Frank and I agree on nearly everything despite his claim to the contrary.We were both, as I imagine most OneUtah readers were, pleasantly surprised to meet John of Argghhh! who came over from his MilBlog after I commented there during my evening stroll through the Milblogoshere. John swept in like a breath of fresh air with a series of honest and thoughtful comments (as blog master of one of the top Military blogs) on my favorite subject.
Side Note: As many of you know, my fascination — possibly an obsession — with understanding the mind began in 2004 when it became clear that even after 3.5 years of overwhelming evidence that Bush had lied us into war and his administration was dangerously ideological, so many Americans still supported him.
For me at least, today’s political climate today provides an especially rich opportunity to engage the thinking (or refusal thereof) of the increasingly rare, self-organized communities of people who STILL support Bush and buy into his world paradigm. End Side Note
As Frank points out, John, like Frank, is a politically conservative MilBlogger against the invasion of Iraq while being a supporter, albeit reluctant, of our military posture in the Middle East.
This morning John of Argghhh! wrote a post jam packed with observations in response to my solicitation of his thoughts on the John Dean interview.
What’s interesting is that John is openly critical of Bush et. al.
“For the record – I wasn’t in favor of invading Iraq…. Lord knows the post-war was handled badly†and “And I’ve consistently called for More Heads! More Heads! over Abu Ghraibâ€
Disclaimer: The following is not meant as a personal attack. I realize the words “tribal†and “tribe†conjure images of savages and cavemen. I do not mean it that way. I wish there were a better word to describe this very common animal trait, but there isn’t. We all have tribe in us. Nice words for the same are loyalty, team player, allegiance, trustworthiness, incorruptibility etc. but in the interest of clarity and honesty, I use the word tribe and it’s derivatives at certain risk of offending everyone.
But John is also clear about his loyalties. Clearly far from the from the type described in “Conservatives Without Conscience†John still describes an implicit context of the ‘other side’. With observations — to paraphrase — like; the democrats are bad too, progressives are tribal too, and “the MSM trends liberal.â€
The problem with the tribal paradigm is that it necessitates seeing others through that lens. It requires the tribal mind to identify others first as friend or foe and assumes an allegiance to all members of a preconceived opposition/enemy group.
For example, the common assumption that people who criticize Bush or one of his, will also go to the mat for Clinton or Pelosi. From Limbaugh and Hannity to Cpl M at ASP, there seems to be no institutional acknowledgment that most progressive political activists were sharply critical of Clinton, and an honest review of DailyKos with reveal sharp and consistent criticism of the democratic congressmen individually and the party as a whole.
The tribal mind sees intellectual criticism as personal attack or an attack on the tribe.
The tribal mind measures expression in terms of loyalty. This manifests itself in many ways. In today’s political milieu we find the ever more numerous, intellectually honest, tribal mind still apologetic about their disappointment with Bush and the war by qualifying any criticism with ‘loyalty reminders’ like “Kerry would have been worseâ€, “but the democrats would have us wearing burqasâ€, “if the media weren’t so liberal“, “its Clinton’s faultâ€, “bad intelligence†etc.
In other words, “I agree with what you’ve been telling us for years, but I’m still not one of you.†We are seen as of singular mind the way republicans saw themselves until recently. This is reflected in John’s statement, “A perfect example is either political party when they hold power,†as if the parties are behaviorally identical. John goes on describe the party as if it were something than a huge tent made up of everyone BUT white American men with money.
John finishes by saying, “they stayed stuck in their rut, really unable to change their message, and gaining little traction with the voters, and staying out in the wildernessâ€, as if not communicating a loud and easily digestible message is somehow possible for the democrats just because the republicans did (even if it all turned out to be lies).
This right-wing political tribalism began with Reagan (’Reagan democrats’) but got really churned up by Rove and Madison Ave. using the simplest of technique; a visceral “us vs. them†message under the guise of moral values, family values and fear.
But, as much as we appreciate civil discourse, we are still like ships passing in the night.
Speaking for myself at least if not most, we want to see more than an apology for supporting Bush. We can applaud you for that all day long. We want to see critical thinking translated into a moral imperative to do something!
In the words of Martin Luther King, “the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who in the a period of moral crises, maintain their neutralityâ€
Consider for a moment how MLK would be considered today. He would be attacked as he was then as a “hate-filled liberal, a dangerous to American society?”. And yet we celebrate him with a federal holiday.
