MyDD :: The Hawks Have Failed

The Hawks Have Failed

by Chris Bowers, Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 09:24:42 PM EST

Tim Russo, semi-famous ex-MyDDer and new hero of the right-wing blogosphere, writes:

London's been a target. London will be a target. For a long time. Anyone who thinks anything Britain has or hasn't done since September 11 has increased or decreased London's likelihood of being a target for Al Queda is simply a damn fool. And to make a statement like that on a day like today, while bodies are still being pulled out of tube stations, reveals precisely the sort of sub-human George Galloway is.

It's nice to see Russo engaging in the same sort of absurd, inflammatory rhetoric that, in the opinion of this anti-war blogger, also makes George Galloway such a wanker. Russo is very wrong about something else, however. The threat of violent, terrorist attacks against Western civilians has increased over the past four years:

The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004, a rise that may revive debate about whether the Bush administration is winning the war on terrorism, congressional aides said Tuesday.

The number of "significant" international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides briefed Monday on the numbers by U.S. State Department and intelligence officials.

The aides were told the surge partly reflected an increase in violence in Kashmir, which is claimed by India and Pakistan, and the devotion of more manpower to U.S. monitoring efforts, which resulted in more attacks being counted overall.

The Bush administration has taken a primarily military approach to dealing with the threat of terrorism. During that time, terrorism has increased. Conservatives can call that a coincidence, rather than a cause and effect, if they like, but it should at least be obvious right now that a primarily military approach against this threat certainly isn't reducing terrorism.

The hawks have failed to reduce the threat of terrorism, period. They said the war in Iraq would prevent us from having to fight terrorists in our streets. They were wrong. They said invading Iraq would reduce terrorism worldwide. They were wrong. They said that invading Iraq would make Iraq a safer place. They were wrong. The heavily military approach to the threat of terrorism adopted by both the Bush and Blair administration are not to blame for today's attacks in London, but their near total lack of attention to stamping out the underlying causes of terrorism are at least partially to blame for similar attacks that will undoubtedly take place in the future. They are not doing enough to reduce extreme poverty in vast swaths of the world. They are not doing enough to quell the ever dangerous battle of civilizations that too many people in both the West and the developing world are all too willing to fight. They are doing nothing to limit the use of propaganda that leads to ignorance. They are doing nothing to strengthen international institutions and alliances that can present a broader, stronger front against such threats (in fact, weakening international institutions is actually a major goal of the Project for a New American Century). They are using a massive, military approach to try and quell what is, primarily, a scattered, nation-less, civilian reaction to imposed ignorance, poverty and radicalized identity. It clearly is not working. Russo can blame a few hundred users at Dailykos and their Galloway worship for this all he likes, but the truth is that as long as they remain in power, conservative hawks and their worship of all things military will leave us in ever increasing danger of future attacks of the sort we saw today.

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

Permalink :: 81 Comments :: Post a Comment

Here's what i find amazing (3.00 / 2)

Now-a-days, anytime I here commanders in Iraq talk, they are saying that the real solutions to insurgent wars are political, not military. Now, assuming that the War on Terror is more or less an insurgency raised to a global level, why haven't they applied the same principle, or at least acknowledged it.

by Jonathan Schwartz on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 09:30:11 PM EST

The political = this (3.00 / 1)

When Arabs of all stripes are more afraid of another terrorist attack (either against the West or themselves) than we are; when the working-class Arabs are forming lynch mobs to get al-Qaeda sympathizers, then we will see the end of terroism.

Also, in my opinion the "hawks" are not to blame, try 'chicken' hawks. To be a hawk, one must be a practitioner of war, not just an advocate.

by Paul Goodman on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WOT (3.00 / 1)

A recent CIA report worries the Iraq conflict is training extremists in terrorist attacks. I guess that intelligence report wasn't "fixed".

by ruralvoter on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:13:49 PM EST

They'd be trained anyhow (none / 0)

Before Iraq there was Chechnya. Before Chechnya there was Bosnia. Before Bosnia there was Afghanistan and Iran. Before that there was Egypt. Before Egypt there was Algeria. And all along the way there have been Somalia, Aceh, Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon, etc., etc., etc.

The greatest challenge in the war on terrorism is that counter-terrorism is a game of whack-a-mole that makes counter-insurgency look simple and straight-forward.

Al-Qaeda will setup shop anywhere condition are suitable to their purpose.

There are really only two solutions in the war on terrorism: a commitment to perpetual war, on a scale that dwarfs what Israel and Russia have faced; or concession and isolationism.

The problem with the Arabs, as soldiers, as terrorists, as insurgents is that the bastards have been smacked down so many times and for so long (by us, the Brits, the French, the Turks, the Russians, the ISraelis, etc.) that protracted wars fought at a disadvantage no longer discourage them.

The Arabs could keep on losing wars until the end of time, and it won't mean jackshit to them.

There are only two approaches: the French approach or the Israeli approach.

Neither one is particularly dignified.

by jcjcjc on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is collective punishment (none / 0)

not wack a mole. Iraq had previously nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The terrorist struck Britain precisely because it was drawing it's troops out of Iraq. There goal is to have a clash of civilizations with Bush idiot and Bush idiots want the same thing.

Futhermore if we leave Iraq the Iraqies will very likely turn on Jihadis and make them leave, too. There are definately other alternatives to neocon idiocy and isolationism.

The beauty of what Ken said, is that we liberals can choose our own side and not between two factions of armageddonist fundies, who all want to turn the world into the dark ages.

by noalternative on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:24:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is collective punishment (none / 0)

"not wack a mole. Iraq had previously nothing to do with Al Qaeda. "

FTR -- have you previously played whack-a-mole? This is how whack-a-mole works.

I'm not sure there is an inclusive approach to the ending the GWoT. I don't see how we can interact on an equal basis with the Islamic nations, given what the aftermath of such a conclusion to GWoT would entail.

The bad thing for the west in dealing with the Middle East is that Islam is clearly going through the same growing pains that Christianity went through from the 1300s to the 1600s.

The misfortune of the human race is that our leaders thought they could deal indefinitely with the Arabs at a disadvantage.

Then the Soviet Union collapsed, and suddenly we couldn't cow the Muslims with the boogeyman of atheist communism.

Not surprisingly, they took down one world power, and now they see fit to take down two.

There is no third way. There will be no honorable peace. We either control the Middle East, or we abandon it.

