Taking a Stand

Also, any readers who can supply links to prominent Republicans advocating the de-lumptious quaffing of puppy blood would be much appreciated.

No, no, Belle…what we really need to know is this: Where are the Republicans with the integrity to condemn the de-lumptious quaffing of puppy blood? Their silence speaks volumes about their motives, don’t you think?

Drinking puppy blood is disgusting. Now, kittens on the other hand…

Perfect.

Your post and message are entirely dismissable due to gross factual error. While significant parts of the third season of Dr. Who are missing, it is clear that celery wasn’t a key part of the show until the twentieth season.

If an error of seventeen years can be so casually made, then there is no merit to further discussion of anything except celery.

Celery, celery, celery. You have been factchecked.

If lots of right-wingers took this post personally and got all indignant, Ms. Waring could reasonably claim to have scored a point here.

But if *nobody* takes it personally or gets indignant, doesn’t that sort of prove *their* point?

One need hardly resort to feeble attempt at satire to find good leftish parallels to Volokh’s post. Just consider all the opinion pieces that include phrases like:

“those who support the bombing of abortion clinics…”

or:

“those who want to nuke Mecca and Medina…”

Trouble is, I think you’ll find that very few on the right either (1) deny that such characters exist, or (2) identify with them to the extent that they get bent out of shape when left-wingers attack them.

So what is it that makes so many on the left so much touchier than their right-wing counterparts, when it comes to the issue of support for the insurrection?

“So what is it that makes so many on the left so much touchier than their right-wing counterparts, when it comes to the issue of support for the insurrection?”

Dolchstosslegende.

russell carter:

If Prof. Volokh had attacked anyone for “criticizing the cause of [American] nationalism, or for “not being zealous-enough supporters of it,” I would happily join with you in condemning him.

But he didn’t. So what’s your point?

abb1:

obviously *you’re* not (too cowardly to admit it).

a clear refusal to recognize that Iraq now contains the front lines in the fight with Al Queda, that Al Queda in Iraq is fundamentally and so on

The Bush administration in particular and the right in general are geniuses at creating terrible situations with no good choices, then declaring in propagandistic terms that the status quo must not change, because they’re the only ones who know how to clean up the dung-pile they so lovingly built.

The entire realm of the right-wing blog world, and your posts here, are rotten with what is the only “clear refusal to recognize” that, if reversed, could actually change the course of things.

Meanwhile, such energy goes into muddying the distinction between hoping that the architects of the mess leave the national stage in the kind of political disgrace that guarantees at least a generation of exile, and “reckless indifference to a possible Al Queda victory”. The former includes an honest accounting in the national discourse, at least, of the human cost of this ghastly mistake.

The ones operating with “reckless indifference to a possible Al Queda victory” are the idiots who invaded Iraq.

But it is a clear refusal to recognize that Iraq now contains the front lines in the fight with Al Queda, that Al Queda in Iraq is fundamentally opposed to a decent democratic outcome, and that it is vitally important for the Iraqi government, not the Al Queda / Baathist insurgency to prevail.

This is so wrong. There are no front lines, there are only back allys and back roads leading to nowhere. Whatever role Al Queda plays in Iraq it is certainly not about opposing a democratic outcome. We have already learned that a democratic outcome in Iraq involves a theocratic government…albeit one that has three centers.

Al queda is in Iraq precisely because that is where we are. It matters little to them whatever political system we’re currently trying to jury rig there as long as they can target our forces. It is about the military occupation of an arab state. This is not a trivial point. Iraq is…one), a training ground for advanced guerrilla style urban warfare…and 2), an effective recruitment tool as the imagees of dead men, women, and children continue to accumulate. We are mindlessly cooperating with their agenda, and in time there will be blowback on American soil caused by it. We can do better, but it will require some honesty from this administration that, frankly speaking, they don’t possess.

It’s not a desire for the insurgents to win so much as placing far greater emphasis on the outcome of the political battle in the U.S. than on the war in Iraq.

The insurgency falls into a least two categories. The nationalists, who want their country back, and the Al Queda, who want to throw the US out of the Middle East. If we allow the nationalists the chance to run their own country, they will sort out the details themselves (this might require the political trifurcation of Iraq), but they will rein in the Jihadists who are solely bent on chaos and destruction.