We must go forward from here, and thanks to Bush and all who trusted him, we must now do the hardest thing; admit defeat in Iraq, pull in the neighboring states and the international community, pull US troops out of Muslim lands and set about fixing what we broke.
Thanks again to John of Argghhh! I do hope he will continue to engage with us here or there always forgiving of our coarse, vulgar, and sometimes unforgivable but always unintentional trespasses upon his immeasurable integrity and the great respect he has clearly earned.
#1 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2007 - 8:11 pm
Cliff– Bush is one of these people you describe: with us or with the terrorists, dead or alive, bring ‘em on, try and stop me. You can agree with the president 100 percent or you can be on Karl Rove’s enemies list. Is it possible that Bush still retains the loyalty of some people because they think exactly the same way he does?
#2 by Caveat on January 15, 2007 - 8:26 pm
Richard, I would suggest that those ’some people’ can’t exceed 1000 individuals, and imploding. Soon to reach negative numbers with Bushes change of heart / mind. Of course, I live in a dream.
#3 by Frank Staheli on January 15, 2007 - 8:51 pm
Cliff,
As I have thought about it over the last few days, it occurred to me that you and I probably do agree on a lot more than it would at first seem.
I do find myself from time to time reacting blindly in protection of my supposed tribe when something negative is said about it. It is ususally better to take as sincere and at face value the criticisms that are leveled at any of one’s particular sacred cows, and to remember that those cows probably really aren’t sacred in the first place.
I made a tribal assumption regarding Elizabeth on Thoughts, Rants, Opinions that she would automatically say yes to anything that Hillary Clinton stood for, and I was told in certain terms that this was not the case. In the same regard, I’ll have to check out Daily Kos more often, if it really does not, as you say, subscribe to the tribe mentality.
#4 by Cliff Lyon on January 15, 2007 - 9:07 pm
Frank,
That very nice of you to say (that we agree on more than not).
Here’s Pelosi’s diary at DailyKos.
Especially punishing were the comments 700 + comment (one day) on “The Gloves Are Off” – April5th.
She got smacked down so hard, some think it swayed her policy. Imagine THAT! Bloggers affecting a powerful politician’s policy?
What would happen if all the tribalist realize WE AREN’T A TRIBE (except to the extent another tribe defines us as such)?
But we certainly don’t all march to the same tune.
#5 by Beth (Wife of John of Arrgghhh!) on January 16, 2007 - 3:00 pm
This is quite an interesting blog. Obviously you are a very smart guy, and you do a lot deep thinking.
I am an independent conservative, myself. Once upon a time I was as liberal as they get, but as I grew older, I grew, to my mind, wiser.
I went to Daily Kos and started a diary there well over a year ago, in an attempt to get out the word of a fund raiser for ValorIT. (Voice-activated laptops for injured troops in Walter Reed and other Military Hospitals).
I was attacked by what appeared to me to be a rabid pack of dogs. Why? Because the government should pay for everything, and they would not give to any charity.
I don’t go to Daily Kos anymore.
I would like to add that I still support the President. I’m not happy with how the war is going, but we sure as heck can’t up and leave now. We need to win the war. It is in our National Interest to do so. I don’t like a lot of things Bush has done, but I am very impressed that he does not lead by polls, as it seemed President Clinton did. He does what he believes is right. All of my conservative friends continue to support President Bush, also. Everyone of us has at one time or other disagreed with Bush’s policies on one thing or another – in my case, I think we need to clamp down hard on illegal immigration, not give amnesty to every Juan, Jose and Maria who have illegally crossed our borders.
We do not all think just exactly alike. I’m rambling a bit. I should go write a post on my own blog (LOL).
So, cheers and Happy New Year.
#6 by Cliff Lyon on January 16, 2007 - 3:15 pm
Thank you Beth for your reflections.
First, I would suggest that the nature of activists (DailyKos) is to debate everything. It would be a mistake to ascribe them as thinking alike.
Question: Do you think the gov’t is taking good care of our wounded vets and their families? Do you think they SHOULD pay for the laptops?
Lastly, I’d like to point out that you said, “We do not all think just exactly alike” after you said, “All of my conservative friends continue to support President Bush, also. Everyone of us has at one time or other disagreed with Bush’s policies on one thing or another.”