Any possibility of a stable, reasonable Islam is probably at least 100 years off.

Even supposing we found a way to disengage in a dignified manner, Arab leaders will use the US in the same role that the Nazis fitted the Jews into.

Indeed, western anti-Semitic rhetoric handed the Islamic extremists a ready-made vocabulary for indicting the US and Jews. All you have to do is toss in crusader and bingo the whole thing jives.

Arab nationalism, what there is of it, defines itself fighting America and Israel. While this is a scattered and abortive pan-Arabic nationalism, not dissimilar for Latin American nationalism, it doesn't stop Arabs from banding together to fight against the US.

If we disappear from the Middle East, the Islamists will simply continue to rail against us out of habit. That will mean continued attacks.

The truth, more than Americans want to admit, we are bystanders in the ISlamic world. While Muslims hash out their feelings about secularism versus theocracy, Sunnism versus Shi'ism versus Wahabism, globalism versus isloationism, democracy versus command, nationalism versus pan-Arabism, we're simply contributing guns and rounds.

The answer, IMHO, is isolation, alternative energy, and letting the Middle East burn to the ground.

by jcjcjc on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 01:02:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They'd be trained anyhow (none / 0)

no, there is a third way. the structure
of society can change and the fabric
of society can adopt to be humanist
and sensitive. it may not be
necessarily productive, economically,
to do so - but it will be philosophically
and scientifically advantageous to do so -
and at this stage in the game, I'd place
a bet than going along this same, 20th
century, industrial path will kill us more
quickly than it will help.

for example, suppose the britons were
walking slow enough on their way to work
to notice a towelhead with a bomb standing
next to them. I would offer it won't take
that much less hurrying to work to slow
down and deal with it themselves.

libertarian approach to govt. naturally
because government can't do the job.

this is not an enemy that can be fought
on a battlefield it is an enemy that
weaved its way into society itself
and can only be extracted if you
change the fabric of society itself.

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:50:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Society is not monolithic (none / 0)

It will take global humanism to make anything like this happen.

The Islamic world is probably a century or more away from even joking about such a thing.

Likewise, humanism, in the modern sense, is an outcropping of the carnage of WWII.

It follows that America and the Islamic world may have to suffer the same hell before they get the point.

People are dumb, and as long as American and Islamic theocrats tinker with war as a plaything and blithely disregard the lives of young men they send to kill, I wouldn't bet on any humanistic approach emerging.

Isolationism is probably the most broadly acceptale American approach. "Let the fucker burn" is a view that the American left and right could join. The American right's anti-Islamic sensibilities would be a valuable tool in propogating a broad consensus for ending the war.

The right will not be keen on a friendly end to the GWoT/Iraq War. In the end, any conservative anti-war movement will entail a "fuck 'em" mentality.

Ultimately, since Bush has tied the GWoT to Iraq, we must either win both wars or cut both loose.

When history judges Bush, this will be his harshest criticism: he bought into the CW that the Arabs are gutless, useless fighters, and completely ignored their willingness to fight forever against endless odds.

The last human on this earth fighting the cockroaches after the nuclear apocalypse will probably be an Arab.

by jcjcjc on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 01:12:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

violence begat violence begat violence... n/t (3.00 / 2)

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics

by pacified on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:17:57 PM EST

Re: violence begat violence begat violence... n/t (3.00 / 2)

There is no way to peace; peace is the way.

-MLK, Jr.

by klevenstein on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:23:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Galloway's still wrong (3.00 / 1)

Because very simply put, everyone gets his point without him saying it.

Also, all things being equal, Britain would have been targeted with or without Iraq.

After all, we were targeted without Iraq.

Britain, as America's parrot, was only a matter of time. I'm just surprised they waited nearly four years after 9-11.

by jcjcjc on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:41:54 PM EST

Re: Galloway's still wrong (none / 0)

i just don't like people assuming this has anything to do w/ al Qaeda or Iraq until we know. Maybe the IRA is back in force. I just think it unhealthy to jump to conclusions.

I'm not saying it's not al Qaeda, I'm just saying no one knows.

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics

by pacified on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 11:46:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't that what Galloway said? (none / 0)

I doubt Galloway meant anything else.

by jcjcjc on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 11:57:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The US was targeted because we had... (none / 0)

...troops in Saudi Arabia. Did the Brits? I don't believe so-therefore 9/11 took place in New York and not London.

Now both the US and the UK have troops in another Islamic country, Iraq. Therefore, they will both be targeted.

The solution is to withdrawl from the region. It's a good idea for America in any case (even ignoring the terrorists)-it saves us money, for one thing-but also if we don't have troops in a hundred different countries, citizens of a hundred different aren't pissed off that we have troops in them. We should withdrawl all US troops from foreign lands.

This is one area where I agree with the Libertarians:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#foreinte

Foreign Intervention

The Issue: Intervention in the affairs of other countries has provoked resentment and hatred of the United States among many groups and nations throughout the world. In addition, legal barriers to private and personal aid (both military and economic) have fostered internal discord.

The Principle: The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

Solutions: End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. Individuals should be free to provide any aid they wish that does not directly threaten the United States.

Transitional Action: Voluntary cooperation with any economic boycott should not be treated as a crime. End all limitation of private foreign aid, both military and economic. Repeal the Neutrality Act of 1794, and all other U.S. neutrality laws, which restrict the efforts of Americans to aid overseas organizations fighting to overthrow or change governments. End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

by Geotpf on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:47:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Galloway's still wrong (none / 0)

This kind of blindness is incredible, and dangerous.

There was no American attack on Iraq before 9/11?

There is a direct connection between the Gulf War and Al-Qaeda's multiple attacks on the United States.

by sm on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The more I dwell (none / 0)

The more I think 9-11 would have happened with or without the Gulf War.

Why?

Because the Middle East has a huge problem with unemployed young men (many by choice).

Any culture that has so many unoccupied young males drifting around, especially with the number of wealthy young men who drifted toweard clerics and the mujahideen, is bound to have problems.

Since most Arab powers make it near impossible to lash out at them, they turn their public toward attacking others.

I'm not completely sold all these young men would have decided to do something else.

The more logical approach is to blame the strongest enemy you can identify.