And yes, this might be a bit of a gamble, but with the occupation so far having been a complete disaster and trending towards getting worse, a gamble is something worth considering. Afterall, how much worse can self-determination be for both us and them?

It’s not a desire for the insurgents to win so much as placing far greater emphasis on the outcome of the political battle in the U.S. than on the war in Iraq.

I’ll probably get clobbered for saying this, but that’s exactly right. Could you offer some reason that I should care more about Iraq being destroyed than I do about America being destroyed? I mean, it’s parochial and provincial and all that, but the bottom line is that it is incredibly important to me that my daughter not grow up in a second world backwater as a second class citizen, paying debts incurred by self-righteous assholes who thought it was more important to swing their dicks in the ME than it was to a. catch the bastards reponsible for 9/11 or b. get this nation on some sort of sane economic and financial footing. I would also be thrilled if the daughters of Iraq could also avoid such a fate, but you’re the fools who made it less likely by supporting a patently stupid, unnecessary, and unlikely to succeed endeavor.

I don’t know what it will take to make Iraq anything resembling a stable, non-backwards society. But I know for certain that there is zero evidence – none whatsoever – that the current crowd in power in the US will do what it takes. Getting them out of power here may not be sufficient for success in Iraq, but it is wholly necessary.

Could you offer some reason that I should care more about Iraq being destroyed than I do about America being destroyed?

Becuae one is a realistic possibility and one is self-indulgent hyperbole?

soru

“a possible Al Queda victory”.

No no no no no no no. It is absolutely impossible that Al-Qaeda could win for so many reasons. However for just one reason have a look at a map of Iraq, and at the relative populations of Shia and Sunni (and Kurd for that matter). And remember the majority of the Sunni insurgency (which is not, in fact, the only insurgency going on in Iraq, let alone the only military operation) is NOT Al-Qaeda, but a Ba’athist ‘core’ onto which various sympathisers and ‘fellow travellers’ have attached themselves. The basic differences between Sunni Ba’athist nationalists and Musliam theocrats remains: they cooperate at the moment because they are united in their hatred of the Americans. As soon as the Americans are gone they will start fighting each other.

Actual Al-Qaeda fighters (by which I mean Sunni Jihadists associated with Bin Laden) are only a tiny minority even of the insurgents, and always have been. If the Americans are fighting to prevent an Al-Qaeda take over they really can go home now, cos that ain’t going to happen.

“those who support the bombing of abortion clinics…”

or:

“those who want to nuke Mecca and Medina…”

If you would provide links to specific examples of left-wing bloggers making these assertions, it would be easy to find the reactions to those assertions.

If you want to make a point, you can’t very well expect other people to do the work for you.

However for just one reason have a look at a map of Iraq, and at the relative populations of Shia and Sunni (and Kurd for that matter).

The map and relative populations were little different when saddam won the 1991 civil war, and that was without any outside help from groups like al qaeda.

You might also consider Afghanistan (40% Pashtun, and al qaeda groups provided essential muscle to the regime).

Still, while impossible is overstating it, it likely would go the other way, with the shi’a getting a lot of formal iranian help.

Then, what happens to Saudi Arabia with the Persians on the border, and the americans having proven they are not to be relied upon?

Saudi Arabia is the country where al qaeda has majority popular support, £61 billion of western arms purchased since 1995, the two most sacred shrines of islam, and a high proportion of the world’s oil production.

soru

Listen to yourself, steve.

gzombie: you mean to say that nobody on the left has ever noticed or remarked upon the fact that there are right-wingers out there who support the bombing of abortion cinics and/or the nuking of Mecca and Medina?

Play dumb much?

While it is a well known fact that Republicans drink puppy blood, I noticed no one brought up the fact that Libertarians just put the puppy in a blender for a nice smoothie.

Speaking as a non-Stalinist, non-Zionist leftist, aren’t the “Nuke M&M” guys (or, mostly guys) missing a good bet by not nuking Jerusalem, too? It’s kinda like the “2 birds with one stone” package, isn’t it?
The embarrassing thing about Iraq is that the air-conditioning hasn’t worked for a couple of years, now. Even people who would have put flowers in our gun barrels and danced in the streets 2 years ago are probably muttering about when they had lamb in the freezer, and the air conditioning didn’t crap out mid-afternoon. It’s kind of role reversal, isn’t it? I mean, we used to PUT IN guys like Saddam (and Trujillo, and Duvalier, and Pinochet, and Somoza, and Sg. Joe Mobutu, and Marcos, and Suharto); and offered up the SCARY Alternative of Allende (or, gulp! Castro!) to the whiny naysayers. We HAVE come a long ways… but the air-conditioning still doesn’t work. ^..^

I can’t comment one way or another about puppy Bloody Marys, but it’s clear that collecting kittens from animal shelters and dissecting them represent solid Republican values.