And one hypothetical if I may; If one of your friends decided president Bush had betrayed their trust and lied and really doesn’t give a darn about ‘moral values’ and stuff and he should be impeached, would that friend tell you? Would you stay friends?
Thanks Beth!
Peace
#7 by Richard Warnick on January 16, 2007 - 3:17 pm
“We need to win the war. It is in our National Interest to do so.”
(1) What constitutes a win? (2) How does President Bush’s plan make winning possible? (3) Isn’t the national interest decided by a majority of the voters?
#8 by Susie on January 16, 2007 - 4:10 pm
Everyone in the admin including Bush has been asked question #1 recently. They just avoid answering, because whatever the answer will not equal and definition of win.
Nevertheless, I hear and read all these surge supporters saying the same thing. We have to win. lets hope we are in the last stage of denial.
As for #3, you are exactly right. If the Bush were a good president, he would say, “OK, if thats what the people want, I’ll do it. I don’t agree, but we are after all, a democracy, and the will of the people trumps all.”
Ah but Bush has never been denied anything he wants his entire life. I don’t think the concept exists in his brain.
#9 by Lt Jones on January 16, 2007 - 4:15 pm
Hey, these questions are getting a little too hard.
#10 by John of Argghhh! on January 16, 2007 - 5:01 pm
Cliff – should the government provide the laptops and software?
From my perspective, yes. But while the VA was thinking about that, we just got together and did it. Raised the money, and have provided 800 laptops and counting.
And now the VA is providing the software (which the Vendor gave them a handsome pprice break on) but is not yet funded for the laptops. It is a zero-sum game in their budget (vice the budget Congress deals with). They can buy laptops, or they can buy prosthetics. I’ll have ‘em spend the money on the prosthetics.
And we’ll work to get the laptops in the budget.
But, as the son of a retired soldier and a retired soldier myself – VA was broke under Clinton, and has improved under Bush.
Not because Bush led the way – the war forced their hand.
And they haven’t improved enough.
But my point is – I can take your approach, and not do anything but try to pressure the pols – or I can act *and* try to pressure the pols.
We acted. As a community. Most of the money comes from… milbloggers. Over a million dollars.
And that doesn’t include the amount spent on in-kind donations and cash donations to Fisher House, or Soldier’s Angels in Germany, who provide clothing for the troops who show up at Landstuhl effectively naked.
And I still find time to work charity at home – because I like to see things *happen* not just rant about them on my blog, right letters, and attend meetings full of earnest people who will happily turn up for a rally – but when it comes to actually *doing* something… they aren’t all that there.
And Cliff – if you think what happened to Beth was debate – then you think WWF is real Olympic-quality sport… 8^) You really do have a largish blind spot in that regard, as I keep harping on…
#11 by FbL on January 16, 2007 - 7:38 pm
I followed over here from John’s Blog. And he answered the laptop question exactly as I would have (I’ve been involved in the laptop project since the beginning, so I wanted to answer your question when I saw it, but couldn’t sit down ’til now):
But my point is – I can take your approach, and not do anything but try to pressure the pols – or I can act *and* try to pressure the pols.
We acted. As a community. Most of the money comes from… milbloggers. Over a million dollars.
I think the reason why we naturally turned to fellow citizens rather than government was because we instinctively knew we could move a hundred times faster than any government program. And that has turned out to be true.
In fundraising for Valour-IT, I frequently come up against that idea (some use it as an excuse not to donate)–”Shouldn’t the government be doing this?” Yes, they should. But they’re not right now, so what’s the fastest way to meet the needs of the wounded servicemember who has had his world rocked both physically and psychologically? It’s not about politics or even political philosophy. It’s pragmatic; it’s about human-to-human, how we efficiently meet needs that aren’t being met otherwise. That “rocked” servicemember isn’t going care a whit that someone writes a blog post tonight about how the VA is underfunded (though shining the light on such issues is valuable) because he’s never going to see direct results from the budget increases that might inspire… but he’s going to be “rocked” in a whole ‘nother (good) way tomorrow when he finds that thousands of people donated time and money so that he can have, sitting on his hospital bed, a laptop that makes him feel whole and productive again.