With or without the Gulf War, that's still us.

by jcjcjc on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:48:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That sounds highly revisionist (none / 0)

I've noticed that despite all the terror attacks over the past few years, only after the London one are journalists and pundits trotting out Bader-Meinhof and the Weather Underground as an explanation how anyone in Britain could do this.

You are severely minimizing how the United States has made itself far less safe after the Cold War. Even if there had been no Gulf War, and even no Israel, the United States made choices which led to 9-11. I mean, most Latin American governments are just as ripe for unrest as places in the Middle East. But many there choose not to attack America for our invovlement there but to immigrate to our shores and forsake that. While you might point to how much harder this could be for Arabs or Muslims to do geographically, they still have the opportunity to leave for Europe.

There's no mystery here. We need their oil. We take it at the point of a gun. We offer the elites money and power in exchange for our energy needs so long as they ensure stability. The reason that bin Laden favored using terrorism was that he saw how quickly Reagan turned tail in 1983 and realized that if he could get the West to abandon the Middle East, he could become THE ALTERNATIVE and become the political leadership of a new Arab reality. The Islamic City on a Hill.

So far this strategy is working: Few nations joined Bush in Iraq. After attacking others, they abandoned the fight. The circle is drawing in to where only a handful of nations now support regimes like Saudia Arabia or Egypt. A few more attacks and it could literally be just the United States.

This is about empire and its heavy price. Nothing more.

by risenmessiah on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:50:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't disagree much (none / 0)

But, I would also be quick to point out that these interactions are not one-sided.

Arab leaders could have followed the Latin American approach, and sided with the communists to resist American interference.

Instead, they took guns and tanks from both sides. They propped up massive armies of green troops, and turn them loose killing their own people.

I'm pretty convinced that the main problem in the Middle East is psychological displacement.

Arabs are attacking an unrelated entity (the West) in order to avoid beating on a relative (clerics, dictators, other Arab institutions).

In all fairness, al-Qaeda has done very little to actually change the Arab world, and has largely lashed out mindlessly at the West.

The Arabs just aren't ready to deal with their own demons, and therefore they brainlessly blame us for everything.

They had the entire Cold War to make themselves independent. They could have said no to both sides. They could have said yes to the US or the USSR.

They didn't. They pigged out on cheap weapons and open oil markets. And when a monopolar world emerged, they were pissed that they were dependent on the lone superpower.

Tough shit.

You don't see America throwing its weight around in LAtin America like it does in the Middle East. Latin America took a stand. In recent years, LAtin America has drifted further left, and further anti-American, while democratizing, and while avoiding open combat with the Americans.

In the few instances where America has gotten shitty (the Chavez coup), the Latin American street responded and restored their leaders and their independence.

The Arabs could have staked the same claim to their independence. They didn't.

So lets not say this is all America's fault.

by jcjcjc on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 01:26:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More Revisionism (none / 0)

Arab leaders could have followed the Latin American approach, and sided with the communists to resist American interference.

Some regimes did. Notably South Yemen, Qaddafi's Libya, Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime, and the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan. Also who could forget Gamel Abdel Nasser in Egypt.

Arabs are attacking an unrelated entity (the West) in order to avoid beating on a relative (clerics, dictators, other Arab institutions).

The various oil states are not that smart. Instead, we deliberately used Israel as a wedge to gain leverage with them on defense and aid agreements. When Iran's shah was toppled we sold Saddam Hussein the entire Vietnam-era gun rack to provide a "check" or "sufficient detterence" against the Ayatollah. The thing is, as the Israeli-Palestinean conflict never got resolved, and more Western nations continued to aid the oppression of the Arab street...the fairly localized sentiments against Israel's occupation now encompass basically the government of any Western country. Extremists will tie it to all Jews and "Crusaders" but it's more a product of how meddlesome the US (and for that matter the Soviets) were in the region.

They had the entire Cold War to make themselves independent. They could have said no to both sides. They could have said yes to the US or the USSR.

Um, no. The Soviet Union always had a surplus of oil and gas. It never needed to roll into the Middle East. (Afghanistan is another story, but notice how that turned out.) By arming the Israelis for WWIII, there was basically no chance after the 1973 Treaty with Egypt that any country would side openly with the USSR (like Cuba). In fact, that date is crucial because we had friendly regimes in all the major Arab states at that time: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Since then, two have defected to become our "enemies" and it's no consequence that the Founding Fathers of Al Qaeda hail from the other two. Bin Laden and al-Zawhiri realize if Iran, Iraq, S.A. and Egypt all could unite diplomatically the Americans would lose much of their leverage in the Middle East and the Israels would too, by extension. It's the potential of toppling those two big "appeaser" regimes of Fahd and Mubarak that tantalize the Al Qaeda "martyrs".

What?!? Even in the 1850s you had whackjob filibusteros trying to annex Spanish colonies into the Union. The only countries you won't find US operatives all but meddling in are those run by European big brothers: (the Guianas, various Carribbean nations). Sometimes what we do is front-page news like the coup in Venezuela. But other times it's more subtle as in the case of Aristide or Bolivia. But don't kid yourself. From the Bay of Pigs in the North to Pincohet's Chile in the South the US has more or less made Latin America our foreign policy sandbox.

It is true that lately many Latin American countries are becoming more leftist in spite of our wishes. But we don't have a choice in a sense...and all the violence in some of the countries has spurred the middle classes to immigrate to the US leaving more populist and working class candidates to gain in popularity.

Still..."this isn't all America's fault". You buy gas don't you? It's true that you nor I actually travel to developing world, gun in hand and demand to buy cheap oil or natural gas or diamonds. But our elected leaders and professional civil service...they at least are reaping what they sow. After a long period of isolationism, America decided to be an active force in the world. Only problem is, no one had the guts to level with Joe-Six Pack: empire is a bitch.

by risenmessiah on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 05:54:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gas and oil are not evil (none / 0)

The fact is that we buy lots of oil from stable governments that aren't run by batshit crazy people. Look at Canada!!

Do we invade Canada three times a week? Have we ever sponsored a coup to overthrow the Canadian government?

The Arabs could have gotten their shit together.

They didn't.

It's not our fault. There isn't a single civilization on this planet that is getting any worse govrnment than it has coming.

The Arabs and America should be the best of friends. We have the basis for a mutual and good relationship: the sell oil, we buy oil.

But, the Arabs, as a people, have pissed away their time blaming everyone except themselves for the sorry state of their civilization.

