From the Washington Post, “Blinding Flash of the Obvious” Department:
The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday.
“Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists,” CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism,” he said. “They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.”
On a day when the top half-dozen U.S. national security and intelligence officials went to Capitol Hill to talk about the continued determination of terrorists to strike the United States, their statements underscored the unintended consequences of the war in Iraq.
“The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists,” Goss said in his first public testimony since taking over the CIA. Goss said Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist who has joined al Qaeda since the U.S. invasion, “hopes to establish a safe haven in Iraq” from which he could operate against Western nations and moderate Muslim governments.
“Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment,” Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate panel. “Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world.”
How long before our doughty friends at Power Line realize that Porter Goss and Vice Admiral Jacoby are…ON THE OTHER SIDE!!!!
Anybody who still thinks Bush’s excellent little adventure in Iraq was either moral or wise is clearly never going to learn from any experience.
The sad thing is that this means the next time their favourite politicians sell them a load of unmitigated horseshit they’ll cheerfully buy again.
Anybody who still thinks Bush’s excellent little adventure in Iraq was either moral or wise is clearly never going to learn from any experience.
The sad thing is that this means the next time their favourite politicians sell them a load of unmitigated horseshit they’ll cheerfully buy again.
Incidentally, will this buy Porter Goss any credibility from the left half of the blogosphere?
Actually, I think that Goss’s hating America is not primary here, but an epiphenomenon of the true cause of his analytical waywardness: doesn’t Goss have a degree from one of those decadent Western universities?
Now, that would explain it.
Sad, isn’t it? The jihadists fell into Bush’s trap. No, wait…
Sad, isn’t it? The jihadists fell into Bush’s trap. No, wait…
Incidentally, will this buy Porter Goss any credibility from the left half of the blogosphere?
It’s possible. Certainly it’s a sign that he’s much less immune to reality (or as much of the reality as we can discern) than most people expected. Which can’t be an agreeable surprise for the Bushites. If he keeps this sort of thing up, I suspect he’ll be “spending more time with his family” in pretty short order.
Hell, even Negroponte is bailing out of this mess. Not even a neoconservative can think that somewhere there must be a pony in this pile of $#!+.
BLAME CLINTON
BLAME CLINTON
BLAME CLINTON
BLAME CLINTON
BLAME CLINTON
BLAME CLINTON
(and keep fingers in both ears)
You know, it’s perfectly reasonable to claim he and Carter are on “the other side”. It’s a fair argument. The only question is: where is this line drawn by Powerline and others?
My guess is that it’s a line surrounding a tiny couple of cranks, and I have no desire to be on their side.
The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists
The bit i’d like him to explain.
… Or that i would like him to explain if he wasn’t… ON THE OTHER SIDE!!!
derrida derider:“Anybody who still thinks Bush’s excellent little adventure in Iraq was either moral or wise is clearly never going to learn from any experience.
“The sad thing is that this means the next time their favourite politicians sell them a load of unmitigated horseshit they’ll cheerfully buy again.”
I do not now think, nor have I ever thought, that the war against Iraq is or ever was “moral or wise” or legal either. However, I have not always been right as I think I am on this issue. I’m sure I’ve gotten some things as wrong as “[a]nybody who still thinks Bush’s excellent little adventure in Iraq was either moral or wise” have. I have learned things, and hope I still can. I cannot say that no one who “still thinks….etc.” will never learn, or that they will always stand ready to “cheerfully buy again…another “load of unmitigated horseshit.” (Actually, there are a lot of horses in my area, and one can get the material you mention at virtually no cost, and it’s good fertilizer, even if it’s not totally unmitigated, but I digress)
I don’t think experience alone is a how one learns about questions of “morality or wisdom” Discussion and argument about the experience is also required. If we want the people of whom you speak to change their minds we have to argue with them and try to persuade them to do so. And when we argue we expose our own beliefs to challenge, which is good because we learn as well, even if we don’t persuade those with whom we disagree.
“When we consider either the history of opinion, or the ordinary conduct of human life, to what is it to be ascribed that the one and the other are no worse than they are? Not certainly to the inherent force of the human understanding; for, on any matter not self-evident, there are ninety-nine persons totally incapable of judging of it, for one who is capable; and the capacity of the hundredth person is only comparative; for the majority of the eminent men of every past generation held many opinions now known to be erroneous, and did or approved numerous things which no one will now justify.
“Why is it, then, that there is on the whole a preponderance among mankind of rational opinions and rational conduct? If there really is this preponderance—which there must be unless human affairs are, and have always been, in an almost desperate state—it is owing to a quality of the human mind, the source of everything respectable in man either as an intellectual or as a moral being, namely, that his errors are corrigible. He is capable of rectifying his mistakes, by discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion, to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it. Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning.
“The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand. In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner.
“The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognisant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers—knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter—he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process.”
John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty.” Chapter II,Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, p.8 (The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.)
Accessed at: Bartleby.com
http://www.bartleby.com/25/2/2.html
derrida derider:“Anybody who still thinks Bush’s excellent little adventure in Iraq was either moral or wise is clearly never going to learn from any experience.
“The sad thing is that this means the next time their favourite politicians sell them a load of unmitigated horseshit they’ll cheerfully buy again.”