#12 by glenn on January 16, 2007 - 7:48 pm
John of: Aaarghhh, you are making everyone look bad.
Thankfully. I love it.
You Sir, Rock…
How can I help? You are the first person that I have read in a long time, that possess strong ideology, without the decrepit agenda.
America,… F*** YEAH! It happens from time to time.
Isn’t it so, that actions speak louder than words?
The damn fools can do nothing but follow, us that is, followers becoming the leader.
It’s a law.
#13 by Diane on January 16, 2007 - 8:13 pm
“As for #3, you are exactly right. If the Bush were a good president, he would say, “OK, if thats what the people want, I’ll do it. I don’t agree, but we are after all, a democracy, and the will of the people trumps all.â€
Susie – We are not a democracy. We are a Constitution-based federal republic. The President doesn’t govern by the polls. He shouldn’t.
“Question: Do you think the gov’t is taking good care of our wounded vets and their families? Do you think they SHOULD pay for the laptops?”
Cliff – The government shouldn’t pay for everything. In this case, the cause is worthy, but the need is being met privately. As John said, if he has to choose between prosthetics and computers….. What’s wrong with individual Americans filling this need?
Richard – While I would agree that the majority of Americans are unhappy with the current circumstances in Iraq, I also believe that the majority of Americans want us to win and not to just up and leave.
#14 by FbL on January 16, 2007 - 8:30 pm
In this case, the cause is worthy, but the need is being met privately.
The problem is, IEDs (and the resulting limb/blindness injuries) became a major issue beginning in 2004. But the need for voice-controlled computers didn’t even start being met until August of 2005; the first two laptops were delivered in September 2005, and no more than a dozen were purchased until November. So, the record on this isn’t pretty.
#15 by Lt Jones on January 16, 2007 - 8:36 pm
Diane,
Reporters have asked Bush, and in congressional hearings, Gates, Rice, and others have been asked, what does “win” mean?
No one in any official capacity has answered that question.
I accept, “the majority of Americans want us to win and not to just up and leave.” But the polls do say most Americans (70%) say begin leaving now because most Americans understand what the Iraq Study Group said. There is no “win” and there are no good options.
I think we all know that the idea of “win” is not realistic. There is no chance that anything remotely resembling “win” is possible within parameters under our control.
I’m hoping, as are all Americans. that there is a definition of “win” that is within our grasp, but so far, none has been articulated by the administration, or anyone for that matter.
How would you describe “win” and how will we know when it happens? Anyone?
#16 by VA Admin on January 16, 2007 - 9:13 pm
If I may jump in here. I’ve been reading this blog since summer. I am a high level administrator in the SLC VA with a PhD in Public Policy and a conservative.
I believe in miniature government and have great confidence and conviction that the community can rise to a certain level to provide help where the government can’t.
But support for Veterans is not one of them. Since WWII the policy foundation for the treatment of veterans has been based on the philosphy that our national security and the quality of our military (especially volunteer) requires a taking really good care of them.
The idea that care of Veterans should fall, at any level, to the community, is an egregious failure of fundamental policy.
I was a bit surprised that someone said Clinton has destroyed the VA. That is debatable. What is not debatable is that the Bush administration and the republican congress’s performance and behavior toward the VA has been criminal. So bad in fact, that our top people nationwide have left in disgust and have been replaced by mice.
The bad treatment of our Vets will haunt our military for generations.
#17 by Cliff on January 16, 2007 - 9:38 pm
John,
I apologize if the MLK quote hit too hard. Certainly you are a good man.
I also agree about people who talk/rant a lot and do nothing in the end. I am not one of them. Actually, my volunteer work and fund raising activities are legendary so I won’t rub it in because in most cases, your flippant accusation would land on deserving targets. I’m with you on that. Much of my frustration comes directly from the contrast between my work and efforts vs the average too busy American. The only criteria (besides residing in Ut) to be a contributing author on OneUtah is volunteer work. Not money, but time. Its best way I know to measure someone’s intentions/agenda.
I don’t know how to respond to the equivocation on Iraq and Bosnia or the Clinton v Bush on the politicization of Federal agencies. Its a non-starter. I guess we’ll have to let the biased historians decide.
Not that google is any indication, but if you google worse president in history…
I’ve gotta run right now. back soon.