At some goddamn point these people have to admit that their leaders are shit. And they are shit for continuing to let the bastards run the joint.

Democracy succeeds when the majority of people come to obvious conclusion: they can't kill us all.

But, the Arabs won't come to this realization as long as they piss around boo-hooing about the Zionists, ISrael, and the United States.

While those things are problems, they're not THE problem.

THE problem is the Arab people themselves, and their unwillingness to get rid of shitty leaders who steal from them.

With the exception of the Lebanese, no one in the Middle East has ever blamed an Arab for anything.

And ever time some American starts boo-hooing about fucking oil, they're reinforcing the same mentality: the damned Americans are screwing us.

Frankly, the Arabs have to be a pretty fucking dumb lot if they we're sponsoring Zionism and they still do business with us.

At some point, the world has to blame the Arabs for being too fucking dumb for their own good.

Oil or not.

by jcjcjc on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 11:10:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gas and oil are not evil (none / 0)

Okay, I'm lost now.

If you look at Iran, where the US and British deposed a democratically elected government replaced it with the Shah, saw there was a Revolution and now are a pariah regime....

but they acknowledge what you said...we're getting bent over by our leadership let's clean house and see what happens.

Meanwhile...in Egypt and Saudi Arabia our military aid and assistance is the only thing preventing another Revolution in their country.

Buying gas and oil does not make us meddlesome. It's our undying support of the Saudi royals, the Shah, Saddam Hussein (before he became a "bad man"), Mubarak, Musharraf that cause the Al Qaeda theme groups to attack the West. If the West retreats from the Middle East all these guys are toast.

And even if we don't...we are still stuck. King Fahd is on his deathbed in Saudi Arabia and there could be a civil war after he dies. Mubarak is healthy but he's older than the pyramids. Saudi Arabia has the lion share of the oil, and Egypt is the most populous Arab nation.

Terrorism or no, our little RISK game in the Arab world is falling apart and the Administration won't be honest with people about what that means for us. Sell the SUV before it's too late.

by risenmessiah on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 05:49:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Still too many excuses (none / 0)

"in Egypt and Saudi Arabia our military aid and assistance is the only thing preventing another Revolution in their country."

So, why didn't US military aid prevent the overthrow of the Shah in Iran?

If I were to make this argument, I'd offer that the Iranians are culturally different (for example, Shi'ism historically fosters lower class dissent, and therefore revolution).

Actually, the Shah is a bad example of a person who perpetuates al-Qaeda, because the Wahabi-Salafi sects of Islam don't really care what happens in Iran as long as it leads to dead Shi'ites.

The more recent efforts of al-Qaeda in Iraq seem to be aimed at triggering a war between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, not just in Iraq, but throughout the Gulf.

I think folks may not even see the future Arabian civil war coming: it may be a separatist movement, as the nation's Gulf Shi'ites try to break away from the Saud Wahabis.

Remember, al-Qaeda's #1 goal is a pan-Arab war of reunification, with need of wiping out heretical sects (Shi'ism, Suffism, etc.), reforming Sunnism, and bringing all the modern Muslim world together under one law.

I somehow doubt America's presence in that fight is viewed as peculiarly important, aside from being a good outsider boogeyman to rally the troops. Germany had the Jews, Arabia has the Americans.

Also, any claim that America props up the governments and is the only thing that props them up ignores history.

I don't recall the US having a large troop presence in that neck of the woods during the 1800s when Wahabism emerged. Likewise, I don't recall the amount of aid we gave to the Sauds in 192, when they declared their kingdom's unification.

All of this was going on long before we showed up to pump some black stuff out of the ground.

- - -

Now, the kicker of all this is that I think we've spent a lot of time arguing over an academic point, while in general we agree.

1. I'm all for ending oil dependence. It's gotta happen sometime, and it's better that it happens while we have time to really do it right, and not just settle on the most available alternative approach.

The thing that worries me about oil is that we may let something like the Canadian oil sands project buy our way outy of the Middle East, but not buy our way out of oil.

Obviously, oil is expensive and dirty. Compared to other approaches (hydrogen, ethanol, etc.) oil has no upside, and largely sticks around because it has an installed user base with stations and cars.

We should get out of the Middle East. The Middle East isn't worth the life of even one Paris Island grunt.
We should end our supposedly pragmatic sponsorship of governments that exploit their own people. This is a case where the best short-term approach is clearly the worst long-term approach.

It's a lot like thinking that the fastest way to get your kids off the couch is to set the house on fire. Sure, it will work to that end . . .

- - -

Try to understand, my core argument here is that the American left has a habit of enabling the Arab world's addiction to blaming the US.

While the US is a problem, it is not the core problem in the Middle East.

If anyone wants to do any good in the Middle East, they have to work on bringing the Arabs to the realization that they, themselves, their people are to blame for their hideous governments.

Until they have pride enough to call their governments out and tear them down for what they've done, nothing we do or don't in the Middle East will make a difference.

by jcjcjc on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 10:55:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0)

Though I think you underestimate how valuable our foreign policy community (that being the American one) likes and fosters this sort of internecine Arab warfare. It helps increase our leverage. We seek it out. And it's not an Arab thing...everywhere in the world we go, we try to pit rivals against each other so they have to depend on us to keep the peace and sort things out. That way, we get to cut a better (read:unfair) deal with the ruling regimes.

The thing to consider the most of all is this:

Thoroughout the Cold War when our foreign policy of "divide and conquer" meant jobs and prosperity for America...dissent was largely stiffled. Now that this same strategem is giving us negative externalities: outsourcing, illegal immigration, terrorism (enabled in part by our schizonphrenic trade agreements) suddenly the liberals saying the same thing for 60 years are either cast as 1) haters or 2) enablers.