Does anyone else feel the least bit squeamish about the juxtaposition of this post and Quiggin’s In praise of speciesism?

Whatever role Al Queda plays in Iraq it is certainly not about opposing a democratic outcome. We have already learned that a democratic outcome in Iraq involves a theocratic government…albeit one that has three centers.

Al queda is in Iraq precisely because that is where we are. It matters little to them whatever political system we’re currently trying to jury rig there as long as they can target our forces.

But that is plainly, delusionally wrong. It is an essential delusion if you want to believe that the best course of action is to withdraw leave the Iraqis to their fate (imagining against logic and clear evidence that Al Queda will then also withdraw), but it is a delusion nonetheless.

Zarqawi has repeatedly asserted that democracy is apostasy–what does the guy have to do to convince you he actually means it? Or it it just too inconvenient for you to accept?

Further–the Al Queda / Baathist alliance certainly wouldn’t give up and go away if the U.S. left. More delusion. The Baathists, of course, want to regain control (of all or of a large part of Iraq). Al Queda wants to be victorious over the U.S. and that means not only driving the U.S. from the country but driving the Iraqi government into the ground (which government is triply despised because it is democratically elected, U.S. supported, AND Shia dominated).

Especially when it hasn’t even occurred to you that Iraq may not be a front line at all, but a massive training ground for al-Qaedists created at the expense of the American taxpayer?

There is no reason it cannot be both — in fact, I think it is unavoidable. Wherever an enemy is engaged, the battlefield necessarily becomes a ‘massive training ground’ for both one’s own forces and those of the enemy.

Supposing that we had evidence that the Iraqi insurgency was composed of more than just al Qaedists and Baathists; could you be relied upon to look that evidence square in the face, or would you be too busy trying to decry those who dared to unearth it as anti-American for acknowledging the facts?

I’m sure the Iraqi insurgency is composed of more than just Al Quedists and Baathists (it does seem to be supported by Syria and possibly Iran as well). But there is little doubt that the Al Queda and the Baathists are by far the dominant forces in the insurgency. Or were you suggesting that Al Queda and Baathists are really marginal and that the real power in the insurgency is…who exactly? And your evidence for that is…what exactly?

“U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq,” By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer (Washington Post, Sunday August 14):

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

I have perfect pitch.

That’s some wind instrument you’re using.

Le Petomaine lives!

There is no reason it cannot be both

But there is every reason to suspect that it is one and not the other. Al-Qaedist militants are pretty evidently operating far more widely than just in Iraq, and Iraq continues to inspire branch plants of the ideology (cf. London).

But there is little doubt that the Al Queda and the Baathists are by far the dominant forces in the insurgency.

Little doubt in your mind, perhaps. But then, you’re the one with the serious credibility gap at this point, and it’s time for you to start coming to terms with that. Serious observers of what is going on in Iraq moved on from the canned “foreign fighters and dead-enders” line a long, long time ago. You need to explain why you haven’t done the same. Frankly, I don’t think you can do it.

And this is the crux—the ‘ghastly mistake’ version of events depends on failure, on disaster not just for coalition forces but much worse disaster for the Iraqi people.

Actually, the “ghastly mistake” version of events depends on an honest assessment of whether Coalition forced can withdraw and leave a functioning Iraqi government vs. whether their presence has become inherently destabilizing, as many military strategists now feel. If you’re capable of mounting an honest case against that version of events, you need to start showing a wider and more current awareness of the state of the debate. Repeating canned White House and Pentagon talking points simply will not fly.

‘ It is an essential delusion if you want to believe that the best course of action is to withdraw leave the Iraqis to their fate’

God I loathe all that crap. It’s as if Iraq invaded the United States using America’s weapons of mass destruction as an excuse (which actually exist, unlike Iraq’s). This would undoubtedly lead to a huge armed resistance, which would undoubtedly have a huge faith based/Christian/radical Christian/Bushite element (amongst others), with a less than advanced record on women’s rights, gay rights etc. Imagine then the Iraqis refused to leave to ‘leave the Americans to their fate’, and described the battle as one between ‘civilisation’ and ‘radical fundamentalist Christianity’.