#18 by Diane on January 16, 2007 - 10:10 pm
I personally would define “win” as a working government in Iraq with the ability to provide it’s own security. More and better trained Iraqi forces so that Baghdad looks more like the provinces that are currently under the control of Iraqi forces now. There needs to be a much lower unemployment rate so that there are slimmer pickings for the insurgent recruiters. Finally, secure borders (something sorely needed in this country as well). It is certainly possible. The number of provinces under the control of Iraqi forces has been growing. It is growing far more slowly than anyone would like, but it is growing. These things are possible if we stay, they are impossible if we leave. People talk about how many Iraqis are dying…..what would that number be if we left now? What would it be if we pulled back to the borders? I have had some people answer me that it doesn’t matter because the lives lost wouldn’t be American lives. Forgive me if I am horrified at that statement. A “win” is when we can leave knowing there will not be genocide in our wake.
FbL – I do not mean to say that you have completely accomplished your mission. I mean that there are limited funds over at the VA and if a need can be met privately, I have no problem with that. Not every need can/should be met with tax dollars.
Cliff – Was the quote directed at John? By the way, it was Dante who first said it. If he’s right, Hell will be filled with the Swiss. I hope they bring chocolate.
#19 by ldsnomore on January 16, 2007 - 10:59 pm
Here is the direct quote Cliff and Diane are referring to and one that begs repeating:
“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”
Here is my question – when did dissent become heresy in our country?
#20 by glenn on January 16, 2007 - 11:07 pm
VA Admin; very astute, you should look into the Canadian models of care, as you have a mission very similar to the universal model they utilize up North. The districts are heterogenous, and problem solve on a district by district basis, using successes from other similar districts in cost saving, medical efficacy, logistical placements, that improve patient outcomes, while saving money. If they don’t they are not implemented.
I can put you in contact with Canadian professionals, that more than likely will be willing to share, as profit is not their motive, and health is, they have a better spiritual commitment as a system, and for the limited monies they have, they have accomplished amazing results. If you have not already, tap in, it is truly a different experience in how these professionals share what they have learned, and will sponge up whatever you know.
The Hippocratic Oath is served well there, despite them having fewer monetary assets in health care than we do.
#21 by Lynette on January 16, 2007 - 11:11 pm
Ever since they set Karl Rove loose.
#22 by lynette on January 16, 2007 - 11:13 pm
Hey John! Welcome to OneUtah. We’ve been lookin’ for someone to whoup Cliff’s ass and you are the real deal! You go boy!
#23 by Moroni on January 16, 2007 - 11:26 pm
The ones going to hell are the ones who decided lying to a grand jury about a perfectly legal sex act was impeachable but lying to congress, purposeful and repeated violations of international law, illegal use of tax-payer money, obstruction of justice, domestic wiretapping, secret CIA prisons to name a few…are not.
#24 by glenn on January 16, 2007 - 11:47 pm
Moron I; clinton was prosecuted for lying about his incidence with monica after being called to trial, and forced under Oath to testify.
He should have said he boned her real good and liked it. That would have been good, no lies, no foul, 2nd term pres,… he was pathologically STUPID for what he did(lying) under Oath in the dock.
#25 by ry on January 17, 2007 - 1:10 am
“If one of your friends decided president Bush had betrayed their trust and lied and really doesn’t give a darn about ‘moral values’ and stuff and he should be impeached, would that friend tell you? Would you stay friends?”
Yes to all of the above. I have such friends. I have friends who write to call me a fascist for supporting the war and continuing to support it(also asking when I’ll come out west so we can get in a game of D&D or something). His name is Niket Sirsi and lives in San Diego—and his wife, Tej, can be even more scathing(see can’t fathom why anyone would ever support capitalistic policies or even question the accepted wisdom that getting out of Vietnam was an un-alloyed good.).
Depending on my mood I can either play nice, smile, and say “well, that’s your opinion,’ or delve into stuff I’ve researched, read, and thought about informational warfare, geurilla warfare, geo-politcs, and military affairs over the last decade. Of course, none of it ever registers with them. They don’t care about the nuts and bolts. They want denunciations. It’s okay. You learn to live with it. Not everyone is going to accept your arguments. You have a right to give your side, but there’s nothing compelling anyone to believe it or act on it.