I do not now think, nor have I ever thought, that the war against Iraq is or ever was “moral or wise” or legal either. However, I have not always been right as I think I am on this issue. I’m sure I’ve gotten some things as wrong as “[a]nybody who still thinks Bush’s excellent little adventure in Iraq was either moral or wise” have. I have learned things, and hope I still can. I cannot say that no one who “still thinks….etc.” will never learn, or that they will always stand ready to “cheerfully buy again…another “load of unmitigated horseshit.” (Actually, there are a lot of horses in my area, and one can get the material you mention at virtually no cost, and it’s good fertilizer, even if it’s not totally unmitigated, but I digress)
I don’t think experience alone is a how one learns about questions of “morality or wisdom” Discussion and argument about the experience is also required. If we want the people of whom you speak to change their minds we have to argue with them and try to persuade them to do so. And when we argue we expose our own beliefs to challenge, which is good because we learn as well, even if we don’t persuade those with whom we disagree.
“When we consider either the history of opinion, or the ordinary conduct of human life, to what is it to be ascribed that the one and the other are no worse than they are? Not certainly to the inherent force of the human understanding; for, on any matter not self-evident, there are ninety-nine persons totally incapable of judging of it, for one who is capable; and the capacity of the hundredth person is only comparative; for the majority of the eminent men of every past generation held many opinions now known to be erroneous, and did or approved numerous things which no one will now justify.
“Why is it, then, that there is on the whole a preponderance among mankind of rational opinions and rational conduct? If there really is this preponderance—which there must be unless human affairs are, and have always been, in an almost desperate state—it is owing to a quality of the human mind, the source of everything respectable in man either as an intellectual or as a moral being, namely, that his errors are corrigible. He is capable of rectifying his mistakes, by discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion, to show how experience is to be interpreted. Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it. Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning.
“The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand. In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner.
“The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognisant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers—knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter—he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process.”
John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty.” Chapter II,Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion, p.8 (The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.)
Accessed at: Bartleby.com
http://www.bartleby.com/25/2/2.html
Tom, you can just link the relevant section. No need to post large chunks, in bold - remember, bold text has twice the bandwidth cost :)
Tom, you can just link the relevant section. No need to post large chunks, in bold - remember, bold text has twice the bandwidth cost :)
Tom, you can just link the relevant section. No need to post large chunks, in bold - remember, bold text has twice the bandwidth cost :)
Aggh - this thing doesn’t even show the post when you exit Internet Explorer, start it up, go back to the site, and hit refresh a couple of times.
Ladies & gentlemen, please read the fine print:
Please only hit the “Post” button once. Although there may be a delay while the page reloads, something is happening, we promise.
I did. Then I exited IE, got back in, and checked it again, just to make sure that it hadn’t come through yet.
I think that it comes down to a several minute delay on the server side.
Nobody’s really mentioned this…but I think ‘treason’ is about to get a shot in the arm in terms of a new enforcer on the block - John Negroponte
http://bloogeyman.blogspot.com/2005/02/everything-is-ponteing-to-trouble.html
Better start looking over your shoulder….
Er, perhaps i’m tone-deaf regarding a stab at humor, but there’s enough misinformation about the web that I can’t be sure: why do you think bold text would take up twice the bandwidth? puzzled look HTML is streamed in text, so the bandwidth use should be increased only by the bandwidth needed for the open-bold and close-bold tags.
Bold might not have twice the bandwidth costs, but it does have less than half the effect. There’s no way my eyes can put up with reading more than a few words at a time in bold. And to double post it…
“Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world.”
So what? We’ll just have to kill them all, then.
aphrael asks: why do you think bold text would take up twice the bandwidth?
Simple! Because whenever you send bold text across the ARPAnet, the way it’s transmitted is this. First the “server” mainframe transmits a line of text, encoded as “bytes,” each representing a single alpha-numeric character, to the “client” teletype. Then it sends a carriage return (ASCII [American Standard Code for Information Interchange] x0A) character without the usual line-feed (ASCII x0D). Then the “server” transmits the same line of text a second time, and this time it terminates the line with both a carriage return and a line feed, which drops the teletype down a space on the page, so it will be ready for the next line of text.
At the teletype end, where you the ARPAnet user, or “browser,” sits waiting to read the transmission, the type head moves from the left side of the platen to the right, banging out printed characters as it goes, then the print head returns to the left and bangs out the characters a second time. Thus the “bold” characters, having been printed twice, show up on the printed page as extra dark.
Clearly bold text requires almost exactly twice (twice less one) “bytes” to send than ordinary text. It hardly seems like it would amount to a significant cost difference - after all, with modern technology one can send hundreds, even thousands of “bytes” for only pennies! But believe me, on a high-traffic “web site” such as this one, the cost of all that bold text does add up. And that’s not counting the wear-and-tear on the platen at the teletype end, nor the cost of those replacement typewriter ribbons.
So take it easy on the bold text, all you “web-sters”!
We have been under attack since … 93 ? earlier ?
And this is a change, in what way ?
20 Wars are islamic jihad expansion, are islamics attacking sudan christians because southern sudanese support the Jews ?
Nope, sorry, they are comming at us all the same, retreat and they will follow, jihad dont end untill the entire planet is under Islamic rule.
With my comment above, I seem to have hit a trifectca of sorts-i.e., pasting too much text from the article I cited; excessive employment of bold text; and (to cap it all off) double posting the offending comment (This last offense at was unintentional.).
I apologize for all of the above. To those who commented on this matter, I appreciate your feedback, all your points are well taken, and I’ll try to avoid such mistakes in the future.
Well, it was a nice post apart from all that Tom. And I think it is totally natural to double-post when you are new here because the wacky server and software problems almost force you to do it.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review