If you had a friend who always scolded you for refusing to wear sunscreen at the beach, even as you showed off your great tan, would you expect him or her to give you a "pass" about your life choices when you developed skin cancer?

by risenmessiah on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 06:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I know (none / 0)

Is that we agree on the solution.

by jcjcjc on Mon Jul 11, 2005 at 11:56:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What I know (none / 0)

Sure. I wasn't trying to belabor the point for days. I just try to be frank and honest on this board because I am of the impression that no matter who you are liberal or rock-ribbed Republican that is why you come here.

by risenmessiah on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 12:28:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Instead of pointing fingers (3.00 / 1)

offer up a solution to the fact that wackos are blowing the $#!& out of people. Is your solution pull out of Iraq and hope this never happens again? I hate to say it, but the religious kooks behind these attacks won't stop until they are dead. The "solution" is perhaps worse than the occasional terror attack, but you will know that the problem is solved when Arab lynch mobs are going after any one who even whispers an unkind word about the west. What incentives can we give them to do that?

by Paul Goodman on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:52:50 PM EST

Re: Instead of pointing fingers (3.00 / 1)

Maybe it would be too much to point that the same scum are also blowing up innocent Iraqis everyday. The war is causing that? Does that matter?

by Christopher Hitchens on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 11:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Instead of pointing fingers (3.00 / 1)

killing a radical only breeds more radicals

I don't agree with you at all.

It's a cop out to say they all must die. Some people view you as a radical. Would it be fair for them to say that about you?

DAGGER

by goplies on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:00:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hail Britannia (none / 0)

Rent "Dirty War". Deep in that movie
is the precise battle we must fight -
all of us - to win.

The battle against information overload.
In one scene of "Dirty War" - a film
about a hypothetical ( and somewhat
prescient ) bomb blast in down town london
at the metro station - there is a
counter terrorism agent whose purpose is
to look through a BOX of VCR tapes.

All I can say about that kind of thing is, I have
all these tapes I'm compiling of my family for
a DVD. Its a BITCH.

So there, in the direct center of the movie,
is our warning - somewhere was a warning sign
so faint that without all of us listening,
we would miss it.

Here's how you can help.

Turn off your cable TV. Its drowning out
reality and making it difficult
for you to read your neighbors. Get to
know them, go backwards a bit not "progressive"
and just feel your neighbors and how they move
in the world. Not only will it help you
for campaigns in the future, it will also
make you a happier person. Being independent
is a great advantage from either the
Right or the Left and like a friend said,
there will come a time where we are so fed up
with both the right and the left, that we will
- not unlike Britain and the Magna Carta -
revolt against the tyranny of the leadership
that would wish to keep us ensconced
in their carefully placed advertisements.

Chris derives his money not from your
donations. That was a test balloon. Its
from blog ads, thats why he's doing number
crunching for the advertisers.

But he's still a nice guy. Is he gay?
Is he catholic? Does he like to hang out
on Friday nights and get a beer? Does
he like listening to Philip Glass?

To think government by itself could
ever address something like this - a threat
from deep within that hides within a society
whose people are isolated and alone
by the very marketing nature of the
medium that would enslave them -

Is IMHO WAYYY over the top. You have to be out
there. You have to be standing in a bus
station, with the people you ride
with every morning noticing the faint
smell of plastique explosive or the
odd bead of sweat across the brow
of your neighbor. And you don't pencil
dick jerk this guy into some homeland
security hotspot - you get close
and figure out where the wires are and
pull those bastards out red and black.

Mi dos centavos solamente

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 11:51:48 PM EST

I am I the only (none / 0)

one who does not understand TBCing's post. If yes please translate for me.

by SRconbio on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 02:17:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am I the only (none / 0)

translation: in 'dirty war' you have
a government agency tasked with an impossible
task. They fail, the terrorists succeed.

the only way to win against the terrorists
is to be a part of a society that doesn't
hold money as a means of status, but
rather, one's faith and strength as a person.
The terrorists will give themselves away
if you can just get to know them
but money as status just means nobody knows
anyone, like, for example, this blog.
all anonymous. all stealing time from work..?

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:33:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am I the only (none / 0)

So would you have us all spy on our fellow Americans? Somehow, I think, that is not the way a free society is supposed to operate.

Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!

by John in Chicago on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 11:45:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iraq may have been (3.00 / 1)

the wrong move, but this war can not be won without a military component. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that this type of terrorism will not disappear until the conditions that give AQ and other organizations funding, sympathy, and recruits are stamped out (poverty, famine, inequality, etc.) but that does not eliminate the hear and now. The militants at the core of these organizations hate us for reasons that are irreconcilable.

by dre2k5 on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 11:59:09 PM EST

Re: Iraq may have been (none / 0)

Unfortunately, bin Laden was once our ally. None of these terrorists are irreconciable, but the West gives little reason for the Islamic world to trust us. That doesn't not justify killing civilians, but to say that too often people die because both sides are trying to look the stronger horse while both are equally vulnerable.

by risenmessiah on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:46:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iraq may have been (none / 0)

bin laden once shared a common enemy with us. although he was a very minor player in the Afghan campaign, he was not the only one who looked at the west and the US in particular with disdain. They just had different wars to fight at that time.

by dre2k5 on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:36:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iraq may have been (none / 0)

Bin Laden shared that battlefield along
with many others who followed him,
and loved him.

He was successful on the battlefield,
now he is saying: throw an al qaeda flag
down over here in the south, and they
will flock their armies there, then
throw it into the north, and they will
send their troops north. he is working
on bankrupting the countries he
wants to destroy.

and at 120 billion a year.. he might
be succeeding..

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:45:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iraq may have been (none / 0)

Um, no the reason that bin laden is succeeding has nothing to do with how much money we are paying to do this or that. It's the lost productivity from responding to terrorism: the cost of extra security, of closing the Tube for a day or issuing the FAA-wide groundstop. It's about the inefficiency of chasing your own tail and the innumerable economic cost there is a market economy of being afraid to act or consume.

That's not 120 billion...that's the whole ball of cheese.

by risenmessiah on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:30:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It surely can (none / 0)

There are moderate sunnie groups but Bush is refusing to deal with them. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/1/18422/76760 We shouldn't think it terms of winning given the phonyness of it anyway.

by noalternative on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:29:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ex-MyDDer turned ReThug? (none / 0)

I'm not sure exactly who this guy is but is he like the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader of the blogs? Can someone fill me in on this.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.

by jkfp2004 on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:35:26 AM EST

Re: ex-MyDDer turned ReThug? (none / 0)

Tim Russo is just a dude. Nothing
more. And chris is actually not that
good with statistics, which should make
you read his posts even more carefully.
The kid can't get above 2nd order
nonlinear math. Nice kid, but he's
a puppy at statistics.

Which says alot about america, when you
consider that here is about the only place
people even bother to try to be objective.

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:43:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

big words, but... (3.00 / 2)

You don't need "2nd
order" diff. equations... and
"nonlinear math"

is very rarely
needed in statistics. You
numb-nutted jackass.