To these two friends there is no and cannot be gray area in the Geneva Conventions—largely because they’ve never read them and don’t see where there’s oppotunity for what’s know as ‘rules lawyering’(or more often now called lawfare)—just a binary logic gate. There’s nothing in there that creates confusion about what the legal status of terrorists(civil or military criminals? There is a reason for why the GenCon were written. Not all crimes are civil matters. Which are they? Why are they that?) and illegal combatants(particularly those who violate the Gen Con by not wearing a distinguishing from the general populace badge of some sort or those who specifically target civillians. What does geneva actually say about them? What rights are they actually accorded, and in which set of legal rules, military or civilian, applies? What’s the logic behind it? Is it trully unescapable logic or are there arguments you don’t agree with that actually make sense?) . Nope. It’s just Bush is a war criminal and anyone who disagrees is stupid and morally reprehensible.
More often than not things are not as easily reducible to that, though we do it because it is convinient. Also because we’re told it’s a sign of genius to reduce things to a high degree(and who doesn’t want to seem a genius?) and many of us often think it ’scientific’ to reduce things so—when it is actually a breach of scientific method to over-reduce.
They keep me around because they know I’m really not stupid(being a chemist after all) nor morally reprehensible—they actually know me to be one of the more honorable friends they have(I still owe him money and though it’s been five years I haven’t forgotten or tried to welch). But throw politics into the mix? Best come wearing football pads.
#26 by John of Argghhh! on January 17, 2007 - 5:51 am
ldsnomore watched Boston Legal last night, dincha?
Good question – as long as we recognize that it didn’t just suddenly materialize when Rove moved into the White House.
Trust me on that. I was in the Federal Gov’t during the Carter and Clinton years and dissent was quashed there, too. The Clintons as a team were famous for it.
Cliff – I sit on the boards of two regional charitable organizations – and those are working boards, not resume-expanders (though we’ve got some members who don’t quite get that… and in addition to my full time work slate have donated over a man-month last year in that arena alone.
And since I hit up my friends and colleagues for their time and money, I repay them in-kind with my time and money – above that man-month already mentioned.
But since I’ve still got a kid-and-a-half in college, I’m going to continue being a full time wageslave for a while.
#27 by Diane on January 17, 2007 - 8:12 am
“Here is my question – when did dissent become heresy in our country?”
Who exactly has been brought before Torquemada for expressing dissent?
#28 by Richard Warnick on January 17, 2007 - 8:54 am
Diane said: “I personally would define ‘win’ as a working government in Iraq with the ability to provide it’s own security.”
Whenever someone says that, I always say that they are describing the status quo ante bellum. For a while, the Bush administration gave the desired end state the same way, forgetting to specify Iraq must have a democratic form of government and be an ally of the USA. Most recently, they have been remembering to repeat those two conditions.
#29 by Caveat on January 17, 2007 - 10:18 am
Even with such competence and thoughtfulness as has been exhibited here recently, we still have to confess that some of our representatives in foreign fields are downright psychopath, and have been proven so by law. It is likely not the priors actions or commands that have caused this fubar. 10,000 freek-spray rounds at the sound of an explosion, however understandable, plus the really heinous and punishable crimes of revenge and wonton murder and torture cannot be offset by the competence of any. The victims and their families will not soon forget. This leaves unaddressed the incompetence, meanness, greed, fear-mongering or pathologies of the civilian leadership. Militarized nation building and preventive war is not only illegal, but dangerously counterproductive. Warhawks were wrong in 2002 and they are wrong today.
#30 by Cliff on January 17, 2007 - 10:55 am
Wow, so much to respond to. I’ll address the easy ones first.
Diane – If neutrality = hell, the Swiss are going: That’s semantics Diane You only get a few of those before I take to to the woodshed.
Diane – On dissent & Torquemada: I’ll admit I didn’t fully explain the context, though an honest person would I think know that I am referring to the unprecedented culture of it with Bush – from hand-selecting his audiences in campaign stops and promotional appearances to investigating Quakers.
John of Arrhhh! – On dissent you said, “during the Carter and Clinton years and dissent was quashed there, too.” – John we won’t get far if you use unquantifiable sweeping generalizations based on vague personal memories.
Admittedly, this is a broad accusation we cannot appropriately explore in this medium. Lets try the evidence form thirty-thousand feet.
