped and beaten Mrs. Smith, but she's still alive and wasn't impregnated"

Sandy

Notice that those that screech about "international law" wish only to use it as a cudgel against the US and Israel. Little or no mention (in fact, hositility) comes from them when you start discussing Saddams, Arafats, Kadaffys (misspelling intended), N.Korea's, Iran's, Sudan's et al's ignoring of "international law".

I don't understand the debate.

Lets be blunt, we didn't attack Iraq for any altruistic reason any more than we attacked Grenada for altruistic reasons, any more than we fought the Cold war or Vietnam or even World War II for such reasons.

We fought these wars because it was in our interest to fight them. It was in our interest to depose Saddam because he was either an actual or potential enabler of our foes to strike against us as well as an enemy in his own right.

We fought Saddam because when other dictators saw him fall they wet their pants (i.e. Libya)

We fought Saddam to put the fear of God in Syria, Iran and North Korea to try to drive them to the table so we would not have to attack them.

We are trying to build republic in Iraq because a non-rogue state in that area will destabilize our foes in Iraq and Syria, and Saudi Arabia and also put our "friends" in the area (Read Jordan Egypt) that it would be a good idea to remember what side they are on.

And finally we are in Iraq because it is a great jumping off point for either Syria, Iran OR Saudi Arabia if we decide to finish the job in the 2nd term.

The fact that Saddam was a brutal killing swine who deserves whatever comes to him and that his people are free are pleasant side effects. If we are wrong about all of the above it will still mean a better Iraq for Iraqis and we can feel good about it.

Grenada, Vietnam and the Cold War were also about stopping our foes in Moscow. The fact that our success in Grenada and the Cold War led to freedom for millions is again a wonderful side effect but not the primary reason for it. (Our loss of nerve in Vietnam left to slavery and slaughter for millions that is a sad result but the sad result was for them not for us.)

The last time the US fought a democracy was in the Civil War (the confederates were elected) as a rule our foes tend to be despotic. This is not an accident. Democratic countries tend to be free enough to get along with others and are not interested in attacking us or undermining us. Governments that represent the people have not over the last century been governments to fear.

Why do people get in such a tizzy because we act in our own interest? I sometimes think we have it so good here that we can't comprehend what life under despotism is really like. Combine this with a culture that has become split in two (secular and religious) and we get were we are today.

I should point out that all of this is my opinion when I say WE did I should say In my opinion we did.

Sandy P,

We are subject to some international law based on the treaties we have signed, as set forth:

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis mine] - US Constitution

"Why not Iran? We could probably knock out their regime in pretty short order. As we saw in the run to Baghdad, regime change is relatively easy and we could do that if we were so inclined. What we can't do is occupy the country because we don't have enough soldiers. The country is too large and the terrain is too difficult. It would make the Iraqi occupation look like a cakewalk. In addition, there is a growing movement in Iran among the young (60% of their population is under the age of 26) that is opposed to the mullahs and we will have them surrounded once Iraq and Afghanistan are complete -- think ten years from now. In the mean time we can support the student movements and hope for / facilitate internal change."

Except we don't have ten years. Once the mullahs get nukes, they can tell us to bugger off or else, and we get to pick between folding and losing a city we care about.

Like it or not, I don't see how we can avoid this without taking on Iran militarily in the near future. Hopefully, there's a plan in place already, involving the guys that are currently babysitting Iraq that hopefully won't be doing that too much longer. I'd feel better about it if the recruiting caps had been raised as well.

"And what about Saddam? Was it worth the price we are paying to have violated international law"

You mean the UN sanctions that Saddam was violating and that we were belatedly enforcing?

"I was never one to argue for the humanitarian casus belli--the embargo worked, and Saddam was contained."

How long would it have kept working? Our "allies" were already agitating to remove them, or surreptitiously violating them. And what makes you think that Saddam wouldn't have restarted his WMD program as soon as the allies got bored and wandered off?

"There are other, more urgent crises out there that deserve out attention"

You have a point; maybe we should have tackled Iran first.

Oh wait... that's not what you meant? What other urgent crises are you referring to?

"and now we don't have the international credibility, or the military to devote to it--nor do we have enough national guard in this country to assist us when AQ strikes us here."

If our "international credibility" wasn't enough to get our so-called allies on board for enforcing international law, then it was never all that important to begin with. And we do have the military; they're babysitting Iraq right now, but we can retask some of them if the job's important enough. Now that Iraq is independent and tyrant-free and all.