If "the kid" can't get
"above" nonlinear math
that implies that he's

fully capable
of performing linear
math... which means he's fine

(I suggest that all
respond to turner's comments
in butchered haiku.)

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:10:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ex-MyDDer turned ReThug? (none / 0)

... the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader of the blogs?

Yea, that's good. Tim's done some good work recently on Wal-Mart, but his iconoclastic ideological stances didn't work out here where things are less confrontationally rigid as a poster.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Next semi-famous ex-MyDDer (none / 0)

Keep an eye on Gary Boatright, he might be next.

Uh, probably not, but keep an eye on him anyway...

by blogswarm on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 02:12:45 AM EST

Re: Next semi-famous ex-MyDDer (none / 0)

Where's he going?

DAGGER

by goplies on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:01:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Everything is political. (3.00 / 1)

Everything is political. The failures and lies of Bush and Blair is political and it should be used to bring them down. There is no moral problem pointing out how the lies and failures of Bush and Blair illegal war in Iraq has hastened and caused innocent blood to be spilled in the UK and Iraq.

Do you think those right wing fascist bastards are not going to be trying to milk this? Remembered how they tried to smear 9/11 on Clinton and Kerry?

I will call out the blood spilled on this day is on the hands of Bush and Blair as much as the psychopaths that set the timers and pushed the buttons.

by Democracy For Puget Sound Dot Com on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 03:19:30 AM EST

I'm not a hero of the right wing blogosphere.... (2.00 / 1)

.....nor a lefty blogger, as Powerline once called me. I'm a Clinton Democrat. What does that mean?

It means a lot of things, foremost on this point, it means you fight when you are attacked. It means you save the self-loathing for the therapist. It means you stand for a robust defense. And it means you supported a robust democracy doctrine before GW even knew where Pakistan was.

Chris, the notion that we are more at risk because we defend ourselves against these fanatics, and therefore we shouldn't defend ourselves, is complete nonsense. We are not ignoring the root causes. The root causes are the entire subject matter of the god damn G8 summit. Are you paying any attention at all?

Another root cause is dictatorship in the Middle East. There are many ways to fight this cause, and there are legitimate criticisms of the path chosen, but it is simply disingenuous to argue that we have failed to take on this root cause.

And another thing....the only reason I'm such a "hero of the right wing blogosphere" in your very un-humble opinion, is that you people keep trying to shut me up. If you, and Kos, and his mind-numbingly inane disciples, would just let this Democrat talk to other Democrats, I'd never be linked by Instapundit.

I'd never be an Exhibit A in their proof that Democrats are beyond sanity on defense policy. There'd be no reason for them to pay attention to me. If all I cared about was getting traffic on my blog, at this point I'd have to thank you profusely.

Unfortunately, I actually care about my party. I tried to help at this site. For you to now turn around and label me as a "hero of the right wing blogosphere" is almost Shakespearian in its poetry.

by TimRusso on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 05:17:43 AM EST

Re: I'm not a hero of the right wing blogosphere.. (none / 0)

I don't see the war itself as the problem. Saddam was an international outlaw and a tyrant who had been known to sponsor terrorism. Had a few hundred Floridians voted the other way, I believe President Al Gore would have had to engage in military action against Iraq at some time.

The problem is the gross mismanagement of the occupation. The neocons were right in that the war would be a cakewalk and that the Iraqi people would be glad to see us. It was and they did. They hated Saddam. Saddam's Army surrendered in large numbers and the people were glad to be rid of him. However, when we couldn't get the lights on, the economy remained in the crapper, and couldn't provide adequate security, the people turned against us. I could go on about the mistakes the US made in the occupation, but you get the point.

Saddam was a cancer that needed to be cut out. Bush was the surgeon who managed to kill the patient in the process.

by wayward on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 07:09:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a hero of the right wing blogosphere.. (none / 0)

If you have someone in charge of a country
that is producing oil, and your country is
dependent on it - and the guy is a nutjob

then you sic your spies on him.
when we realize that the people who blew
the cover of our cia operatives are
the enemy and not saddam we'll be much
better off. There are at least 6 men
in power around the world worse than
saddam. the dude was not involved in 911.
he had no ties to al qaeda. none whatsoever.
he was a nutjob, but not a terrorist - and
the standard of living was way higher
then than it is under the 'liberated'
state of the american forces.

So the right thing to do would be
to spark democracy like a brush
fire. the techies took control in washington
and thought they could do everything
without human spies.

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:38:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a hero of the right wing blogosphere.. (none / 0)

He did sponsor terrorism, but was not connected to Al Qaeda, and there is no evidence that he has been involved in any attack against the US since the failed assassination attempt on Bush's father.

He also wouldn't cooperate with the UN and disarm, which proves he was a nutjob because he didn't actually have anything.

Hindsight 20/20, the war was a bad idea. Given what we knew then, it was not an unreasonable course of action.

No, we didn't have to go to war when we did. There was still time for a diplomatic solution, although I doubt it would have been successful. However, Saddam was a problem and we were going to have to deal with that sooner or later.

by wayward on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 11:35:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not a hero of the right wing blogosphere.. (none / 0)

It means you save the self-loathing for the therapist.

You stole that one from Rove.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:55:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yawn... and (none / 0)

Blippity Bloppity Boo...
Plockity Ploppity Poo...

Schmanker, Stanker...
Wanker... woo.

(I suggest responses to Russo be in Gibberish Prose)

(Turner does this without trying... He's a real artist.)

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:18:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, you are (none / 0)

Yes, you are a hero to them Tim. Your consistent desire to bash members, indeed entire wings, of your own party are exactly the sort of thing right-wingers and the Republican Noise Machine around the country salivate over. Look over there--Democrats hating each other! That's why you have gotten so many hits over the past two days--because you were bashing Dmeocrats and openly wishing the progressive wing of the Dmeocratic Party would shut up. Here at MyDD, Jerome and I have consistently embraced both progressives and New Dmeocrats. We can't win unless we have both. You, however, take a line that only New Dmecorats are acceptable, and progressives must be bashed and eliminated at all costs.

Right now, a post of mine is on the front page of the New Politics Insitute, an NDN organization. I'll be guest posting later today for Joe Hoeffel, the former head of the Pennsylvania DLC. A real Democrat embraces both wings of the party. When confronted with progressives, however, you express nothing but contempt.