There have been a number of books written and documentaries made on the subject of the Bush admins censorship from blocking of news stories, and gov’t reports to straight up classification of doc. Then you have Valerie Flame, firings threats, insisting on embeds, and the deliberate bombing of the Hotel in Iraq that killed a bunch of journalist, just to mention a few.
Dude. Be honest. the attempt to censor the CPB with Kenneth Tomlinson??? Please.
Find me one book or documentary about Clinton admin that comes close.
If you insist on equivocating and making apologies for Bush on this one, I will have to retract some of the adjectives I used to describe your objectivity.
More coming.
#31 by Cliff on January 17, 2007 - 11:17 am
ry,
I think I can explain to you why your anti-war liberal friends in San Diego tune out when you “delve into stuff I’ve researched, read, and thought about informational warfare, geurilla warfare, geo-politcs, and military affairs over the last decade. Of course, none of it ever registers with them.”
The premise of the anti-war argument is that we should not be there to begin. I can only imagine how far back in their heads their eyes roll when you start with the guerrilla warfare stuff. ( You would enjoy talking with Glenn. He is the most expert person I know on military and war and stuff).
On the Geneva convention ‘gray area’ argument, you should at least be honest when you take that position that you are in a tiny minority of folks how seized on a marginal, novel legal strategy to dissuade a legal challenge admin policies.
Not even the Bush admin has suggested the ‘quaint’ letter represents a wholesale re-interpretation of article 3 and thus overall policy.
No legal, military or history scholar supports the Bush admins ‘quaint’ argument. No one ry! You and Gonzales would be it, and I’d hate to be Gonzales.
So please forgive your SD friends on that one. They may be a bit embarrassed for you that you are even discussing it.
#32 by Richard Warnick on January 17, 2007 - 12:26 pm
Cliff, I have the facts at hand so let me address your accusation of “deliberate bombing” of a hotel in Iraq that killed journalists. In the book Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad by David Zucchino and Mark Bowden, the incident is described in detail. One tank mistook a journalist with binoculars for an artillery spotter and killed two reporters with a deadly accurate shot to the Palestine Hotel during the second thunder run. It was a tragic mistake that could have been avoided. Everyone watching the invasion on TV knew where the journalists were, but the 3rd Infantry Division officers weren’t briefed.
#33 by Cliff Lyon on January 17, 2007 - 12:29 pm
Richard,
This is the first I’ve heard that. But if you are confident about this explanation, I will on your word alone, gladly retract that accusation and put it way forever.
Done, thanks,
#34 by Richard Warnick on January 17, 2007 - 12:57 pm
I lost a lot of sleep during the invasion in 2003, watching the news. I’ll never forget seeing the TV image of those US Army tanks on the bridge, the camera (must have been a telephoto lens) was looking down the barrels of 120 mm main guns. I wondered if the reporters had any idea what could happen if those tanks opened fire. Then it happened.
#35 by Diane on January 17, 2007 - 6:28 pm
“Diane – If neutrality = hell, the Swiss are going: That’s semantics Diane You only get a few of those before I take to to the woodshed.”
Why would this statement have me “taken” to the woodshed? Will I like it?
Seriously, I find the Swiss and their so-called neutrality during WWII repugnant. I think that was what Dante was speaking about.
How has John been neutral? Because he sees the bigger picture?
#36 by Cliff Lyon on January 17, 2007 - 7:01 pm
Diane,
Will you like the woodshed? Absolutely if you like a good spanking.
The quote is “the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who in the a period of moral crises, maintain their neutralityâ€
I think its about “moral crises” and people with an encumbancy to act or be silent. Suisse is another subject.
John finds himself in particularly difficult place. The moral issue here is that many innocent people have died and are dying.
At some point in the future, when our national consciousness finds it’s head hanging low, and history has fully informed us of the cost to our moral standing in the world as the result of this president, will John be able to say, “I spoke out”, or will he say, “I mumbled some dissent, but went with the flow and provided pushed back against those who did speak out?”
Clinton stood by during the Rwanda genocide and has since described it as his biggest regret.
John’s grandchildren will ask him questions about his role in this someday. John is respected at Argghhh! He is in a position to influence people – many people. Will he be able to proudly tell his story. Will his grandchildren invite him to speak to their class about how he spoke out when it was unpopular, how he risked his job and relationships to do the right thing? Or will he not be among those held out as an example of good Americans who stood up for the deepest American principles?
btw: When my father arrived in Switzerland at age 14 having escaped a Nazi border camp (by some miracle) the Swiss helped him get to the US.