There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion. Now there is. Draw your own conclusions.

chris clarke: anal fixation, huh?

No doubt it’s just a passing phase.

…when people on the right criticize those who support the insurgency, people on the left suddenly get all…well, defensive.

When people from any part of the political spectrum observe that Bush and Blair told lies, pro-war people (left and right) suddenly get all…well, defensive; as if the criticism applied to them, personally.

I tell you, it’s creepy.

That was your point? That’s it?

kevin: when “people from any part of the political spectrum observe that Bush and Blair told lies,” I may or may not agree, depending on the evidence, but do I take it as a personal accusation that *I* have told lies?

Nope.

Who does?

I’m not going to provide you with a bunch of links to prove this.

I’m not asking you to prove anything. I’m just asking you to clarify, specifically, what you’re talking about. You apparently have some particular examples in mind of statements by liberals denouncing conservative extremists as well as conservative responses to those denouncements. Because I cannot read your mind, I don’t know what those specific examples you’re thinking of are.

I’ve always found it strange when people use this argumentative tactic: “Here’s what I believe, and the evidence is available via Google. I don’t have time to provide the evidence for you.” (For example, see Ben Benny in this thread.)

If your argument relies upon evidence, and if you don’t have time to provide evidence, you don’t really have time to make a persuasive argument.

I suspect there are not many such Republicans. However, we must remember that some Republican drinkers of puppy blood may not admit to doing so in polite company.

I believe that I understand what you’re saying, Steve.

…the point of which seemed to be that those on the other side would take understandable umbrage were someone on the left to post something targeting some small-to-nonexistent group of right wing extremists.

I disagree. I think the point of Belle’s post is the what we find in the Volokh post is a silly thing to post in the first place.

I simply can’t come up with any instances where reasonable right-wingers have taken this routine sort of thing as an attack on themselves

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I’m sorry to muddy the waters here, but as someone who has bled puppies, in addition to decapitating cats, castrating fish, scooping the eyes out of various animals, and pureeing embryos, I am troubled by the blanket condemnation of people who may have a perfectly good reasons for engaging in those activities.

Tell me, what is objectively wrong with good Republicans choosing to slake their unholy thirst with the warm life’s blood of the innocent? Given that it is an unpopular act, it must be not only amply warranted, but necessary. That they do it at all is therefore a service to America, and we should be grateful.

Steve, how old can anyone be to engage in this conversation here? No more than 14 or no less than 76, I’d think.

Steve, you’re trying to dent a feather duster with a sledgehammer, and seeing you try is, indeed, funnier than Belle’s post (which I found funny).

The guy that made comments about nuking Mecca was, like, a Republican Congressman or something, right? I think the Republican response to the uproar over that was that there was absolutely nothing wrong with nuking Mecca, given the right circumstance. The right circumstances being an Islamic nuke in the US, regardless of where exactly the Islamic nuke came from.

Maybe if there is a difference in reactions to this sort of thing, the reason may be found in the fact that one group is capable of shame, and the other is not.

If you don’t think drinking puppy blood is a big deal, then you don’t much care when someone paints you with the puppy blood brush, even if you do not particularly care for puppy blood yourself.

There are lots of reasons why patriotic Americans would support the US getting out from Iraq now. It’s absurd to say that such people “support the insurgency.” First, many are becoming convinced that the odds of beating Al Quaeda will be higher if the US got out of Iraq. Second, on balance, the debacle in Iraq and the excessive financial and human cost of the adventure can help bring to the US (and American citizens) a sense of realism about their relative power, which in the long run can only be good for the US. If the debacle in Iraq saves the US from a reckless engagement in North Korea — an engagement whose costs could dwarf the costs in Iraq –, as a patriot, I think that would be a good price to pay.

And yet, there is good comedy and bad comedy, and there are (at least sometimes) identifiable reasons why some attempts at comedy succeed and others fail. So comedy is no more exempt from criticism than any other genre. Were we discussing Mark Steyn, perhaps harry and henry would be more inclined to agree with me on this.