You are not one of us Tim. You are still waging the internal ideological battles of the early and mid-nineties. You do not take opposition to Bush as your first priority, which is the first priority of a reform Democrat. You have clearly expresed your desires that progressives were nowhere near the Democratic party, or at least that they would shut up when they are near it.

And what you call defending ourselves clearly hasn't defended us. And I linked to an article about the G8 in this post, so talk about not paying attention.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:47:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, you are (2.00 / 1)

"That's why you have gotten so many hits over the past two days--because you were bashing Dmeocrats and openly wishing the progressive wing of the Dmeocratic Party would shut up."

I'm not the one banning comments, users, and entire threads of debate. That's you guys. Even in this very thread.

You don't embrace anything but your own ideological purity. You're happy to pay lip service to centrists, claim them as some "asset" that you can leverage. But on national security, you don't even afford that meaningless level of "embrace".

I don't want you to shut up. I want you to change your minds, stop being caricatures of all you despise, and stop treating people who disagree with you as some sort of traitorous cancer. Because unless you do, you'll be an irrelevant, moping petulant on the wrong side of history....again.

You may be happy with that legacy for the Democratic Party, may wish to wear it as some bizarre badge of impotent honor. I am not. This ain't your party.

by TimRusso on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:11:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"banning comments" (none / 0)

you dared me...

what can I say? And herein lies the problem with you... you actually believe that your banned comment could be remotely considered "debate". And this, my friend, is why Republicans love you.

By the way, petulant is an adjective... But I congratulate you on trying to use those really big words here, since you don't need them in Freeperville.

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:28:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "banning comments" (2.00 / 1)

i like big words. you don't like any words but your own. keep banning them. i have yet to hear a single argument that justifies banning words. not one. from you, or anyone else.

by TimRusso on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "banning comments" (none / 0)

"Go Fuck Yourself" is not an argument, Tim.
Plus, The all words in the sentence are monosyllabic.

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:36:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "banning comments" (1.00 / 1)

if i said "go fuck yourself" eight million times in succession, that doesn't justify banning their use. ever.

and if you stopped being such an asshole for 5 seconds, you'd be honest with yourself and realize that you don't ban words because they are innapropriate. you ban them because you disagree with them, and you have the power to ban them. period.

this blog spends a lot of time hyperventilating about how the blogosphere needs to be unregulated, how the rip-roaring debate here is so natural and unhindered. Bowers even argued that somehow this forum was better than the right wing blogosphere because it encouraged so much open debate! how stomach churningly hypocritical.

and frankly, the level of discourse in these blogs, especially of the Armstrong-Zinuga variety, is so low that to assert there is some level of decorum below which my posts fall is complete absurdity.

you are just like every other extremist who can't stand the thought that someone might disagree with you. only difference is that this blog's format gives you that tiny little bit of power to ban words. and there's nothing worse than an asshole exercising the tiny bit of power he has at his disposal, as arbitrarily as he wants, to ban. words.

think about that.

by TimRusso on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:44:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "banning comments" (none / 0)

"Go fuck yourself... I dare you to ban this."
a quote...

Like I fucking said... you fucking dared me. I'm fucking damned if I fucking don't fucking do it. And I'm not really that fucking damned if I fucking do. So I fucking did, you fuck-faced fucker, because you fucking dared me to. (which is the fucking lamest fucking dare I can fucking imagine). Fucking Ban me Fucking TimRusso I fucking dare you... Oh, you can't, because you're not fucking trustworthy.

fuck off.

Like I said earlier... this is not "argument"... This is garbage...

"This is not a fucking first amendment issue, Walter."
--The Dude

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:53:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "banning comments" (2.00 / 1)

so when you say say derivations of the word "fuck" over and over again, it's ok.

nice. proving my point. yet again.

by TimRusso on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tim Russo, Traitor to the Party... (1.25 / 4)

Tim,

"Unfortunately, I actually care about my party. I tried to help at this site. For you to now turn around and label me as a "hero of the right wing blogosphere" is almost Shakespearian in its poetry."

Perhaps I don't need to point this out to you, but what you did was unforgivable. You betrayed the party by speaking out against the party. The party is perfect. The party does know wrong. What the party says is unassailable and inviolate. What the party says, is. To challenge the party is to be the enemy. Enemies must be purged from the party. Do you not understand?

Your failure is that you do not yet realize that Kos, Chris, Atrios, etc. do not belong to the Democratic party. They are part of the neo-Stalinist party, which has devoured the Democratic party. You are not welcome because you are truly not one of them.

by Captain Wrath on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 07:59:50 AM EST

Re: Tim Russo, Traitor to the Party... (none / 0)

i plead guilty. thank you.

by TimRusso on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:11:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tim Russo... (none / 0)

Shalom Y'all,

I was sitting on the patio here at Phoenix on Lee yesterday with Tim and a crew of other bloggers watching his hits climb.

Tim and I don't agree on somethings, we do agree on others, but we have reasonable discussions about our differences. He's essentially a Centrist Democrat with a passion for what he believes.

He very well may be the new hero of the right-wing blogosphere. But not because he has somehow gone over to the dark side. No, its because Tim is an individual who thinks. That makes him dangerous. As any high school clique knows, if you want to make yourself the In group, you systematically cut out the individuals from the opposition until there is no opposition left.

Any group that can't deal with reasonable criticism of itself will wither over time.

B'shalom,

Jeff Hess

by Jeff Hess on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:50:35 AM EST

Re: Tim Russo... (none / 0)

Any group that can't deal with reasonable criticism of itself will wither over time.

Really? Then why is FreeRepublic so strong?

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 08:56:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tim Russo... (1.00 / 1)

Hey Jerome. Thanks for making me such a hero of the right wing. I love you too.

by TimRusso on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:18:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tim Russo... (none / 0)

Shalom Jerome,

Your question presumes that the Free Republic is in fact strong, which assumes facts not in evidence.

How many years has the Free Republic been around? What has been its percentage growth rate in membership over those years? How is membership in the Free Republic measured? Is membership self-qualifying or is there an internal process? What has been the turnover of membership?

These are just a few questions that should be answered if we are to consider the validity of my statement as regards the Free Republic.

One of the things that we humans do poorly is to measure change over fractions of our lifetimes as opposed to multiples of our lifetimes.