Peace is a really good thing. May we all strive to accomplish it in whatever ways we can.
#37 by Diane on January 17, 2007 - 9:43 pm
I have read what John writes. I don’t think he has anything to worry about. He says what he believes. I don’t have to wait for his grandchildren to be born. I am proud of him now.
I am happy for you and your family that the Swiss helped him. I am of the opinion that your father’s experience was uncommon.
Peace is a good thing, but not peace at any price.
#38 by ry on January 18, 2007 - 1:09 am
Cliff,
Dude, come on. Admitt that the other side has at least half a brain. I know why and what my SD friends think, and a decent idea as to why. IF you hold war as terrible no amount of explanation is EVER going to change your mind. Duh. Come on, homes.
What I am truly responding to here is the oft repeated claim that there is absolutely no thought, no reason, no SOUL, behind the decision to go to war. I think I attack that little bromide quite well and really hard. Don’t dance, please.
Does Iraq of 1998 resemble the Iran of today? What was the cost of sanctions on Iraq(about 50k people annually for 13 years)? What was the likelihood of continuation of sanctions? Were sanctions working(Deulfer report says 50-50)? Was 50-50 worth the price? There’s reason, there’s thought, there’s soul behind the decision. But my friends cannot bring themselves to say what they really feel, ‘War is icky’. Why is that? I have an idea and it isn’t condescening.
Ever heard of John Yoo? Or Judge Posner? Nobody agrees with me? Don’t be so closed minded. Nor is that the point. Is there a non-rationalizing reasoned arguement for said interpretation? Yes. Is it based on legal principle? Yes. So why take the short cut of dishonesty? It’s easier. It may not be entirely honest, because it is a minority view even if it is as founded on legal principle, to act that way but your job, as an activist, is to get as many people moving in your direction. The short cut makes sense. time is limited, yes? Human attention span is about 15 minutes. Anything longer than that and you lose 75% of the audience. So you keep it short and sweet. It works too. Narrative building is an effective infowar tool. But you may regret employing it some day. Demonizing your opponents trends toward serious conflicts(Spanish civil war, for example where the Anarchists and the Communists, both hating the Fascists, having savaged each other rhetorically generated a generation of zealots who found more reasons to fight each other in the streets of Barcelona than the forces of Franco.). Short term gain. Use judiciously, please.
“The moral issue here is that many innocent people have died and are dying. ” Are you sure that this leads only to where you want it to? Innocent people are dying in Cuba? What to do? Innocent people are dying in Darfur, China, Thailand, India, Burma, Bangladesh, … What’s the sol’n then? What to do? People are dying where no war exists in the most gruesome of ways. What to do? I know how I will answer: “I didn’t sit back and watch people die needlessly and I didn’t do something as useless as hold a sit in.’ How will you answer future generations when they ask why you allowed people to die for so little as some madman’s idea of Utopia that really was little more than feudal kleptocracy? If you base this solely on lives you are not on solid ground. It is not the ace of diamonds in some card game that trumps all. It is simply one element of a broader argument that never really seems to be fully fleshed out. Which is why I make fun of Boxer consistently. She plays the ‘but people are dying!’ card like it ends the discussion when it really is just the opening of the chess game.
Why are ‘murders’ by US/MNF personel in Iraq so much worse than ‘murders’ by Vietnamese Communists that are occuring concurently? Why is one worse than the other? Why is one pointless and ‘war crime denounced by int’l law’(anyone actually care to cite the GenCon and the legal def’n of what consitutes Agressive War instead of opinions?) and the other simply matters we don’t care about?
“May we all strive to accomplish it in whatever ways we can. ” Exactly. Which is why the demonization of the other side is so odd. DPRK has broken every deal it has ever made going back to its creation. It breaks deals it makes right now. Eventually, peace will require a war there. It will be bloody. It will be costly. But the long term prospectus is for one of long and lasting peace instead of the slow suicide and continual Dane Geld sol’n we employ now. Which is better? War is not the first tool in the toolbox to grab for. But neither is it always the last. (now I gotta go do my H&I stuff. Later Cliff)