"No, Iraqi government officials did not meet with Al Qaeda outside of Iraq. That's a Doug Feith rumor run amuck and has no credibility within intelligence circles. Zarqawi is not Al Qaeda, either." Posted by Brad

The 9-11 Commission reported that a "'senior Iraqi intelligence officer' met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1994 and that contacts continued after he relocated to Afghanistan."

This from a decidedly not non-partisan commission (read: On Your Side) which has served primarily to blame the Bush admin for allowing 9-11 to happen (As if the measures needed to do so would have been palitable anyway. Hell, they're not palitable now, what makes anyone think they would have been acceptable then.)

Notice the date! After the supposed "containment"! Sorry to confuse you with facts, they just seem to get in the way, don't they.

As for shooting and missing: Sorry sir, we know the guy shot 20 rounds at you in an obvious attempt to kill you and that he has done so every day for a year, but since he missed and has never actually done any physical harm we're going to let him go with a warning, again.

Ken, I would love to retask our troops now that Iraq is independent. Let's pull them all out. Bring them home.

from Reuters News service...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army is planning an involuntary mobilization of thousands of reserve troops to maintain adequate force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials said on Monday.

The move -- involving the seldom-tapped Individual Ready Reserve -- represents the latest evidence of the strain being placed on the U.S. military, particularly the Army, by operations in those two countries.

Roughly 5,600 soldiers from the ready reserve will be notified of possible deployment this year, including some soldiers who will be notified within a month, said an Army official speaking on condition of anonymity.

WAIT, I thought Iraq was independent. Isn't that what Robert Stewart said in Newsday: "Today Iraqis, not a dictator or outside force, are in charge of Iraq."

Do you think we'll leave if asked?

Come on, I want to know what you neo con sympathizers think about this.

Come on, I want to know what you neo con sympathizers think about this.

[Count Floyd voice] Ooooh, scary neo-cons!!!

(rolling eyes) Does it hurt to be you, Brad?

Brad, enlistments are, and have always been since after the Civil War, open ended. You enlist knowing that you are subject to being kept active if the country needs your services.

My father was never allowed to leave the Army after WWII. He was inactive reserve until the day he died. They did activate him for Korea, too.

No, no. We icky people who do not follow the Word of Brad are just sympathizers, and not real neo-cons to him. How insulting. :-)

"Ken, I would love to retask our troops now that Iraq is independent. Let's pull them all out. Bring them home."

Bring them home? I thought Iraq was a distraction? A distraction from what, pray tell? If we've got nothing better to do with the troops than bring them home, then how can Iraq be a distraction?

no, the Left was never selfless. however, the naive people who believed in things the Left sold might have been, and you were one of them then.

But it's the same Left as it was in the 60s--go read what Horowitz says about his colleagues--and that was the same as the Left in the 50s and 40s and 30s and 20s and 10s. go read Whittaker Chambers and see about them.

Ah. I take it that means you had a drive-by from Like Superglue to Stupid? My condolences. Assuming that was the Real Oliver, and that there IS a real Oliver.

Yanno? This post reads a lot like something the real Michele would write. Assuming there IS a real Michele. Where is the real Michele, and what have you done with her? ;]

Me... I'm pretty safe, I think. No one would bother making me up. And anyone who would make up Misha is wasted online - they should be writing fiction. g

Germany and SorK are independent, too, how come you're agitating for Iraq, Brad?

Treaties are not international law.

If I have a treaty w/you, does it apply to everyone else?

Whose law?

If anything, Brad, you really should be agitating for our removal from SorK. We kill people there, too, you know.

Looks like we lefties were right, at least about Iraq's "sovereignty", just like we were right about Bush lying and the futility of the war.

Any comment re this story?

Iyad Akmush Kanum, 23, learnt the limits of sovereignty on Monday when US prosecutors refused to uphold an Iraqi judges' order acquitting him of attempted murder of coalition troops.

US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law.

Well? You were all celebrating Iraq becoming a "sovereign" nation again - what are your comments now?

Sandy P,

International law is a complex subject, but it's all based on treaties as any other form of control would imply a surrender of soverein power, which no country will agree to unless they have no other choice (ie they lose sovereign control via the application of overwelming force and are forced to accept terms of surrender). I'm not an expert on it, but i believe that in practice, it tends to be almost completely dependant on voluntary compliance (potentially under duress for smaller powers). Sometimes the treaties contain agreements that certain things are justified against non-signatories (this may or may not imply responsibility on the part of the signatories to help out with the action).

For example, the UN charter has a clause which technically justifies enforcing some things on non-members (the charter is basically just another treaty ... we negotiated and ratified it in 1948):

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.