Take the Whig Party in the United States as an example of a group unable to deal with reasonable criticism. It survived nearly a century as a political force before allowing itself to be come irrelevant and to wither away. But in terms of human events, this is a mere blink.

B'shalom,

Jeff Hess

by Jeff Hess on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 03:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tim Russo... (none / 0)

So because Chris decides to have an intellectual discussion with Mr. Russo about political matters, you somehow feel that he is doing a disservice to Mr. Russo?

DAGGER

by goplies on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:04:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tim Russo... (1.00 / 1)

Chris didn't decide to have an intellectual discussion with me.

Chris & Jerome decided to have me post on their front page, until they found out that I'm "not one of them", then had me removed from the front page, then their goons banned me entirely from the site. I re-registered because I don't intend to have these people ban discourse without a fight. (You'd better read this comment quick, before it gets deleted, too.)

When Chris wants to have an intelligent discussion, I will engage it. Calling me a hero of the right wing, after it is HIS ACTIONS which created this "heroism", is simply hilarious.

by TimRusso on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:17:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tim Russo... (none / 0)

I dredge up my last comment on Russo, ages ago before he was banned permanently... (well... not PERMANENTLY, obviously... He DID promise never to post here again, but then flamed the diaries and comments like a big baby)...

This was the sentiment (at least my sentiment) at the time, for those unfamiliar with him.

-------------------------------------------
The only "banned" comment Russo had was one entitled, "Fuck the South", with a link to a horrendous web-page with 20-something fucks, fuckers, and fuckings...

"Tim Russo has proven in his past 2 diaries that he cannot post anything of quality any more. His diaries have become nothing more than an acrid advertisement for a low-quality, infrequently-posted, infrequently-read blog... Admittedly, his writing is provocative (as he wants them to be) but not in an intellectual sort of way... More like the provocation from an annoying 3-year old throwing a temper tantrum because his hand was swatted when reaching into the cookie jar."
-----------------
Those were the days...

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Petulant bitterness (none / 0)

Tim, I don't know your history but from what I can see you are primarily trollish in your postings at MyDD. While you've written one or two things in the last couple of days which actually do promote discussion everything else you've written is insulting and serves no purpose other than to incite trouble.

For example:

That quote brings to mind the question of why you are here if that is what you think of the place. Ahh ... that's right, you want to help us.

I tried to help at this site.

Your chosen method seems to be to insult the MyDD site and the community who post here. That gives me strong doubts that you'll manage much "help" other than to divide. But I'd wager that doesn't bother you in the least. Otherwise, why would you say this?

go fuck yourself. (i just wanted to write that to see how fast it gets banned)

I'm struck by your petulance. Getting banned seems to have left you very bitter. Try to move on Tim. Find some new friends and you'll feel better.

by Curt Matlock on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Petulant bitterness (none / 0)

i feel fine. thanks for your concern.

as for why i'm here, i wouldn't be here in this thread if Bowers hadn't referenced me. i do like being provocative.

and by the way, Bowers is referencing me for a reason. you'll notice there are a lot more comments on this post than any other on the front page. traffic, baby. traffic.

but i forgot...this website is so pure.

by TimRusso on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 01:26:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tim Russo... (none / 0)

What on earth are you complaining about?

You came here to get attention...and you are getting it, while showing off your agenda, the promotion of Tim Russo, boy attention seeker.

And like most right wing posters, it is clear that, bankrupt of any persuasive or cogent argument, the sole purpose of your postings is be noticed.

Well, you got what you wanted, and I am sure you are thrilled.

You might as well be a troll on Atrios.

by nanorich on Sat Jul 09, 2005 at 12:35:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tim Russo... (1.00 / 1)

Thanks Jeff. I love you.

by TimRusso on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 09:18:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tim Russo... (none / 0)

Centrist Democrat cen-trist dem-o-crat

Someone who is too wishy-washy and meal-mouthed to stand up for something.
One who is afraid to face the wrath of either the left or the right, preferring to denigrate anyone else who does take a stand for what they believe in.

Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!

by John in Chicago on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 11:53:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The center (3.00 / 1)

used to be a place you ended up, not the place you start out.

The joke about Democratic Party centrists is that by beginning at the center, they are already to right of Richard Nixon, and just push the Republicans further to the right.

When someone tells me they are a moderate, I just smile. That is like telling someone you don't believe in anything, much....and will go along to get along.

by nanorich on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your 9 grams Awaits (1.00 / 1)

Tim,

"i plead guilty. thank you."

You're welcome. All if forgiven. Now please step outside to be shot. And have a nice day. NEXT!

by Captain Wrath on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 10:05:32 AM EST

Who am I? Why am I here? (none / 0)

Though I read MyDD regularly I arrived here via a rather circuitous route this time. I started out at Instapundit which linked me to TimRusso's blog and I clicked over here from there.

A few weeks ago someone here (I think it wa Chris Bowers) reflected on the superiority of the left side of the blogosphere. If I recall correctly, the argument was basically that the left is superior because it allows participation not only through comments but also through diaries. I generally agree with those sentiments but would remark that the Galloway's comments and the resulting diarist (at Kos for example) responses point out 3 drawbacks to the lefty blogosphere.

First, there is a the perception (fair or not) that the opinions expressed in the diaries are approved by the site host.

Second, in a diary someone can say something that is really monumentally stupid like suggesting that we have changed (or are changing) our society "to become as cruel and inhuman as the terrorists". And then suggest that these are the reasons London was attacked. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/7/1247/56592). These comments get affirmed and praised.

Third, someone makes the sane observation that London has been a target for some time and that the comments were ill-timed, the post gets derided because the poster uses refers to Galloway in a derogatory fashion. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/7/124623/8278) Not only is the poster derided, all of his subsequent comments are deleted so what is left is a mishmash of recipes and name calling toward the original poster.{I am aware that the diarist has a history, there and here.}

regards.

by comotion on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:25:31 PM EST

Re: Who am I? Why am I here? (1.00 / 1)

Comotion,

This sounds like criticism of the party. Please step outside...

by Captain Wrath on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:42:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Brilliant comment about hawk approaches Failing (none / 0)

Brilliant, right-on-target comment about hawk approaches failing in quelling terrorists! I quoted and linked to it from my site.

by Deborah White on Fri Jul 08, 2005 at 12:53:28 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.